Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And now, you can address my actual post:The House voted to impeach because it was Republican. The Senate did not have a 2/3 Republican majority, so it voted not to convict. In the current situation, I expect the House will vote to impeach because it is Democrat. The Senate does not have a 2/3 Democrat majority, so it will vote not to convict. This is all about politics. But that is not the subject of this thread.
Could the president shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not be prosecuted?Yes because otherwise he wouldn't be able to do his job. How could the President run the country if he is tied up in court?
That is why the founders set up impeachment.
Could the president use his personal properties as federal grounds for profit?
Could the president use the powers of his office for personal financial gain?
What laws, in your mind, do not apply to a president? Murder? Theft? Extortion? Bribery?
The answer to all of that is... yes. Now, once the President leaves office he becomes a private citizen and subject to all of that. So if the statute of limitations hasn't run, then he can be prosecuted. Until then, the only thing that can impact him is impeachment and conviction in the Senate.
Wrong. There is nothing in COTUS, nor in The US Code that the President of the United States cannot be indicted and tried for any felony or misdemeanor. The only mention is the memo noted above, and until the Supreme Court rules what you claim, there is no legal reason to not bring a sitting President before a Grand Jury.
Let me know when SCOTUS does that.
And now, you can address my actual post:The House voted to impeach because it was Republican. The Senate did not have a 2/3 Republican majority, so it voted not to convict. In the current situation, I expect the House will vote to impeach because it is Democrat. The Senate does not have a 2/3 Democrat majority, so it will vote not to convict. This is all about politics. But that is not the subject of this thread.
As the house determined Clinton;'s acts were impeachable, the huge majority of Senate democrats who voted no, not because they believed Clinton did not commit those acts, but because they believed obstruction and perjury do not rise to the level of a removable offense, acted outside their constitutional role.
Disagree? Why?
Could the president shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not be prosecuted?Yes because otherwise he wouldn't be able to do his job. How could the President run the country if he is tied up in court?
That is why the founders set up impeachment.
Could the president use his personal properties as federal grounds for profit?
Could the president use the powers of his office for personal financial gain?
What laws, in your mind, do not apply to a president? Murder? Theft? Extortion? Bribery?
The answer to all of that is... yes. Now, once the President leaves office he becomes a private citizen and subject to all of that. So if the statute of limitations hasn't run, then he can be prosecuted. Until then, the only thing that can impact him is impeachment and conviction in the Senate.
Wrong. There is nothing in COTUS, nor in The US Code that the President of the United States cannot be indicted and tried for any felony or misdemeanor. The only mention is the memo noted above, and until the Supreme Court rules what you claim, there is no legal reason to not bring a sitting President before a Grand Jury.
Let me know when SCOTUS does that.
Oh, you'll know. If the Supreme Court gives a sitting President an absolute immunity chaos will reign in every court house in America.
Yes there must be treason or a crime committed for impeachment.The debate records of the House and Senate very clearly, and without ambiguity, say otherwise.
I ask again:
Having determined in 1998 that perjury and obstruction are not impeachable offenses, for what rational reason would the Democrats now argue otherwise?
There are no debate records of the Senate. There was no debate.
I will answer you again. There doesn't have to be a rational reason. The House has sole power to impeach. Period. That's what the Constitution says.
What constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor is entirely up to the House. I'm not sure how many times this has to be said. The House has sole power to impeach. If the House wants to impeach the President because of a bad hairdo, they can.
You must have the Constitution of some other country, mine says "High crimes and misdemeanors"
Your Constitution also says the House has sole power of impeachment. So please, other than the House, who has the authority to define high crimes and misdemeanors?
Yes there must be treason or a crime committed for impeachment.There are no debate records of the Senate. There was no debate.
I will answer you again. There doesn't have to be a rational reason. The House has sole power to impeach. Period. That's what the Constitution says.
What constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor is entirely up to the House. I'm not sure how many times this has to be said. The House has sole power to impeach. If the House wants to impeach the President because of a bad hairdo, they can.
You must have the Constitution of some other country, mine says "High crimes and misdemeanors"
Your Constitution also says the House has sole power of impeachment. So please, other than the House, who has the authority to define high crimes and misdemeanors?
Yeah...who has the authority to define the "people"? Can cats and dogs be deemed "the People"?
Irrelevant. Hillary Clinton is not the POTUS.This is a loaded question.YES or NO
Explain and cite any authority if you believe a President of the United States is above the law.
First of all.....the idiots that ask it today believe Hillary is above the law.
Yes there must be treason or a crime committed for impeachment.There are no debate records of the Senate. There was no debate.
I will answer you again. There doesn't have to be a rational reason. The House has sole power to impeach. Period. That's what the Constitution says.
What constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor is entirely up to the House. I'm not sure how many times this has to be said. The House has sole power to impeach. If the House wants to impeach the President because of a bad hairdo, they can.
You must have the Constitution of some other country, mine says "High crimes and misdemeanors"
Your Constitution also says the House has sole power of impeachment. So please, other than the House, who has the authority to define high crimes and misdemeanors?
Yeah...who has the authority to define the "people"? Can cats and dogs be deemed "the People"?
For someone who supposedly doesn't care, it sure took you a long time to admit the Democrats are hypocrites.I don't care. I truly don't give a damn. The entire question is utterly irrelevant. I will concede in a second the Democrats are hypocrites. So are the Republicans. So what?And now, you can address my actual post:The House voted to impeach because it was Republican. The Senate did not have a 2/3 Republican majority, so it voted not to convict. In the current situation, I expect the House will vote to impeach because it is Democrat. The Senate does not have a 2/3 Democrat majority, so it will vote not to convict. This is all about politics. But that is not the subject of this thread.
As the house determined Clinton;'s acts were impeachable, the huge majority of Senate democrats who voted no, not because they believed Clinton did not commit those acts, but because they believed obstruction and perjury do not rise to the level of a removable offense, acted outside their constitutional role.
Disagree? Why?
Yes there must be treason or a crime committed for impeachment.
What constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor is entirely up to the House. I'm not sure how many times this has to be said. The House has sole power to impeach. If the House wants to impeach the President because of a bad hairdo, they can.
You must have the Constitution of some other country, mine says "High crimes and misdemeanors"
Your Constitution also says the House has sole power of impeachment. So please, other than the House, who has the authority to define high crimes and misdemeanors?
Yeah...who has the authority to define the "people"? Can cats and dogs be deemed "the People"?
That doesn't answer my question. Who, outside the House, can define high crimes and misdemeanors?
For someone who supposedly doesn't care, it sure took you a long time to admit the Democrats are hypocrites.I don't care. I truly don't give a damn. The entire question is utterly irrelevant. I will concede in a second the Democrats are hypocrites. So are the Republicans. So what?And now, you can address my actual post:The House voted to impeach because it was Republican. The Senate did not have a 2/3 Republican majority, so it voted not to convict. In the current situation, I expect the House will vote to impeach because it is Democrat. The Senate does not have a 2/3 Democrat majority, so it will vote not to convict. This is all about politics. But that is not the subject of this thread.
As the house determined Clinton;'s acts were impeachable, the huge majority of Senate democrats who voted no, not because they believed Clinton did not commit those acts, but because they believed obstruction and perjury do not rise to the level of a removable offense, acted outside their constitutional role.
Disagree? Why?
More proof that the Democrats care about nothing other than their political power.You're a genius! No, I mean that! Really! Congress can say that wearing a red tie is a "high crime" You Progressives are surely in a league of your own as "intellectuals"
What constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor is entirely up to the House. I'm not sure how many times this has to be said. The House has sole power to impeach. If the House wants to impeach the President because of a bad hairdo, they can.
You must have the Constitution of some other country, mine says "High crimes and misdemeanors"
Your Constitution also says the House has sole power of impeachment. So please, other than the House, who has the authority to define high crimes and misdemeanors?
Yeah...who has the authority to define the "people"? Can cats and dogs be deemed "the People"?
That doesn't answer my question. Who, outside the House, can define high crimes and misdemeanors?
You're a genius! No, I mean that! Really! Congress can say that wearing a red tie is a "high crime" You Progressives are surely in a league of your own as "intellectuals"
You must have the Constitution of some other country, mine says "High crimes and misdemeanors"
Your Constitution also says the House has sole power of impeachment. So please, other than the House, who has the authority to define high crimes and misdemeanors?
Yeah...who has the authority to define the "people"? Can cats and dogs be deemed "the People"?
That doesn't answer my question. Who, outside the House, can define high crimes and misdemeanors?
You're a genius! No, I mean that! Really! Congress can say that wearing a red tie is a "high crime" You Progressives are surely in a league of your own as "intellectuals"
Still waiting for you to tell me who else has that authority.
More proof that the Democrats care about nothing other than their political power.You're a genius! No, I mean that! Really! Congress can say that wearing a red tie is a "high crime" You Progressives are surely in a league of your own as "intellectuals"
No dumbass. If Hillary does it and it's okay then she's above the law. If Biden does it and it's okay then he's above the law. If Trump is accused of doing it without evidence then that doesn't mean he's above the law.....just the opposite. It means that everything the Democrats got away with only applies to Trump. That's what you people are saying.Irrelevant. Hillary Clinton is not the POTUS.This is a loaded question.YES or NO
Explain and cite any authority if you believe a President of the United States is above the law.
First of all.....the idiots that ask it today believe Hillary is above the law.
So much for your claim that you really don't care.Wow. Just.... wow. You guys have fun.More proof that the Democrats care about nothing other than their political power.You're a genius! No, I mean that! Really! Congress can say that wearing a red tie is a "high crime" You Progressives are surely in a league of your own as "intellectuals"
Then cite the Article and Section within the four corners of our founding document establishing those exceptions to common and criminal law establishing that superior status for the POTUS! Article & Section, Slick, without dodging!Where the fuck is that different law codified?
In the Constitution.
Article 2, Section 4.You appear clueless, but do try again Smack!Article 2, Section 4.
Art. 2 Sec. 4 pertains to IMPEACHMENT, which is NOT part of any criminal action or which deals with Article Three Courts and criminal justice system in its process.
Your assertion that a sitting US President, "...is subject to a different law...." and can be justified by Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution is nothing but a pile of horseshit.
Well, you call up the AG and let him know about that right away. I'm sure he will be impressed.
You've got the deflection bit mastered like all of your ilk! Can't defend your statements with facts...take an off topic detour and play dumb! Stupid fucking rabbit!Well, you call up the AG and let him know about that right away. I'm sure he will be impressed.
