LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

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

KeithD said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hi, re-read what you quoted. That isn’t what I said.
 
IMPOTUS (IMpeached President Of The United States)
@realDonaldTrump
is accusing
@SpeakerPelosi
of political malpractice. I don’t think so. #IMPOTUS
 
icanhelp1 said:
So I believe it's not impeachment till the senate receive's the goods.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what you "believe". This isn't a democracy (yet) where everyone gets to vote their opinion and then the most votes wins. This is a republic, constituted upon law, not opinion. And the law of the land, the Constitution, simply doesn't validate what you "believe".

icanhelp1 said:
I'm a constitutionalist
Click to expand...

Yet, you don't submit to what it dictates re impeachment and removal and, maybe more importantly, what it doesn't say about the issue. How is that "a constitutionalist"?

icanhelp1 said:
and concerned in the fair application of the law.
Click to expand...

Then why are you pimping what the law of the land doesn't dictate?

icanhelp1 said:
BIOYA back at you.
Click to expand...

That wasn't addressed to you, partisan dumbass.
 
bigsly said:
It doesn't matter what you "believe". This isn't a democracy (yet) where everyone gets to vote their opinion and then the most votes wins. This is a republic, constituted upon law, not opinion. And the law of the land, the Constitution, simply doesn't validate what you "believe".

What matters is what the framers considered when impeachment was articulated and provided the foundation for the process of impeachment . The framers needed a way to grant authority to remove an official outside the purview of the courts. "The constitution confers upon congress ( house and senate ) the power to impeach and thereafter remove from office" "on account of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanor. This power granted to the house and senate have distinct responsibilities, the house to determine whether to impeach and if impeachment occurs then the senate deciding whether to convict and remove". The impeachment process formulated by the constitution stems from the English parliament to hold accountable ministers of the crown outside the courts.

Yet, you don't submit to what it dictates re impeachment and removal and, maybe more importantly, what it doesn't say about the issue. How is that "a constitutionalist"?

You know as well as I do that a formal step by step handbook on impeachment doesn't exist but what does exist is the use of certain code words like process and congress which do shed some light as to the operative meaning of the word impeachment.

The constitution's grant of impeachment power ( process of procedures { A/O/I } and judgements [ trial } ) to congress AS A BODY. There are many statements and indicators by the framers that impeachment is a process where an egregious behavior needed to be removed where both bodies of congress are reliant upon each other, from formulation of articles of impeachment, establish house managers, forwarding A/O/I to the senate for trial and finally removal.

Nowhere in the federalist papers or the constitution does it state that Nancy Pelosi can hip pocket articles of impeachment and obstruct due process for political advantage or for being vindictive by labelling a president "IMPEACHED" without actually impeaching. That's exactly what the framers didn't want. They feared sheer political power by majority could be exercised over due process. I'm sure this will become a case study to determine the constitutionality of that practice.

Then why are you pimping what the law of the land doesn't dictate?

The framers intent was the power to impeach was a process to remove egregious behavior, actions that threatened the republic, that rose to the level of treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors. Both houses working in unison but with separate powers and responsibilities against a threat {as a process}. Our founders and constitutional scholars stated that impeachment is a political process, They were not isolating just the process in the house of representatives but tying together the whole process of charging, trial, conviction or lack of and then removal. Writings from our framers ( federalist papers, impeachment case studies ) inferred impeachment as a process and demonstrates that the house vote ( A/O/Is ) is not complete till A/O/Is are brought before the senate. To vote articles of impeachment is just that, an internal process by the house determining that crimes and misdemeanors are agreed upon. By itself it doesn't mean anything. The individual cannot be considered impeached until the connection with the court ( senate ) is established. That process of bringing forward the A/O/Is is when the individual is considered impeached, its the connective tissue in the process. To vote impeachment is the agreement to continue the process to the next level ( the actual impeachment itself ) To charge someone is not the same as filing charges ( indictment ).

A criminal charge is a formal allegation of the commission of a crime ( A/O/Is )

An indictment ( impeachment ) is a prosecutor ( house ) presenting evidence before a jury ( senate )

The process of impeachment is like building a 747 at 30,000 ft. Removing a president is still theoretical, it's never been done before.

That wasn't addressed to you, partisan dumbass.
Click to expand...

I provided circumstantial evidence as to what the framer's intent was in order to achieve the desired results on how to protect the republic. I believe the state of impeachment does not exist until the house has completed its obligation by submitting A/O/Is to the senate for trial, to not do so is the equivalent of putting someone in jail and throwing away the key, denying a constitutional right of a fair and speedy trial by his/her peers, operative word ( SPEEDY ). What Nancy proposes is the exact opposite.

Don't understand the name calling, does it make you feel better, more manly maybe.
 
Last edited:
Now I heard Alan Dershowitz's that the senate can proceed ahead with the trial phase if the house does not act in a timely manner, I believe he said 15 to 30 days.
 
He is not impeached yet.

Some of the best legal minds in the country for and against it say that until the paperwork is filed and the legal pathway is followed... He is not impeached.

You can slam the Gavel all you want to and smirk but until you do the legal requirements it just ain't so.
 
FGB said:
He is not impeached yet.

Some of the best legal minds in the country for and against it say that until the paperwork is filed and the legal pathway is followed... He is not impeached.

You can slam the Gavel all you want to and smirk but until you do the legal requirements it just ain't so.
Click to expand...

Yes he is, bible sucking boomer.

He is an impeached deplorable.

Deal with it.:)
 
FGB said:
I had a Dog named Fart Knocker ...I think HE had a higher IQ and more class than you do.
Click to expand...

You proclaimed that the left were unpatriotic, but were too much of a whiny bitch to serve your country, while some of us on the left stepped up and delivered.

I wouldn't put too much stock in any IQ you have. :rolleyes:


Same goes with your bible thumping hypocrisy.:rolleyes:
 
icanhelp1 said:
Impeachment will be acquitted and dismissed for lack of timely prosecution! :D
Click to expand...

And idiots like you will continue to be happy that the president continues to get away with breaking the law and obstruction.


DO NOT ask for proof, it's been posted ad nauseum.
 
cowslinger64 said:
You proclaimed that the left were unpatriotic, but were too much of a whiny bitch to serve your country, while some of us on the left stepped up and delivered.

I wouldn't put too much stock in any IQ you have. :rolleyes:


Same goes with your bible thumping hypocrisy.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He is a veteran of the cold war.

He served his country like the coward he is.
 
cowslinger64 said:
And idiots like you will continue to be happy that the president continues to get away with breaking the law and obstruction.


DO NOT ask for proof, it's been posted ad nauseum.
Click to expand...



What law and what obstruction? I didn't see one statute quoted in the articles of impeachment! :confused::cool:
 
cowslinger64 said:
And idiots like you will continue to be happy that the president continues to get away with breaking the law and obstruction.


DO NOT ask for proof, it's been posted ad nauseum.
Click to expand...




What's with the name calling? :confused: It's the Christmas/Holiday season!
 
Fart_knocker said:
^^^deplorable simpleton.:)
Click to expand...

Right. I found the articles of impeachment quite clear and pretty obvious to anyone who isn't a Trumpette. One of the articles is on obstruction of Congress by not making government servants available for questioning and scrutiny on government business. It's obvious what the Trump regime is doing on that article alone. It's obvious to anyone not a Trumpette that Trump is guilty of the impeachment articles and so, so, so much more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SissyBrandi19
Summer 2025 Reading List Challenge!!!
Replies
2
Views
224
SissyBrandi19
SissyBrandi19
J
The day time stopped for me.
Replies
5
Views
989
bobb64
B
S
Remembering past experiences...
2 3
Replies
66
Views
4K
Achingluv
A
L
Ladies, would you offer your husband to a friend in the following scenario?
Replies
17
Views
2K
bisissyhusband1
B
JenniZinc
My Dilemma (Kind Of)
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
lets_roll_12
lets_roll_12
Back
Top