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

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



You said the magic word "PROCESS", what good does it do to have articles of impeachment without validating it in a court ( senate = jurors ). Please stop with the political process bullshit. That's a talking point that is overused. Attempting to impeach and remove without any statutory relevancy is a fools errand. You may get through the impeachment phase and then it will fail. High Crimes and Misdemeanors seems to indicate some sort of statutory violation which give legitimacy to the process.
 
The "impeachment" haha was a public Democratic suicide. See ya in November.
 
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".

Sure.....like I believe that.
Doesn't bother you that all these inquisitions were held in the basement, in secret, and the Republicans were sworn not to reveal anything.
Doesn't bother you that Schiff leaked what he wanted though.
You don't seem to be in a furor, that Schiff lied.
You don't seen to care, that 99% of the testimony in the house was hearsay. Where is your outrage?
And how about the 'constitutional scholars' testimony. 3 Trump haters, and 1 impartial one. Where is your brush fit over that?

Sorry, if you are waiting for me to believe you are unbiased, don't hold your breath, or your hand over your ass.

I am not beholden to anyone.
I do appreciate, and will vote for, the one that makes my wallet fatter, and my life better for me and those around me and those in my industry, and DOES NOT take away my liberties.
 
You said the magic word "PROCESS", what good does it do to have articles of impeachment without validating it in a court ( senate = jurors ). Please stop with the political process bullshit. ...

The Senate isn't a court. It's the Senate - part of the legislative branch. Comparing it to a court and the process of a court is idiotic and best.

Impeachment by the House is a purely political process. You can bitch and whine about "what good does it do" all the fuck you want, but it changes nothing. The House voted and approved articles of impeachment. Therefore, just as with Clinton, Trump has been impeached by the House. Nothing can ever change that.
 
The Senate isn't a court. It's the Senate - part of the legislative branch. Comparing it to a court and the process of a court is idiotic and best.

Impeachment by the House is a purely political process. You can bitch and whine about "what good does it do" all the fuck you want, but it changes nothing. The House voted and approved articles of impeachment. Therefore, just as with Clinton, Trump has been impeached by the House. Nothing can ever change that.


[QUOTEImpeachment is the constitutional process by which the United States Congress has the authority to remove civil officers of the United States from office. The process to impeach and remove an individual from office involves two stages: first, articles of impeachment are passed by a majority vote of the United States House of Representatives, then a trial is conducted in the United States Senate in which the Senate sits as a jury. In most impeachment trials, the Vice President presides over the trial, however, in impeachment trials of the president, the chief justice of the United States presides. In order to remove the person from office, two-thirds of senators that are present to vote must vote to convict on the articles of impeachment.][/QUOTE]



Source:

https://ballotpedia.org/Impeachment_of_federal_officials



WRONG!!!
 
Sure.....like I believe that.
Doesn't bother you that all these inquisitions were held in the basement, in secret, and the Republicans were sworn not to reveal anything.
Doesn't bother you that Schiff leaked what he wanted though.
You don't seem to be in a furor, that Schiff lied.
You don't seen to care, that 99% of the testimony in the house was hearsay. Where is your outrage?
And how about the 'constitutional scholars' testimony. 3 Trump haters, and 1 impartial one. Where is your brush fit over that?

Sorry, if you are waiting for me to believe you are unbiased, don't hold your breath, or your hand over your ass.

Would you feel better if it had been done on the veranda with mint juleps served. :rolleyes:

It's a POLITICAL PROCESS. The party with the majority makes the rules in this political process. Same as it ever was. Save your butthurt for someone else.
 
Sure.....like I believe that.
Doesn't bother you that all these inquisitions were held in the basement, in secret, and the Republicans were sworn not to reveal anything.
Doesn't bother you that Schiff leaked what he wanted though.
You don't seem to be in a furor, that Schiff lied.
You don't seen to care, that 99% of the testimony in the house was hearsay. Where is your outrage?
And how about the 'constitutional scholars' testimony. 3 Trump haters, and 1 impartial one. Where is your brush fit over that?

Sorry, if you are waiting for me to believe you are unbiased, don't hold your breath, or your hand over your ass.

I am not beholden to anyone.
I do appreciate, and will vote for, the one that makes my wallet fatter, and my life better for me and those around me and those in my industry, and DOES NOT take away my liberties.


Sounds to me like you are arguing in favor of Article II of the impeachment - Obstruction of Congress.

The Impeached Douchebag was invited to sit before the Congress and give testimony. He refused. He also prevented others from testifying about his abuse of power. Because they woudl have told the truth about his abuse of power. See Article I of the Impeachment of the Douchebag.
 
Sounds to me like you are arguing in favor of Article II of the impeachment - Obstruction of Congress.

The Impeached Douchebag was invited to sit before the Congress and give testimony. He refused. He also prevented others from testifying about his abuse of power. Because they woudl have told the truth about his abuse of power. See Article I of the Impeachment of the Douchebag.

Nope.
What he did was no different that what other presidents have done.
You know, like that Fast & Furious Holder thing, that Obama claimed privilege on?
He refused. Holder was held in contempt of Congress. How about that?
Difference is 'D' and 'R'.

Know any lawyers? Ask 'em what they think about clients getting up there and testifying at their own trial.

Read the Constitution. To remind you, it's innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around, meaning the burden, was on Congress, to prove him guilty..... and Congress failed. Sure, they voted to impeach, but that was a forgone conclusion. They would have done the same 3 years ago ago.

The problem I see, is you cannot, and now I have to change that to should not, impeach a president, because you don't like him, and think he's a douchebag.
That's what I see has happened.

Don't agree? I don't care. That's my take.
 
The Senate isn't a court. It's the Senate - part of the legislative branch. Comparing it to a court and the process of a court is idiotic and best.

Senators are sworn jurors during the trial phase and vote to remove by a 2/3rd majority. Senators hear the articles of impeachment and vote guilty or not guilty, if guilty, then removal. It is very similar to a court style proceeding.

Impeachment by the House is a purely political process.

It is a political process, in that, it is comprised of a body of politicians investigating alleged wrongdoing and formulating charges ( articles of impeachment ) which are voted on then sent to the senate for the trial phase.

You can bitch and whine about "what good does it do" all the fuck you want, but it changes nothing. The House voted and approved articles of impeachment

Voted along party lines! Which is what are forefathers feared the most "majority party tyranny" ( FED/PAPERS # 65 )

. Therefore, just as with Clinton, Trump has been impeached by the House. Nothing can ever change that.

Well, whether he's considered formally impeached or not, for now, depends on what side of the ilse you sit on, still theory. One thing for certain, holding on to the articles will certainly cause hardships for swing state democrats up for re-election.

Clinton went before the senate for trial and was acquitted. The house is in violation of the constitution's 7th amendment if it fails to forward articles of impeachment.
 
Last edited:
He lost the evangelical vote. Cant be anymore damning of a piece than what they just published.
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bloomberg:

[insert socialist academic's opinion piece]

Take it for what's its worth!

You can't cite the Constitution for support of your ridiculous position, so instead you link to the socialist academic's inane opinion from which your ridiculous agreement directly sprouts? F

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

:D You can keep stroking (and editing) your inanity all you care to, but it'll never hold up to simply citing exactly where in the Constitution it validates your position.

The House Judiciary Committee charged the President with Articles of Impeachment, which the full House then constitutionally voted/indicted/impeached him on: Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. Thus charged and indicted/impeached, he now simply awaits trial.

The Senate is constitutionally only empowered to do one thing, which they absolutely must do constitutionally, whether Pelosi cares to bureaucratically "send" the two indictments or not (which the Constitution says nothing about): vote whether to convict/remove President Donald J. Trump from Office, or not, on the exact Articles of Impeachment the full House indicted/impeached him on.

The Senate can "try" and even show trial him all they wish, but, constitutionally, just like the sole power to "impeach" is ONLY validated by House votes , that sole Senate power is ONLY validated by its votes cast, too.

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

BIOYA, wannabe. You only cite eyer because of your own partisan idiocy.
 
The Senate isn't a court. It's the Senate - part of the legislative branch. Comparing it to a court and the process of a court is idiotic and best.

Impeachment by the House is a purely political process. You can bitch and whine about "what good does it do" all the fuck you want, but it changes nothing. The House voted and approved articles of impeachment. Therefore, just as with Clinton, Trump has been impeached by the House. Nothing can ever change that.

Besides which the board Trumpettes can just suck it up on the process question. Their guy won't let his guys appear to serve the process (no one, including the Trumpettes wonder why he won't let them testify under oath, so there's both the guilt right there and one of the counts of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, which is obviously valid), so they don't have a leg to stand on on the question of process.
 
He lost the evangelical vote. Cant be anymore damning of a piece than what they just published.

He hasn't lost it yet, but the Christianity Today editorial calling for his removal at least starts the crumbling process in that sector. Supposed Christians backing a moral degenerate like Trump has been one of the most rotten aspects of this tragedy.
 
Nope.
What he did was no different that what other presidents have done.
You know, like that Fast & Furious Holder thing, that Obama claimed privilege on?
He refused. Holder was held in contempt of Congress. How about that?
Difference is 'D' and 'R'.

Know any lawyers? Ask 'em what they think about clients getting up there and testifying at their own trial.

Read the Constitution. To remind you, it's innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around, meaning the burden, was on Congress, to prove him guilty..... and Congress failed. Sure, they voted to impeach, but that was a forgone conclusion. They would have done the same 3 years ago ago.

The problem I see, is you cannot, and now I have to change that to should not, impeach a president, because you don't like him, and think he's a douchebag.
That's what I see has happened.

Don't agree? I don't care. That's my take.

He admitted his guilt - read the transcript. His Chief of Staff went on TV and said "we did it - get used to it". Giuliani said they had to get the ambassador out of the way to do their dirty dealings. Bolton called it a "drug deal" and on and on and on.

It has nothing to do with "agree". It is irrational to come to any other conclusion.
 
Well, whether he's considered formally impeached or not, for now, depends on what side of the ilse you sit on


It's interesting you're now claiming to sit on the same side of the ilse[sic] as socialist academic Feldman. Or, don't you realize that's exactly your position as your inanity agrees with his?

The house is in violation of the constitution's 7th amendment if it fails to forward articles of impeachment.

So you, and I'm sure others, opine.

But, why doesn't the Constitution back you up? Do you not suppose the framers would've added your opinion to their succinct instructions for impeachment and removal if they thought it was as vitally essential as you seem to? Maybe you opine that they weren't as smart as you, that they didn't really think it through as much as you have?
 
Nope.
What he did was no different that what other presidents have done.
You know, like that Fast & Furious Holder thing, that Obama claimed privilege on?
He refused. Holder was held in contempt of Congress. How about that?
Difference is 'D' and 'R'.

Know any lawyers? Ask 'em what they think about clients getting up there and testifying at their own trial.

Read the Constitution. To remind you, it's innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around, meaning the burden, was on Congress, to prove him guilty..... and Congress failed. Sure, they voted to impeach, but that was a forgone conclusion. They would have done the same 3 years ago ago.

The problem I see, is you cannot, and now I have to change that to should not, impeach a president, because you don't like him, and think he's a douchebag.
That's what I see has happened.

Don't agree? I don't care. That's my take.

He admitted his guilt - read the transcript. His Chief of Staff went on TV and said "we did it - get used to it". Giuliani said they had to get the ambassador out of the way to do their dirty dealings. Bolton called it a "drug deal" and on and on and on.

It has nothing to do with "agree". It is irrational to come to any other conclusion.
 
You said the magic word "PROCESS", what good does it do to have articles of impeachment without validating it in a court ( senate = jurors ). Please stop with the political process bullshit. That's a talking point that is overused. Attempting to impeach and remove without any statutory relevancy is a fools errand. You may get through the impeachment phase and then it will fail. High Crimes and Misdemeanors seems to indicate some sort of statutory violation which give legitimacy to the process.

Now that he's been impeached he can't pardon himself for his crimes committed while in office, and neither can any other president who comes after him.
 
He admitted his guilt - read the transcript. His Chief of Staff went on TV and said "we did it - get used to it". Giuliani said they had to get the ambassador out of the way to do their dirty dealings. Bolton called it a "drug deal" and on and on and on.

It has nothing to do with "agree". It is irrational to come to any other conclusion.

Sorry.
That is bullshit.

Please go find a crime.
There ain't one.
 
Now that he's been impeached he can't pardon himself for his crimes committed while in office, and neither can any other president who comes after him.

Source? I'm not sure a president can pardon himself anyway, but I'm not aware of impeachment curtailing his ability to pardon anyone else.
 
You can't cite the Constitution for support of your ridiculous position, so instead you link to the socialist academic's inane opinion from which your ridiculous agreement directly sprouts? F

.


:D You can keep stroking (and editing) your inanity all you care to, but it'll never hold up to simply citing exactly where in the Constitution it validates your position.

The House Judiciary Committee charged the President with Articles of Impeachment, which the full House then constitutionally voted/indicted/impeached him on: Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. Thus charged and indicted/impeached, he now simply awaits trial.

The Senate is constitutionally only empowered to do one thing, which they absolutely must do constitutionally, whether Pelosi cares to bureaucratically "send" the two indictments or not (which the Constitution says nothing about): vote whether to convict/remove President Donald J. Trump from Office, or not, on the exact Articles of Impeachment the full House indicted/impeached him on.

The Senate can "try" and even show trial him all they wish, but, constitutionally, just like the sole power to "impeach" is ONLY validated by House votes , that sole Senate power is ONLY validated by its votes cast, too.



BIOYA, wannabe. You only cite eyer because of your own partisan idiocy.



There are opinions from some constitutional scholars that believe the impeachment process is not complete till the articles of impeachment are received by the senate. I understand the house has the sole power to impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors, I also understand the constitution gives the house the general authority to structure and rule its own proceedings. However to charge an individual with A/O/I and not to forward them to the senate for trial in theory could violate another constitutional right, the right to a fair and speedy trial by jury of their peers. The time between established articles of impeachment and the deliverance of said documents to the trial phase could be in conflict with constitution's 7th amendment of due process, you do believe in due process, right! You do believe in the presumption of innocence, right! Although, each house has constitutional powers governing their individual roles during impeachment they do not have the authority to operate outside the constitution. That could be interpreted that the house just like its members are not above the law. Nancy Pelosi does not have the constitutional authority to deny due process from anyone and therefor if due process does not have continuity of law from the lower house to the higher house than in theory the process is incomplete and unconstitutional. Impeachment, trial and removal is a complete process. Our forefathers were deeply concerned of tyranny by power of party and Pelosi is doing is just that!!! So I believe it's not impeachment till the senate receive's the goods. I don't carry water for Trump, I'm a constitutionalist and concerned in the fair application of the law. BIOYA back at you.
 
He hasn't lost it yet, but the Christianity Today editorial calling for his removal at least starts the crumbling process in that sector. Supposed Christians backing a moral degenerate like Trump has been one of the most rotten aspects of this tragedy.

Basically it says, "we cant save your soul if you support him". It is the final nail in his coffin. Rats running from a sinking ship.

What makes it interesting, is they are citing exactly why the House impeached him. Who says the right wing only gets their news from FOX? Only the dumb ones do.
 
Back
Top