I told you all months ago - Impeachment

[Judicial review]

Just a heads up some dems are siding with the GOP on the abuse of the potential EO, which is constitutional allowed with the broad forign powers article II allows the President on Forigh affairs, as long as it's an EO. Not good for Obama. Not good at all. This means everybody is finding the extreme acts by this president without the congress involved troubling. Not to mention what it involves..

theDoctorisIn

 

[HenryBHough]

Not surprising that some of the less impaired Democrats are jumping ship on this! Still, much more quickly than I had dared expect.

 

[occupied]

Just a heads up some dems are siding with the GOP on the abuse of the potential EO, which is constitutional allowed with the broad forign powers article II allows the President on Forigh affairs, as long as it's an EO. Not good for Obama. Not good at all. This means everybody is finding the extreme acts by this president without the congress involved troubling. Not to mention what it involves..

theDoctorisIn

You're making a fool of yourself, try not to get too depressed when your hopes come crashing down around you.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Just a heads up some dems are siding with the GOP on the abuse of the potential EO, which is constitutional allowed with the broad forign powers article II allows the President on Forigh affairs, as long as it's an EO. Not good for Obama. Not good at all. This means everybody is finding the extreme acts by this president without the congress involved troubling. Not to mention what it involves..

theDoctorisIn

That's your thesis for this thread - as to Obama being impeached?

 

[Judicial review]

Just a heads up some dems are siding with the GOP on the abuse of the potential EO, which is constitutional allowed with the broad forign powers article II allows the President on Forigh affairs, as long as it's an EO. Not good for Obama. Not good at all. This means everybody is finding the extreme acts by this president without the congress involved troubling. Not to mention what it involves..

theDoctorisIn

That's your thesis for this thread - as to Obama being impeached?

That's all that is needed. Clinton was impeached due to an affair by the house, and he lied about it under oath in the senate, but it was only an affair. See my point? publically humiliate the guy and he goes away.

 

[HenryBHough]

I think it's too late for impeachment.....surely in light of this resignation is the only easy out.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Just a heads up some dems are siding with the GOP on the abuse of the potential EO, which is constitutional allowed with the broad forign powers article II allows the President on Forigh affairs, as long as it's an EO. Not good for Obama. Not good at all. This means everybody is finding the extreme acts by this president without the congress involved troubling. Not to mention what it involves..

theDoctorisIn

That's your thesis for this thread - as to Obama being impeached?

That's all that is needed. Clinton was impeached due to an affair by the house, and he lied about it under oath in the senate, but it was only an affair. See my point? publically humiliate the guy and he goes away.

Bill Clinton hasn't "gone away". He finished his term with very high approval ratings, led his party to victory in the midterms during his impeachment, and now sits as an uniformly loved Democrat elder statesmen.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

High crimes and misdemeanors involve breaking a law, abuse of power and violating the public trust can be enough cause for impeachment.

True.

But without any evidence to prove the above, such as is the case with the president, republicans would never win a conviction in the Senate.

Many ignorant rightists, likely the OP, incorrectly believe that 'impeachment' means to remove a president from office.

It does not.

It's an indictment only, and absent a conviction in the Senate, a sitting president isn't going anywhere.

So the partisan right may 'impeach' to their hearts' content, and garner even more contempt from the American people, if that's even possible.

 

[Judicial review]

Just a heads up some dems are siding with the GOP on the abuse of the potential EO, which is constitutional allowed with the broad forign powers article II allows the President on Forigh affairs, as long as it's an EO. Not good for Obama. Not good at all. This means everybody is finding the extreme acts by this president without the congress involved troubling. Not to mention what it involves..

theDoctorisIn

That's your thesis for this thread - as to Obama being impeached?

That's all that is needed. Clinton was impeached due to an affair by the house, and he lied about it under oath in the senate, but it was only an affair. See my point? publically humiliate the guy and he goes away.

Bill Clinton hasn't "gone away". He finished his term with very high approval ratings, led his party to victory in the midterms during his impeachment, and now sits as an uniformly loved Democrat elder statesmen.

You mean how the GOP took over congress in 1994? Contract with America is ALL I need to say about that.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Just a heads up some dems are siding with the GOP on the abuse of the potential EO, which is constitutional allowed with the broad forign powers article II allows the President on Forigh affairs, as long as it's an EO. Not good for Obama. Not good at all. This means everybody is finding the extreme acts by this president without the congress involved troubling. Not to mention what it involves..

theDoctorisIn

That's your thesis for this thread - as to Obama being impeached?

That's all that is needed. Clinton was impeached due to an affair by the house, and he lied about it under oath in the senate, but it was only an affair. See my point? publically humiliate the guy and he goes away.

Bill Clinton hasn't "gone away". He finished his term with very high approval ratings, led his party to victory in the midterms during his impeachment, and now sits as an uniformly loved Democrat elder statesmen.

You mean how the GOP took over congress in 1994?

Clinton was impeached in 1998.

 

[Judicial review]

High crimes and misdemeanors involve breaking a law, abuse of power and violating the public trust can be enough cause for impeachment.

True.

But without any evidence to prove the above, such as is the case with the president, republicans would never win a conviction in the Senate.

Many ignorant rightists, likely the OP, incorrectly believe that 'impeachment' means to remove a president from office.

It does not.

It's an indictment only, and absent a conviction in the Senate, a sitting president isn't going anywhere.

So the partisan right may 'impeach' to their hearts' content, and garner even more contempt from the American people, if that's even possible.

I don't believe that at all. I want them to do it for political reasons ONLY. They will fuck the democratic party out of office for a VERY long time.

 

[regent]

High crimes and misdemeanors involve breaking a law, abuse of power and violating the public trust can be enough cause for impeachment.

True.

But without any evidence to prove the above, such as is the case with the president, republicans would never win a conviction in the Senate.

Many ignorant rightists, likely the OP, incorrectly believe that 'impeachment' means to remove a president from office.

It does not.

It's an indictment only, and absent a conviction in the Senate, a sitting president isn't going anywhere.

So the partisan right may 'impeach' to their hearts' content, and garner even more contempt from the American people, if that's even possible.

I don't believe that at all. I want them to do it for political reasons ONLY. They will fuck the democratic party out of office for a VERY long time.

 

[Judicial review]

Just a heads up some dems are siding with the GOP on the abuse of the potential EO, which is constitutional allowed with the broad forign powers article II allows the President on Forigh affairs, as long as it's an EO. Not good for Obama. Not good at all. This means everybody is finding the extreme acts by this president without the congress involved troubling. Not to mention what it involves..

theDoctorisIn

That's your thesis for this thread - as to Obama being impeached?

That's all that is needed. Clinton was impeached due to an affair by the house, and he lied about it under oath in the senate, but it was only an affair. See my point? publically humiliate the guy and he goes away.

Bill Clinton hasn't "gone away". He finished his term with very high approval ratings, led his party to victory in the midterms during his impeachment, and now sits as an uniformly loved Democrat elder statesmen.

You mean how the GOP took over congress in 1994?

Clinton was impeached in 1998.

You are going to use 2 years or 1 midterm to try and prove your point? You know the GOp still controlled the house AND following the 2 years the libs controlled the Senate the GOP got it back easily for a full 4 years after that? A super majority at that with Bush as president.
Lol..

Oh and Clinton was a changed man after the house impeached him. As his policy clearly states. It's a wake up call.

 

[regent]

High crimes and misdemeanors involve breaking a law, abuse of power and violating the public trust can be enough cause for impeachment.

True.

But without any evidence to prove the above, such as is the case with the president, republicans would never win a conviction in the Senate.

Many ignorant rightists, likely the OP, incorrectly believe that 'impeachment' means to remove a president from office.

It does not.

It's an indictment only, and absent a conviction in the Senate, a sitting president isn't going anywhere.

So the partisan right may 'impeach' to their hearts' content, and garner even more contempt from the American people, if that's even possible.

I don't believe that at all. I want them to do it for political reasons ONLY. They will fuck the democratic party out of office for a VERY long time.

No law need be broken, the House charges and the Senate conducts the trial, but it is not a trial for a broken law. One of the charges the House levied against Johnson was that he yelled at the Congress. If a law has been broken that trial can take place after the impeachment in a regular court.

 

[Judicial review]

High crimes and misdemeanors involve breaking a law, abuse of power and violating the public trust can be enough cause for impeachment.

True.

But without any evidence to prove the above, such as is the case with the president, republicans would never win a conviction in the Senate.

Many ignorant rightists, likely the OP, incorrectly believe that 'impeachment' means to remove a president from office.

It does not.

It's an indictment only, and absent a conviction in the Senate, a sitting president isn't going anywhere.

So the partisan right may 'impeach' to their hearts' content, and garner even more contempt from the American people, if that's even possible.

I don't believe that at all. I want them to do it for political reasons ONLY. They will fuck the democratic party out of office for a VERY long time.

No law need be broken, the House charges and the Senate conducts the trial, but it is not a trial for a broken law. One of the charges the House levied against Johnson was that he yelled at the Congress. If a law has been broken that trial can take place after the impeachment in a regular court.

Yup.

 

[skye]

High crimes and misdemeanors involve breaking a law, abuse of power and violating the public trust can be enough cause for impeachment.

True.

But without any evidence to prove the above, such as is the case with the president, republicans would never win a conviction in the Senate.

Many ignorant rightists, likely the OP, incorrectly believe that 'impeachment' means to remove a president from office.

It does not.

It's an indictment only, and absent a conviction in the Senate, a sitting president isn't going anywhere.

So the partisan right may 'impeach' to their hearts' content, and garner even more contempt from the American people, if that's even possible.

I don't believe that at all. I want them to do it for political reasons ONLY. They will fuck the democratic party out of office for a VERY long time.

No law need be broken, the House charges and the Senate conducts the trial, but it is not a trial for a broken law. One of the charges the House levied against Johnson was that he yelled at the Congress. If a law has been broken that trial can take place after the impeachment in a regular court.

Yup.

yup

you should be shot at dawn ....you know what I mean

all our hopes are so high...that the Indonesian Muslim in Chief has been impeached...

then we come here and read its all a lie?????

sad sad sad!

 

[Nutz]

True.

But without any evidence to prove the above, such as is the case with the president, republicans would never win a conviction in the Senate.

Many ignorant rightists, likely the OP, incorrectly believe that 'impeachment' means to remove a president from office.

It does not.

It's an indictment only, and absent a conviction in the Senate, a sitting president isn't going anywhere.

So the partisan right may 'impeach' to their hearts' content, and garner even more contempt from the American people, if that's even possible.

I don't believe that at all. I want them to do it for political reasons ONLY. They will fuck the democratic party out of office for a VERY long time.

No law need be broken, the House charges and the Senate conducts the trial, but it is not a trial for a broken law. One of the charges the House levied against Johnson was that he yelled at the Congress. If a law has been broken that trial can take place after the impeachment in a regular court.

Yup.

yup

you should be shot at dawn ....you know what I mean

all our hopes are so high...that the Indonesian Muslim in Chief has been impeached...

then we come here and read its all a lie?????

sad sad sad!

Why does Skye turn me on...no matter what she says?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't believe that at all. I want them to do it for political reasons ONLY. They will fuck the democratic party out of office for a VERY long time.

No law need be broken, the House charges and the Senate conducts the trial, but it is not a trial for a broken law. One of the charges the House levied against Johnson was that he yelled at the Congress. If a law has been broken that trial can take place after the impeachment in a regular court.

Yup.

yup

you should be shot at dawn ....you know what I mean

all our hopes are so high...that the Indonesian Muslim in Chief has been impeached...

then we come here and read its all a lie?????

sad sad sad!

Why does Skye turn me on...no matter what she says?

You're obviously attracted to stupidity.

 

[Nutz]

No law need be broken, the House charges and the Senate conducts the trial, but it is not a trial for a broken law. One of the charges the House levied against Johnson was that he yelled at the Congress. If a law has been broken that trial can take place after the impeachment in a regular court.

Yup.

yup

you should be shot at dawn ....you know what I mean

all our hopes are so high...that the Indonesian Muslim in Chief has been impeached...

then we come here and read its all a lie?????

sad sad sad!

Why does Skye turn me on...no matter what she says?

You're obviously attracted to stupidity.

Skye is awesome...she is trapped in the 50's/ 60's. I want to take her to an old timed themed party one day.

 

[skye]

No law need be broken, the House charges and the Senate conducts the trial, but it is not a trial for a broken law. One of the charges the House levied against Johnson was that he yelled at the Congress. If a law has been broken that trial can take place after the impeachment in a regular court.

Yup.

yup

you should be shot at dawn ....you know what I mean

all our hopes are so high...that the Indonesian Muslim in Chief has been impeached...

then we come here and read its all a lie?????

sad sad sad!

Why does Skye turn me on...no matter what she says?

You're obviously attracted to stupidity.

and you are obviously a homo ...