As opposed to the paragraph from the report that people, including me, have been criticizing for its claims that run counter to process:pic.twitter.com/JXU7h1TcXw
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
As opposed to the paragraph from the report that people, including me, have been criticizing for its claims that run counter to process:pic.twitter.com/JXU7h1TcXw
If you followed the threads on Louise and Claude's tweets, you'd see that other ppl are confirming parts of the story 1/2
No. They're not.
I'm not saying I buy all of it. But there are plenty of lawyers in the threads who claim to know what they're talking about. Verify it
Like the jury instruction says, if a witness lies about one thing, you are free to assume everything he says is a lie.
I've seen a law article posted in the threads explaining precedent for SCOTUS involvement in impeachment
No. They do not stand for that.
It says significantly but indirectly. I know that's not much. But keep in mind what's going on is unprecedented.
I loathe Trump. But those peddling this bizarre story of SCOTUS giving Trump "notice" of impeachment is wrong. It's just flat out wrong.
It's just not how it works. If it did, those making this claim would post a citation to a statute or case to prove their point. That's how
lawyers work. So . . . where's the cite?
Um. I don't know if you're just repeating what I've been saying, but I've been fighting against this ~story~ all day. And you're just ...
... replying to me.
It's all about you isn't it?
Are you all just bots? I'm replying to one person, tweeting something to me, which is the argument I've been making all day!
No im far from a bot. Was agreeing with you but didn't mean to reply only to u
She is right Scotus is involved with the Investigation leading to an impeachment . The judiciary committee considers it after investigation
Actually Tribe does not say that - my bad. Just the text of the legal book about investigating the President --- my bad
Since you're just referencing "a legal book," I've no clue what you're talking about, but likely, it means that when legal disputes ...
... arise in the course of investigations (which could be criminal or otherwise), matters could end up in court. Of course that is true.
That has nothing to do with the claims made in the article.
1. I think it does it's talking about the Supreme Court getting involved in the pre-impeachment process and having a say on presidential
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.