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.
It appears Trump broke the law. That is an impeachable offense.Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.So what? He's an idiot and a coward. Now they just need about 30 more defectors to avoid impeachment. Not happening.
So is acquittal.
Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.
Which law?It appears Trump broke the law. That is an impeachable offense.Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.So what? He's an idiot and a coward. Now they just need about 30 more defectors to avoid impeachment. Not happening.
So is acquittal.
Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.
Which law?It appears Trump broke the law. That is an impeachable offense.Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.So what? He's an idiot and a coward. Now they just need about 30 more defectors to avoid impeachment. Not happening.
So is acquittal.
Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.
2028 at the earliestSometime between today and 1.20.2025When does trump leave the whWhich is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.So what? He's an idiot and a coward. Now they just need about 30 more defectors to avoid impeachment. Not happening.
So is acquittal.
Try harder next time.The Democrats surely did - "Obstruction and Perjury do not rise to the leve of an impeachable offense"Oh? Did the Senate reach conclusions before the trial?You didn't think it was pathetic in 1998, when the house charged the President with actual federal felonies, the veracity of which was questioned by no one -- how is it pathetic now?Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach a foregone conclusion before the trial.Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.So what? He's an idiot and a coward. Now they just need about 30 more defectors to avoid impeachment. Not happening.
So is acquittal.
Why does the pre-judgement bother you no w?
Perhaps if you had tried at all....Try harder next time.The Democrats surely did - "Obstruction and Perjury do not rise to the leve of an impeachable offense"Oh? Did the Senate reach conclusions before the trial?You didn't think it was pathetic in 1998, when the house charged the President with actual federal felonies, the veracity of which was questioned by no one -- how is it pathetic now?Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach a foregone conclusion before the trial.Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.
So is acquittal.
Why does the pre-judgement bother you no w?
The same law I've already shown you twice, lying fucking moron. Since you're too big of a lying fucking moron to understand it the first 2 times I showed you, why on Earth should I post it for you a third time just so you can't understand it again??Which law?It appears Trump broke the law. That is an impeachable offense.Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.So what? He's an idiot and a coward. Now they just need about 30 more defectors to avoid impeachment. Not happening.
So is acquittal.
Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.
LOLOLPerhaps if you had tried at all....Try harder next time.The Democrats surely did - "Obstruction and Perjury do not rise to the leve of an impeachable offense"Oh? Did the Senate reach conclusions before the trial?You didn't think it was pathetic in 1998, when the house charged the President with actual federal felonies, the veracity of which was questioned by no one -- how is it pathetic now?Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach a foregone conclusion before the trial.
Why does the pre-judgement bother you no w?
The Clinton Impeachment
Footnotes:
903
Some Senators who explained their acquittal votes rejected the idea that the particular crimes that President Clinton was alleged to have committed amounted to impeachable offenses (see, e.g., 145 CONG. REC. S1560 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 1999) (statement of Sen. Moynihan); id. at 1601 (statement of Sen. Lieberman)), some alleged failure of proof (see, e.g., id. at 1539 (statement of Sen. Specter); id. at 1581 (statement of Sen. Akaka)), and some cited both grounds (see, e.g., id. at S1578–91 (statement of Sen. Leahy), and id. at S1627 (statement of Sen. Hollings)).
904
See, e.g., 145 CONG. REC. S1525 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 1999) (statement of Sen. Cleland) (accepting the proposition that murder and other crimes would qualify for impeachment and removal, but contending that “the current case does not reach the necessary high standard”); id. at S1533 (statement of Sen. Kyl) (impeachment cannot be limited to wrongful official conduct, but must include murder); and id. at S1592 (statement of Sen. Leahy) (acknowledging that “heinous” crimes such as murder would warrant removal). This idea, incidentally, was not new; one Senator in the First Congress apparently assumed that impeachment would be the first recourse if a President were to commit a murder. IX DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS, 1789–1790, THE DIARY OF WILLIAM MACLAY AND OTHER NOTES ON SENATE DEBATES 168 (Kenneth R. Bowling and Helen E. Veit, eds. 1988).
Tell us again why pre-judgement bothers you now, but did not in 1998.
Trump can shoot someone on 5th Avenue and Rrpublicans would still blindly support him. And the law in question is §30121. As far as letting the voters decide, they'll get to do that anyway. The Congress' job is to impeach upon violating the law.It appears Trump broke the law. That is an impeachable offense.Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.So what? He's an idiot and a coward. Now they just need about 30 more defectors to avoid impeachment. Not happening.
So is acquittal.
Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.
What law did he break? If you're so certain why does only one party think so and why do some on that party question impeachment and refuse to vote for it? Does not seem to be so obvious to me. With Clinton it was obvious but I was young and didn't care. Would you care at age 18? I thought it was stupid then. It is stupid now.
Let the voters decide. I appreciate all the information that has been provided.
The same law I've already shown you twice, lying fucking moron. Since you're too big of a lying fucking moron to understand it the first 2 times I showed you, why on Earth should I post it for you a third time just so you can't understand it again??Which law?It appears Trump broke the law. That is an impeachable offense.Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.
So is acquittal.
Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.
Trump can shoot someone on 5th Avenue and Rrpublicans would still blindly support him. And the law in question is §30121. As far as letting the voters decide, they'll get to do that anyway. The Congress' job is to impeach upon violating the law.It appears Trump broke the law. That is an impeachable offense.Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.
So is acquittal.
Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.
What law did he break? If you're so certain why does only one party think so and why do some on that party question impeachment and refuse to vote for it? Does not seem to be so obvious to me. With Clinton it was obvious but I was young and didn't care. Would you care at age 18? I thought it was stupid then. It is stupid now.
Let the voters decide. I appreciate all the information that has been provided.
LOL2028 at the earliestSometime between today and 1.20.2025When does trump leave the whWhich is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.Impeachment is a foregone conclusion.So what? He's an idiot and a coward. Now they just need about 30 more defectors to avoid impeachment. Not happening.
So is acquittal.
What hyperbole?Trump can shoot someone on 5th Avenue and Rrpublicans would still blindly support him. And the law in question is §30121. As far as letting the voters decide, they'll get to do that anyway. The Congress' job is to impeach upon violating the law.It appears Trump broke the law. That is an impeachable offense.Which is pathetic of the Senate to reach any conclusions before the trial.
Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.
What law did he break? If you're so certain why does only one party think so and why do some on that party question impeachment and refuse to vote for it? Does not seem to be so obvious to me. With Clinton it was obvious but I was young and didn't care. Would you care at age 18? I thought it was stupid then. It is stupid now.
Let the voters decide. I appreciate all the information that has been provided.
Are we talking like adults or using hyperbole? You decide, Fawn.
Look at you, unable to pay attention....LOLOLPerhaps if you had tried at all....Try harder next time.The Democrats surely did - "Obstruction and Perjury do not rise to the leve of an impeachable offense"Oh? Did the Senate reach conclusions before the trial?You didn't think it was pathetic in 1998, when the house charged the President with actual federal felonies, the veracity of which was questioned by no one -- how is it pathetic now?
Why does the pre-judgement bother you no w?
The Clinton Impeachment
Footnotes:
903
Some Senators who explained their acquittal votes rejected the idea that the particular crimes that President Clinton was alleged to have committed amounted to impeachable offenses (see, e.g., 145 CONG. REC. S1560 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 1999) (statement of Sen. Moynihan); id. at 1601 (statement of Sen. Lieberman)), some alleged failure of proof (see, e.g., id. at 1539 (statement of Sen. Specter); id. at 1581 (statement of Sen. Akaka)), and some cited both grounds (see, e.g., id. at S1578–91 (statement of Sen. Leahy), and id. at S1627 (statement of Sen. Hollings)).
904
See, e.g., 145 CONG. REC. S1525 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 1999) (statement of Sen. Cleland) (accepting the proposition that murder and other crimes would qualify for impeachment and removal, but contending that “the current case does not reach the necessary high standard”); id. at S1533 (statement of Sen. Kyl) (impeachment cannot be limited to wrongful official conduct, but must include murder); and id. at S1592 (statement of Sen. Leahy) (acknowledging that “heinous” crimes such as murder would warrant removal). This idea, incidentally, was not new; one Senator in the First Congress apparently assumed that impeachment would be the first recourse if a President were to commit a murder. IX DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS, 1789–1790, THE DIARY OF WILLIAM MACLAY AND OTHER NOTES ON SENATE DEBATES 168 (Kenneth R. Bowling and Helen E. Veit, eds. 1988).
Tell us again why pre-judgement bothers you now, but did not in 1998.
Putz... acquittal came after the trial, not before.
You haven't actually shown prejudgment. You posted a quote that turned out you made up and then posted some reasons some Democrats gave for voting to acquit after the trial.Look at you, unable to pay attention....LOLOLPerhaps if you had tried at all....Try harder next time.The Democrats surely did - "Obstruction and Perjury do not rise to the leve of an impeachable offense"Oh? Did the Senate reach conclusions before the trial?
Why does the pre-judgement bother you no w?
The Clinton Impeachment
Footnotes:
903
Some Senators who explained their acquittal votes rejected the idea that the particular crimes that President Clinton was alleged to have committed amounted to impeachable offenses (see, e.g., 145 CONG. REC. S1560 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 1999) (statement of Sen. Moynihan); id. at 1601 (statement of Sen. Lieberman)), some alleged failure of proof (see, e.g., id. at 1539 (statement of Sen. Specter); id. at 1581 (statement of Sen. Akaka)), and some cited both grounds (see, e.g., id. at S1578–91 (statement of Sen. Leahy), and id. at S1627 (statement of Sen. Hollings)).
904
See, e.g., 145 CONG. REC. S1525 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 1999) (statement of Sen. Cleland) (accepting the proposition that murder and other crimes would qualify for impeachment and removal, but contending that “the current case does not reach the necessary high standard”); id. at S1533 (statement of Sen. Kyl) (impeachment cannot be limited to wrongful official conduct, but must include murder); and id. at S1592 (statement of Sen. Leahy) (acknowledging that “heinous” crimes such as murder would warrant removal). This idea, incidentally, was not new; one Senator in the First Congress apparently assumed that impeachment would be the first recourse if a President were to commit a murder. IX DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS, 1789–1790, THE DIARY OF WILLIAM MACLAY AND OTHER NOTES ON SENATE DEBATES 168 (Kenneth R. Bowling and Helen E. Veit, eds. 1988).
Tell us again why pre-judgement bothers you now, but did not in 1998.
Putz... acquittal came after the trial, not before.
The PRE-judgement by the Democrats was that the charges of federal felonies levied by the house did not rise to an impeachable offense; this was their conclusion BEFORE the trial took place.
Pre-judgement did not bother you in 1998 - why does it bother you now?
What hyperbole?Trump can shoot someone on 5th Avenue and Rrpublicans would still blindly support him. And the law in question is §30121. As far as letting the voters decide, they'll get to do that anyway. The Congress' job is to impeach upon violating the law.It appears Trump broke the law. That is an impeachable offense.Trial = waste of $$ and time. Trump did not commit an impeachable offense. Impeachment was never designed for one party to use the vote to get rid of a president of another party.
What law did he break? If you're so certain why does only one party think so and why do some on that party question impeachment and refuse to vote for it? Does not seem to be so obvious to me. With Clinton it was obvious but I was young and didn't care. Would you care at age 18? I thought it was stupid then. It is stupid now.
Let the voters decide. I appreciate all the information that has been provided.
Are we talking like adults or using hyperbole? You decide, Fawn.
Ah. You lie to yourself.You haven't actually shown prejudgment.Look at you, unable to pay attention....LOLOLPerhaps if you had tried at all....Try harder next time.The Democrats surely did - "Obstruction and Perjury do not rise to the leve of an impeachable offense"
Why does the pre-judgement bother you no w?
The Clinton Impeachment
Footnotes:
903
Some Senators who explained their acquittal votes rejected the idea that the particular crimes that President Clinton was alleged to have committed amounted to impeachable offenses (see, e.g., 145 CONG. REC. S1560 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 1999) (statement of Sen. Moynihan); id. at 1601 (statement of Sen. Lieberman)), some alleged failure of proof (see, e.g., id. at 1539 (statement of Sen. Specter); id. at 1581 (statement of Sen. Akaka)), and some cited both grounds (see, e.g., id. at S1578–91 (statement of Sen. Leahy), and id. at S1627 (statement of Sen. Hollings)).
904
See, e.g., 145 CONG. REC. S1525 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 1999) (statement of Sen. Cleland) (accepting the proposition that murder and other crimes would qualify for impeachment and removal, but contending that “the current case does not reach the necessary high standard”); id. at S1533 (statement of Sen. Kyl) (impeachment cannot be limited to wrongful official conduct, but must include murder); and id. at S1592 (statement of Sen. Leahy) (acknowledging that “heinous” crimes such as murder would warrant removal). This idea, incidentally, was not new; one Senator in the First Congress apparently assumed that impeachment would be the first recourse if a President were to commit a murder. IX DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS, 1789–1790, THE DIARY OF WILLIAM MACLAY AND OTHER NOTES ON SENATE DEBATES 168 (Kenneth R. Bowling and Helen E. Veit, eds. 1988).
Tell us again why pre-judgement bothers you now, but did not in 1998.
Putz... acquittal came after the trial, not before.
The PRE-judgement by the Democrats was that the charges of federal felonies levied by the house did not rise to an impeachable offense; this was their conclusion BEFORE the trial took place.
Pre-judgement did not bother you in 1998 - why does it bother you now?
LOLAh. You lie to yourself.You haven't actually shown prejudgment.Look at you, unable to pay attention....LOLOLPerhaps if you had tried at all....Try harder next time.
The Clinton Impeachment
Footnotes:
903
Some Senators who explained their acquittal votes rejected the idea that the particular crimes that President Clinton was alleged to have committed amounted to impeachable offenses (see, e.g., 145 CONG. REC. S1560 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 1999) (statement of Sen. Moynihan); id. at 1601 (statement of Sen. Lieberman)), some alleged failure of proof (see, e.g., id. at 1539 (statement of Sen. Specter); id. at 1581 (statement of Sen. Akaka)), and some cited both grounds (see, e.g., id. at S1578–91 (statement of Sen. Leahy), and id. at S1627 (statement of Sen. Hollings)).
904
See, e.g., 145 CONG. REC. S1525 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 1999) (statement of Sen. Cleland) (accepting the proposition that murder and other crimes would qualify for impeachment and removal, but contending that “the current case does not reach the necessary high standard”); id. at S1533 (statement of Sen. Kyl) (impeachment cannot be limited to wrongful official conduct, but must include murder); and id. at S1592 (statement of Sen. Leahy) (acknowledging that “heinous” crimes such as murder would warrant removal). This idea, incidentally, was not new; one Senator in the First Congress apparently assumed that impeachment would be the first recourse if a President were to commit a murder. IX DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE FIRST FEDERAL CONGRESS, 1789–1790, THE DIARY OF WILLIAM MACLAY AND OTHER NOTES ON SENATE DEBATES 168 (Kenneth R. Bowling and Helen E. Veit, eds. 1988).
Tell us again why pre-judgement bothers you now, but did not in 1998.
Putz... acquittal came after the trial, not before.
The PRE-judgement by the Democrats was that the charges of federal felonies levied by the house did not rise to an impeachable offense; this was their conclusion BEFORE the trial took place.
Pre-judgement did not bother you in 1998 - why does it bother you now?
That's why I had you on ignore.
Thanks for the reminder.
How is soliciting a foreign national for something of value to his own campaign not an "overt crime?"What hyperbole?Trump can shoot someone on 5th Avenue and Rrpublicans would still blindly support him. And the law in question is §30121. As far as letting the voters decide, they'll get to do that anyway. The Congress' job is to impeach upon violating the law.It appears Trump broke the law. That is an impeachable offense.
What law did he break? If you're so certain why does only one party think so and why do some on that party question impeachment and refuse to vote for it? Does not seem to be so obvious to me. With Clinton it was obvious but I was young and didn't care. Would you care at age 18? I thought it was stupid then. It is stupid now.
Let the voters decide. I appreciate all the information that has been provided.
Are we talking like adults or using hyperbole? You decide, Fawn.
If he committed an overt crime he would be impeached. Don't be obtuse. In this case only one side of the aisle agrees and not unilaterally. It is partisan.
How is soliciting a foreign national for something of value to his own campaign not an "overt crime?"What hyperbole?Trump can shoot someone on 5th Avenue and Rrpublicans would still blindly support him. And the law in question is §30121. As far as letting the voters decide, they'll get to do that anyway. The Congress' job is to impeach upon violating the law.What law did he break? If you're so certain why does only one party think so and why do some on that party question impeachment and refuse to vote for it? Does not seem to be so obvious to me. With Clinton it was obvious but I was young and didn't care. Would you care at age 18? I thought it was stupid then. It is stupid now.
Let the voters decide. I appreciate all the information that has been provided.
Are we talking like adults or using hyperbole? You decide, Fawn.
If he committed an overt crime he would be impeached. Don't be obtuse. In this case only one side of the aisle agrees and not unilaterally. It is partisan.
Oh, and by the way, it's looking very likely like he's getting impeached.
