That's not a conflict of interest with trying to convict Trump in a senate trial that has nothing to do with her/Epstein. The claim is ridiculous.

The law is that it's not like an article 3 jury trial where jurors take the same oath. The "jurors" vote on the rules of the proceeding. It's a political procedure.

I'm not saying they have to be members of congress. Just that it's not a trial subject to neutrality and the due process that comes with it. There's no ethical or legal violation.

Silly you for thinking it's a trial in the judicial rules/ethics sense. It's a political proceeding. The prosecution & jurors know each other, many very personally, & have worked together many times. OMG the conflict! You think it's something it isn't.

Her presence doesn't taint anything because there's no substantive conflict and the 2/3's process is a charade forgotten immediately.

Laws shmaws. Daddy's gets to grift!

It's bullshit at its core to say they're "weak." But it is true in contrast to the absolute strength they're insistent on projecting. In terms of motivating opposition, trying to trigger an emergency wake up hasn't worked. Positive "they are beatable" sentiment is all we've got until elections.

The lack of credibility due to Garland will cause so much more harm.

Is the expectation that SCOTUS will invent a pretext to strike down CA, but keep everything else?

Figluzzi blocks people for criticizing the head of ADL Greenblatt. Not a good look.

I've been in tears laughing at this joke for 2 days now! So perfect.