Schumer's pipe dream, a trial with.....you know.....evidence.

[bigrebnc1775]

So now you backpedal and deny your own words. You claimed she has the power to not allow the Senate to proceed. A blatant lie. If the impeachment is passed, as YOU claim, it now MUST be in the Senate's hands . Leaving Pisslosi and your feeble argument powerless.

Dumbfuck, I've changed nothing. It's not my problem you don't understand English. Pelosi has sole power of the impeachment. It hasn't gone to the Senate yet so it's still in her power. Once it goes to the Senate, then the Senate has sole power and she has none.

And Pelosi has control of when it goes to the Senate. That doesn't mean she has power over the Senate, it means she has sole power over the impeachment. That's what I'm talking about.

It would be helpful if you could understand the Constitution.

My question is how in GODs name can that POS McConnell put his hand on a bible without lying his polio infested ass off ?

He can't. But no one can be surprised he would openly violate an oath or that Trumper's wouldn't care.

Democrats that voted in support of the Schiff Sham violated their oath

In what way?

WOW the name used should have given you a clue
That cat is a little too tight around your head

 

[Faun]

December 18th, 2019

View attachment 295947

Nope. Not official yet.

Please try again, Dumbfuck.

The House says it is and the House has sole power of impeachment.

You lose again because you're a loser.

Nope. Not official until transmitted to the Senate, Fuckwit.

So you say, but you're an abject imbecile.

The House says he's impeached...

View attachment 295955

And the Constitution says the House has sole power of impeachment.

Good luck with that as long as the Senate doesn't get the articles the President is not impeached lol

LOL

Well there's your brain-dead opinion ... and then there's the Constitution. And according to the Constitution, he's impeached. So I'll go with the Constitution on this one.

 

[Faun]

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Remarkable

3 posters, jillian Hutch Starskey Faun, actually believe Johnson and Clinton were reelected after being impeached

Why lie about what the three were actually saying? Clinton was already serving "another term" while being impeached, which should give you a hint why your expression was ambiguous, to put it mildly.

BTW, Johnson served out Lincoln's term, and was "able to serve another term" after impeachment (but did not win the presidential nomination). There weren't any term limits back then anyway. So, your pap was part misleading, part wrong, and, being unable to see your own faults, you felt the need to disparage the three posters.

My post: "and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term. "

how is that 'misleading?

As you pointed out, both other presidents were already on their second term, impeachment did not factor into their running again, they couldn't anyway.

Trump will be the first to be able to run for another term

BTW, how stupid was jill for stating Clinton served another term?

So Johnson couldn't run again??

<crickets>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

my Pussy bitch you're an idiot look it up

^^^ PussyBitch be a dumbfuck who doesn't understand, The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

When will they officially impeach Trump?

December 18th, 2019

View attachment 295947

Nope. Not official yet.

Please try again, Dumbfuck.

The House says it is and the House has sole power of impeachment.

You lose again because you're a loser.

and the house, as usual, has lied to you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Remarkable

3 posters, jillian Hutch Starskey Faun, actually believe Johnson and Clinton were reelected after being impeached

Why lie about what the three were actually saying? Clinton was already serving "another term" while being impeached, which should give you a hint why your expression was ambiguous, to put it mildly.

BTW, Johnson served out Lincoln's term, and was "able to serve another term" after impeachment (but did not win the presidential nomination). There weren't any term limits back then anyway. So, your pap was part misleading, part wrong, and, being unable to see your own faults, you felt the need to disparage the three posters.

My post: "and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term. "

how is that 'misleading?

As you pointed out, both other presidents were already on their second term, impeachment did not factor into their running again, they couldn't anyway.

Trump will be the first to be able to run for another term

BTW, how stupid was jill for stating Clinton served another term?

So Johnson couldn't run again??

<crickets>

Yes Johnson could have ran again

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nope. Not official yet.

Please try again, Dumbfuck.

The House says it is and the House has sole power of impeachment.

You lose again because you're a loser.

Nope. Not official until transmitted to the Senate, Fuckwit.

So you say, but you're an abject imbecile.

The House says he's impeached...

View attachment 295955

And the Constitution says the House has sole power of impeachment.

Good luck with that as long as the Senate doesn't get the articles the President is not impeached lol

LOL

Well there's your brain-dead opinion ... and then there's the Constitution. And according to the Constitution, he's impeached. So I'll go with the Constitution on this one.

until the senate gets the articles of impeachment the president is not impeached.
In the law, there are many situations in which an outcome is known, but it is not a formal outcome until some ministerial act is taken. A grand jury can vote an indictment, for example, but the defendant is not considered indicted until the charges are filed with the clerk of the court. A defendant can be found guilty by a jury, but there is technically no conviction until the judgment is “entered” by the trial court, usually months later when sentence is imposed. An appellate court can issue a ruling that orders a lower court to take some action, but the lower court has no jurisdiction to act in the case until issuance of the appellate court’s “mandate” — the document that formally transfers jurisdiction.

Plainly, Congress has similar ministerial acts of transference that must occur in order for legislation to pass. Were that not the case, Speaker Pelosi would not be talking about delaying the transfer of impeachment articles.
Trump Impeachment: If Impeachment Articles Are Not Delivered, Did Impeachment Happen? | National Review

 

[Olde Europe]

And the Constitution says the House has sole power of impeachment.

Actually, Feldman's argument isn't all that bad, and well worth a thorough consideration.

I find, it breaks down on the following counter-argument. What if the Senate simply refuses to accept the House managers, and does not accept the Articles of Impeachment? In that case, the House's sole power of Impeachment is dead. That means, making Impeachment contingent on Articles presented to the Senate in part transfers the Impeachment power to the Senate, in contravention of the "sole power" the Constitution provides. And that's why I find Feldman's argument fails.

Also, well worth a read is Prof. Bowman's argument argument against Pelosi's delay, which I also find quite compelling. But then, I am also "loath to second-guess the political judgment of Nancy Pelosi" - which usually turns out for second-guessers to look stupid, with egg and other substances on their face.

 

[lantern2814]

Link to where Pisslosi has any power over the Senate? Oh there isn't one. Showing yourself to be an uneducated litrle yellow coward as always. Put up or STFU. GFY.

Dumbfuck, I never said she has any power over tbd Senate.

You're fucked in the head which is why you've gone off the rails.

Your word says I will slap you down with. “Wha5 if Pelosi does not let the Senate hold a trial?”. She can’t stop them you dipshit. Now lie and cry and try to spin out of that moron.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, the House has sole power of impeachment. That's what she has power of. Until it goes to the Senate, she's in control. That's doesn't give her power to tell the Senate what they can or cannot do.

So now you backpedal and deny your own words. You claimed she has the power to not allow the Senate to proceed. A blatant lie. If the impeachment is passed, as YOU claim, it now MUST be in the Senate's hands . Leaving Pisslosi and your feeble argument powerless.

Dumbfuck, I've changed nothing. It's not my problem you don't understand English. Pelosi has sole power of the impeachment. It hasn't gone to the Senate yet so it's still in her power. Once it goes to the Senate, then the Senate has sole power and she has none.

And Pelosi has control of when it goes to the Senate. That doesn't mean she has power over the Senate, it means she has sole power over the impeachment. That's what I'm talking about.

It would be helpful if you could understand the Constitution.

Wrong yet again you stupid coward. Your own words were if Pelosi not allow the Senate to proceed. She can’t stop them dumbass. You are an uneducated illiterate, backpedaling, lying COWARD. But the way idiot, the Dims OWN WITNESS stated that until Pisslosi actually grows a set and sends her losing case to the senate, Trump is NOT impeached as the process is NOT completed yet. Seems YOU need to learn how to read dumbfuck. You lose again.

 

[Pogo]

How in the fuck is that "spin"?? The simple *FACT* is that the 2016 election is done, over with and recorded, and NOTHING about impeachment, or any other action CHANGES THAT. Prove. Me. Wrong.

It doesn't matter you leftists have tried to remove the winner

Oh have I now.

----- Linkie?

Russian collusion obstruction Ukraine Immigration policies
Don't play stupid

Maybe you don't reed two good. I SAID, "LINK". WHERE IS IT?

I said stop playing stupid
Now since you are playing stupid you can GO FETCH YOUR OWN LINKS__________

I DIDN'T MAKE THE CLAIM, Dickhead. You did.
I already know I made zero posts as you claimed. Now PROVE ME WRONG.

Still waiting.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It doesn't matter you leftists have tried to remove the winner

Oh have I now.

----- Linkie?

Russian collusion obstruction Ukraine Immigration policies
Don't play stupid

Maybe you don't reed two good. I SAID, "LINK". WHERE IS IT?

I said stop playing stupid
Now since you are playing stupid you can GO FETCH YOUR OWN LINKS__________

I DIDN'T MAKE THE CLAIM, Dickhead. You did.
I already know I made zero posts as you claimed. Now PROVE ME WRONG.

Still waiting.

I never said you made the claim dumbass I said you're playing fucking stupid, well maybe it's not an act.
DEMOCRATS CREATED THE MYTH OF ALL THOSE CHARGES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND YOU'RE NOW PLAYING STUPID ABOUT IT.

 

[Nostra]

When will they officially impeach Trump?

December 18th, 2019

View attachment 295947

Nope. Not official yet.

Please try again, Dumbfuck.

The House says it is and the House has sole power of impeachment.

You lose again because you're a loser.

Nope. Not official until transmitted to the Senate, Fuckwit.

So you say, but you're an abject imbecile.

The House says he's impeached...

View attachment 295955

And the Constitution says the House has sole power of impeachment.

Hmmm................who to believe...............a halfwit libnut fucktard on the innerwebs, or the Constitutional Expert on Impeachment the Dimwingers in the House called in to tell them about impeachment cuz they didn't know anything about it......



Hmmmm.........................

 

[Faun]

^^^ PussyBitch be a dumbfuck who doesn't understand, The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

When will they officially impeach Trump?

December 18th, 2019

View attachment 295947

Nope. Not official yet.

Please try again, Dumbfuck.

The House says it is and the House has sole power of impeachment.

You lose again because you're a loser.

and the house, as usual, has lied to you.

LOLOL

No, PussyBitch, they didn't lie to me simply because you're insane. In reality, I watched live as the House passed two Articles of Impeachment.

It was at that moment Impeached Trump was indeed impeached.

 

[Faun]

Remarkable

3 posters, jillian Hutch Starskey Faun, actually believe Johnson and Clinton were reelected after being impeached

Why lie about what the three were actually saying? Clinton was already serving "another term" while being impeached, which should give you a hint why your expression was ambiguous, to put it mildly.

BTW, Johnson served out Lincoln's term, and was "able to serve another term" after impeachment (but did not win the presidential nomination). There weren't any term limits back then anyway. So, your pap was part misleading, part wrong, and, being unable to see your own faults, you felt the need to disparage the three posters.

My post: "and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term. "

how is that 'misleading?

As you pointed out, both other presidents were already on their second term, impeachment did not factor into their running again, they couldn't anyway.

Trump will be the first to be able to run for another term

BTW, how stupid was jill for stating Clinton served another term?

So Johnson couldn't run again??

<crickets>

Yes Johnson could have ran again

Why are you telling me? Tell that to WillHaftawaite who said he wasn't eligible.

 

[Faun]

The House says it is and the House has sole power of impeachment.

You lose again because you're a loser.

Nope. Not official until transmitted to the Senate, Fuckwit.

So you say, but you're an abject imbecile.

The House says he's impeached...

View attachment 295955

And the Constitution says the House has sole power of impeachment.

Good luck with that as long as the Senate doesn't get the articles the President is not impeached lol

LOL

Well there's your brain-dead opinion ... and then there's the Constitution. And according to the Constitution, he's impeached. So I'll go with the Constitution on this one.

until the senate gets the articles of impeachment the president is not impeached.
In the law, there are many situations in which an outcome is known, but it is not a formal outcome until some ministerial act is taken. A grand jury can vote an indictment, for example, but the defendant is not considered indicted until the charges are filed with the clerk of the court. A defendant can be found guilty by a jury, but there is technically no conviction until the judgment is “entered” by the trial court, usually months later when sentence is imposed. An appellate court can issue a ruling that orders a lower court to take some action, but the lower court has no jurisdiction to act in the case until issuance of the appellate court’s “mandate” — the document that formally transfers jurisdiction.

Plainly, Congress has similar ministerial acts of transference that must occur in order for legislation to pass. Were that not the case, Speaker Pelosi would not be talking about delaying the transfer of impeachment articles.
Trump Impeachment: If Impeachment Articles Are Not Delivered, Did Impeachment Happen? | National Review

You left out this part from your article...

Sure, it’s a stupid question​

And here's the answer to that stupid question...

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.​

In case that's beyond your reading comprehension capabilities, lemme break it down real simple for ya...

Impeachment is what the House says it is. And at 20:52 EST on Wednesday, December 18th, 2019, the House said Trump is impeached.

 

[Nostra]

Nope. Not official until transmitted to the Senate, Fuckwit.

So you say, but you're an abject imbecile.

The House says he's impeached...

View attachment 295955

And the Constitution says the House has sole power of impeachment.

Good luck with that as long as the Senate doesn't get the articles the President is not impeached lol

LOL

Well there's your brain-dead opinion ... and then there's the Constitution. And according to the Constitution, he's impeached. So I'll go with the Constitution on this one.

until the senate gets the articles of impeachment the president is not impeached.
In the law, there are many situations in which an outcome is known, but it is not a formal outcome until some ministerial act is taken. A grand jury can vote an indictment, for example, but the defendant is not considered indicted until the charges are filed with the clerk of the court. A defendant can be found guilty by a jury, but there is technically no conviction until the judgment is “entered” by the trial court, usually months later when sentence is imposed. An appellate court can issue a ruling that orders a lower court to take some action, but the lower court has no jurisdiction to act in the case until issuance of the appellate court’s “mandate” — the document that formally transfers jurisdiction.

Plainly, Congress has similar ministerial acts of transference that must occur in order for legislation to pass. Were that not the case, Speaker Pelosi would not be talking about delaying the transfer of impeachment articles.
Trump Impeachment: If Impeachment Articles Are Not Delivered, Did Impeachment Happen? | National Review

You left out this part from your article...

Sure, it’s a stupid question​

And here's the answer to that stupid question...

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.​

In case that's beyond your reading comprehension capabilities, lemme break it down real simple for ya...

Impeachment is what the House says it is. And at 20:52 EST on Wednesday, December 18th, 2019, the House said Trump is impeached.

And part of the requirements of the power to impeach is to present the articles to the Senate. Until then, no impeachment.

That is according to the Constitutional Expert on Impeachment the Dimwingers brought in to testify and educate them on impeachment cuz they didn't know WTF they were doing.

Suck it, Dumbfuck.

 

[Faun]

And the Constitution says the House has sole power of impeachment.

Actually, Feldman's argument isn't all that bad, and well worth a thorough consideration.

I find, it breaks down on the following counter-argument. What if the Senate simply refuses to accept the House managers, and does not accept the Articles of Impeachment? In that case, the House's sole power of Impeachment is dead. That means, making Impeachment contingent on Articles presented to the Senate in part transfers the Impeachment power to the Senate, in contravention of the "sole power" the Constitution provides. And that's why I find Feldman's argument fails.

Also, well worth a read is Prof. Bowman's argument argument against Pelosi's delay, which I also find quite compelling. But then, I am also "loath to second-guess the political judgment of Nancy Pelosi" - which usually turns out for second-guessers to look stupid, with egg and other substances on their face.

I read Feldman's opinion. I find little merit in it. In case you missed it, another Harvard Law professor, one who published a comprehensive book on impeachment, bitch slapped Feldman on Twitter. The replies were almost as entertaining.



Your letter article was very interesting. But I'm still loving Pelosi's decision to wait until after the recess to deliver the articles. If nothing else, I gauge the success of her political maneuver based ipon the unhingeness it's eliciting from the right.

 

[Faun]

Wrong yet again you stupid coward. Your own words were if Pelosi not allow the Senate to proceed. She can’t stop them dumbass. You are an uneducated illiterate, backpedaling, lying COWARD. But the way idiot, the Dims OWN WITNESS stated that until Pisslosi actually grows a set and sends her losing case to the senate, Trump is NOT impeached as the process is NOT completed yet. Seems YOU need to learn how to read dumbfuck. You lose again.

LOL

By "unhingeness," that's ^^^exactly what I'm talkin' about.

Viva Nancy!

 

[Nostra]

And the Constitution says the House has sole power of impeachment.

Actually, Feldman's argument isn't all that bad, and well worth a thorough consideration.

I find, it breaks down on the following counter-argument. What if the Senate simply refuses to accept the House managers, and does not accept the Articles of Impeachment? In that case, the House's sole power of Impeachment is dead. That means, making Impeachment contingent on Articles presented to the Senate in part transfers the Impeachment power to the Senate, in contravention of the "sole power" the Constitution provides. And that's why I find Feldman's argument fails.

Also, well worth a read is Prof. Bowman's argument argument against Pelosi's delay, which I also find quite compelling. But then, I am also "loath to second-guess the political judgment of Nancy Pelosi" - which usually turns out for second-guessers to look stupid, with egg and other substances on their face.

I read Feldman's opinion. I find little merit in it. In case you missed it, another Harvard Law professor, one who published a comprehensive book on impeachment, bitch slapped Feldman on Twitter. The replies were almost as entertaining.

View attachment 296025

Your letter article was very interesting. But I'm still loving Pelosi's decision to wait until after the recess to deliver the articles. If nothing else, I gauge the success of her political maneuver based ipon the unhingeness it's eliciting from the right.

Larry Tribe is a commie left wing hack with a law degree. Nothing more.

 

[Faun]

December 18th, 2019

View attachment 295947

Nope. Not official yet.

Please try again, Dumbfuck.

The House says it is and the House has sole power of impeachment.

You lose again because you're a loser.

Nope. Not official until transmitted to the Senate, Fuckwit.

So you say, but you're an abject imbecile.

The House says he's impeached...

View attachment 295955

And the Constitution says the House has sole power of impeachment.

Hmmm................who to believe...............a halfwit libnut fucktard on the innerwebs, or the Constitutional Expert on Impeachment the Dimwingers in the House called in to tell them about impeachment cuz they didn't know anything about it......



Hmmmm.........................

Fine with me, g'head and believe the Constitutional expert, Harvard Law professor...

 

[Faun]

And the Constitution says the House has sole power of impeachment.

Actually, Feldman's argument isn't all that bad, and well worth a thorough consideration.

I find, it breaks down on the following counter-argument. What if the Senate simply refuses to accept the House managers, and does not accept the Articles of Impeachment? In that case, the House's sole power of Impeachment is dead. That means, making Impeachment contingent on Articles presented to the Senate in part transfers the Impeachment power to the Senate, in contravention of the "sole power" the Constitution provides. And that's why I find Feldman's argument fails.

Also, well worth a read is Prof. Bowman's argument argument against Pelosi's delay, which I also find quite compelling. But then, I am also "loath to second-guess the political judgment of Nancy Pelosi" - which usually turns out for second-guessers to look stupid, with egg and other substances on their face.

I read Feldman's opinion. I find little merit in it. In case you missed it, another Harvard Law professor, one who published a comprehensive book on impeachment, bitch slapped Feldman on Twitter. The replies were almost as entertaining.

View attachment 296025

Your letter article was very interesting. But I'm still loving Pelosi's decision to wait until after the recess to deliver the articles. If nothing else, I gauge the success of her political maneuver based ipon the unhingeness it's eliciting from the right.

Larry Tribe is a commie left wing hack with a law degree. Nothing more.

^^^ Slobbers a dumbfuck who's in dire need of having his drool cup cleaned out.

Here's another Harvard Law professor chiming in...

"He would withhold the trial until the Senate agreed to change its rules, or presumably until a new election put many more Democrats in the Senate. Under his proposal, there might never be a Senate trial, but the impeachment would stand as a final and permanent condemnation of President Trump." ~ Alan Dershowitz​