Remember: it's no longer "President Trump" - it's "Impeached President Trump"

[icanhelp1]

Hey, I heard the impeached President was upset that Greta was named Person of the Year by Time Magazine.

When you accept a fool's advice then by proxy you become the fool. Rorbag is a treasure trove for misinformation and has you dangling by a string. LOL

Trump has not been impeached. A vote was taken to agree on and proceed with articles of impeachment, but voting on articles of impeachment is not impeachment. Just like a prosecutor, if you don't present the case to a judge and jury then there is no case. Impeachment is much the same as a court proceeding, if you don't present the case then technically there is no crime. Impeachment is the actual transition from the house to the senate for trial.

 

[phrodeau]

When you accept a fool's advice then by proxy you become the fool. Rorbag is a treasure trove for misinformation and has you dangling by a string. LOL

Trump has not been impeached. A vote was taken to agree on and proceed with articles of impeachment, but voting on articles of impeachment is not impeachment. Just like a prosecutor, if you don't present the case to a judge and jury then there is no case. Impeachment is much the same as a court proceeding, if you don't present the case then technically there is no crime. Impeachment is the actual transition from the house to the senate for trial.

Journalists around the globe disagree with you.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

When you accept a fool's advice then by proxy you become the fool. Rorbag is a treasure trove for misinformation and has you dangling by a string. LOL

Trump has not been impeached. A vote was taken to agree on and proceed with articles of impeachment, but voting on articles of impeachment is not impeachment. Just like a prosecutor, if you don't present the case to a judge and jury then there is no case. Impeachment is much the same as a court proceeding, if you don't present the case then technically there is no crime. Impeachment is the actual transition from the house to the senate for trial.

*sighs, puts hand on shoulder*

He's impeached, chile.

https://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

 

[needit700]

NOT TRUE!!! It's not until

that criminal bitch Nancy passes it to the Senate for a trail. Then it will be NOT GUI:TY you ass wipe

 

[verybusy]

Make sure you keep current with his new title in your thread subjects.

fake news as usual from DegenerateRory

Oops! Leftist Law Professor Who Testified for Democrats: Actually, Trump Isn't Impeached Yet


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...enate-n2558325

 

[Fart_knocker]

https://i.redd.it/c3vw2lllbs541.jpg

 

[bigsly]

Just like a prosecutor, if you don't present the case to a judge and jury then there is no case.

Really? So, then, you're also pimping that there's "no case" against all the thousands who are charged and even remanded into custody because theirs is a "no case", too, since theirs also hasn't been presented "to a judge and a jury", yet?

Impeachment is when a simple, full House majority votes YEA to the Articles of Impeachment before it. That's what the Constitution dictates. No? Then please cite where in the Constitution it explains what you're illogically regurgitating? Seriously: exactly where in the Constitution is your support?

Please be aware that no matter what procedural rules either the House or Senate establishes for themselves, each and every one of them are VOID if any one of them is repugnant to exactly what the Constitution dictates.

You really should be more wary of swallowing so easily such a ludicrous talking point from a clearly partisan socialist academic (especially one you considered not a fact witness in the recent impeachment process), simply because it now sates your own repugnant partisanship. And nothing but rank partisanship is why this latest impeachment debacle occurred in the first place.

Different repugnant partisan labels, same repugnant partisan bottle.

Which is why America can't have nice constitutional things anymore.

 

[verybusy]

Really? So, then, you're also pimping that there's "no case" against all the thousands who are charged and even remanded into custody because theirs is a "no case", too, since theirs also hasn't been presented "to a judge and a jury", yet?

Impeachment is when a simple, full House majority votes YEA to the Articles of Impeachment before it. That's what the Constitution dictates. No? Then please cite where in the Constitution it explains what you're illogically regurgitating? Seriously: exactly where in the Constitution is your support?

Please be aware that no matter what procedural rules either the House or Senate establishes for themselves, each and every one of them are VOID if any one of them is repugnant to exactly what the Constitution dictates.

You really should be more wary of swallowing so easily such a ludicrous talking point from a clearly partisan socialist academic (especially one you considered not a fact witness in the recent impeachment process), simply because it now sates your own repugnant partisanship. And nothing but rank partisanship is why this latest impeachment debacle occurred in the first place.

Different repugnant partisan labels, same repugnant partisan bottle.

Which is why America can't have nice constitutional things anymore.

fake news as usual

Oops! Leftist Law Professor Who Testified for Democrats: Actually, Trump Isn't Impeached Yet


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...enate-n2558325

 

[Adre]

Trump has not been impeached. Impeachment is the actual transition from the house to the senate for trial.

For those of us who think the above is bullshit, kindly point out where it says this in the Constitution.

 

[bigsly]

fake news as usual

Oops! Leftist Law Professor Who Testified for Democrats: Actually, Trump Isn't Impeached Yet


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...enate-n2558325

When the socialist testified during the impeachment process, repugnant partisan pukes like you whined that all he had to offer was his opinion, that he wasn't "a fact witness". Today, you're pimping his latest opinion as fact, simply and ONLY because it soothes your repugnant partisanship.

Wallow in your repugnancy, bitch.

 

[verybusy]

For those of us who think the above is bullshit, kindly point out where it says this in the Constitution.

Oops! Leftist Law Professor Who Testified for Democrats: Actually, Trump Isn't Impeached Yet


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...enate-n2558325

 

[adrina]

Town freaking hall.

You know it's bad when eyer calls you out on your partisan idiocy.

 

[Fart_knocker]

When you accept a fool's advice then by proxy you become the fool. Rorbag is a treasure trove for misinformation and has you dangling by a string. LOL

Trump has not been impeached. A vote was taken to agree on and proceed with articles of impeachment, but voting on articles of impeachment is not impeachment. Just like a prosecutor, if you don't present the case to a judge and jury then there is no case. Impeachment is much the same as a court proceeding, if you don't present the case then technically there is no crime. Impeachment is the actual transition from the house to the senate for trial.

You're pretty stupid if you believe what you wrote.

 

[verybusy]

Town freaking hall.

You know it's bad when eyer calls you out on your partisan idiocy.

idiot

 

[icanhelp1]

Really? So, then, you're also pimping that there's "no case" against all the thousands who are charged and even remanded into custody because theirs is a "no case", too, since theirs also hasn't been presented "to a judge and a jury", yet?

Impeachment is when a simple, full House majority votes YEA to the Articles of Impeachment before it. That's what the Constitution dictates. No? Then please cite where in the Constitution it explains what you're illogically regurgitating? Seriously: exactly where in the Constitution is your support?

Please be aware that no matter what procedural rules either the House or Senate establishes for themselves, each and every one of them are VOID if any one of them is repugnant to exactly what the Constitution dictates.

You really should be more wary of swallowing so easily such a ludicrous talking point from a clearly partisan socialist academic (especially one you considered not a fact witness in the recent impeachment process), simply because it now sates your own repugnant partisanship. And nothing but rank partisanship is why this latest impeachment debacle occurred in the first place.

Different repugnant partisan labels, same repugnant partisan bottle.

Which is why America can't have nice constitutional things anymore.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Bloomberg:

"Now that the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump, what is the constitutional status of the two articles of impeachment? Must they be transmitted to the Senate to trigger a trial, or could they be held back by the House until the Senate decides what the trial will look like, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has hinted?The Constitution doesn’t say how fast the articles must go to the Senate. Some modest delay is not inconsistent with the Constitution, or how both chambers usually work.

But an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem. Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial


If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.
That’s because “impeachment” under the Constitution means the House sending its approved articles of to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the president is impeached.

As for the headlines we saw after the House vote saying, “TRUMP IMPEACHED,” those are a media shorthand, not a technically correct legal statement. So far, the House has voted to impeach (future tense) Trump. He isn’t impeached (past tense) until the articles go to the Senate and the House members deliver the message.
Once the articles are sent, the Senate has a constitutional duty to hold a trial on the impeachment charges presented. Failure for the Senate to hold a trial after impeachment would deviate from the Constitution’s clear expectation."


Take it for what's its worth!

 

[verybusy]

Town freaking hall.

You know it's bad when eyer calls you out on your partisan idiocy.

here you go, NIGGER

in teh NIGGERS own words

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

 

[verybusy]

When the socialist testified during the impeachment process, repugnant partisan pukes like you whined that all he had to offer was his opinion, that he wasn't "a fact witness". Today, you're pimping his latest opinion as fact, simply and ONLY because it soothes your repugnant partisanship.

Wallow in your repugnancy, bitch.

STFU, DirtBag

 

[adrina]

An opinion piece

And "lovely" words.

Par for the course for you.

 

[Klinkster]

Well leftists.....call him whatever you like.
Ya'll have been so far, along with anyone who disagrees with your TDS viewpoints.

He's still the Prez.

 

[Pookie]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Bloomberg:

"Now that the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump, what is the constitutional status of the two articles of impeachment? Must they be transmitted to the Senate to trigger a trial, or could they be held back by the House until the Senate decides what the trial will look like, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has hinted?The Constitution doesn’t say how fast the articles must go to the Senate. Some modest delay is not inconsistent with the Constitution, or how both chambers usually work.

But an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem. Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial


If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.
That’s because “impeachment” under the Constitution means the House sending its approved articles of to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the president is impeached.

As for the headlines we saw after the House vote saying, “TRUMP IMPEACHED,” those are a media shorthand, not a technically correct legal statement. So far, the House has voted to impeach (future tense) Trump. He isn’t impeached (past tense) until the articles go to the Senate and the House members deliver the message.
Once the articles are sent, the Senate has a constitutional duty to hold a trial on the impeachment charges presented. Failure for the Senate to hold a trial after impeachment would deviate from the Constitution’s clear expectation."


Take it for what's its worth!

That's a Noah Feldman opinion piece. Like assholes, everyone has one of those.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

 

[icanhelp1]

When the socialist testified during the impeachment process, repugnant partisan pukes like you whined that all he had to offer was his opinion, that he wasn't "a fact witness". Today, you're pimping his latest opinion as fact, simply and ONLY because it soothes your repugnant partisanship.

Wallow in your repugnancy, bitch.

There's a difference between charges and a case.

Criminal charges ( ARTICLES ) are offenses against the state and are ( FILED, INDICTED } a process that a prosecutor must present criminal charges to a judge or a jury as a case. Charges without a formal filing of charges or indictment is not a case.

Impeachment = filing charges

Not impeachment = having charges

Criminal case allows for a trial and defense

Impeachment = Filing Charges = Process

 

[verybusy]

Alan Dershowitz on Pelosi Withholding a Senate Trial: ‘It’s Difficult to Imagine Anything More Unconstitutional.’

 

[Pookie]

There's a difference between charges and a case.

Criminal charges ( ARTICLES ) are offenses against the state and are ( FILED, INDICTED } a process that a prosecutor must present criminal charges to a judge or a jury as a case. Charges without a formal filing of charges or indictment is not a case.

Impeachment = filing charges

Not impeachment = having charges

Criminal case allows for a trial and defense

Oh for fucks sake. This is a political process, doofus. Not a criminal one.

 

[Klinkster]

Oh for fucks sake. This is a political process, doofus. Not a criminal one.

Which is why, this is such a stupid endeavor.
As many have said, this just lowers the bar to impeach the next and future presidents.

I can see the headlines:
IMPEACH HIM!!!! He's ugly and his mother dresses him funny! No respect for the office at all.
That, is all it will take.
You won't be so happy when it's your guy, or someone you like.

 

[Pookie]

Which is why, this is such a stupid endeavor.
As many have said, this just lowers the bar to impeach the next and future presidents.

I can see the headlines:
IMPEACH HIM!!!! He's ugly and his mother dresses him funny! No respect for the office at all.
That, is all it will take.
You won't be so happy when it's your guy, or someone you like.

If "my guy" does what Trump did, "my guy" should be impeached and then convicted. You see, I'm not beholden to a politician like you are with "your guy".