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

[Nostra]

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...

View attachment 296026

Larry Tribe sucks George Soros's shriveled cock.

Sounds like your kind of guy.

 

[lantern2814]

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!

I’ll type slowly so that even an illiterate little yellow coward like, you with no brain cells might understand. The process has NOT been completed moron. Thus you have no impeachment per the Dims OWN WITNESS. Quoting the same one guy over and over doesn’t change that. You’ve been getting your ass kicked all over this thread you brain dead moron. But keep spinning and lying. Just proving the fact that you are uneducated as we’ll as a stark COWARD. Denying your own words. You are the unhinged one. Enjoy 5 more years of Trump.

 

[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.

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...

View attachment 296026

Larry Tribe sucks George Soros's shriveled cock.

Sounds like your kind of guy.

LOL

Poke a conservatives, find a closet queen who fantasizes about gay sex.

 

[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!

I’ll type slowly so that even an illiterate little yellow coward like, you with no brain cells might understand. The process has NOT been completed moron. Thus you have no impeachment per the Dims OWN WITNESS. Quoting the same one guy over and over doesn’t change that. You’ve been getting your ass kicked all over this thread you brain dead moron. But keep spinning and lying. Just proving the fact that you are uneducated as we’ll as a stark COWARD. Denying your own words. You are the unhinged one. Enjoy 5 more years of Trump.

LOLOLOL

Poor, deranged rightard. What part of "sole power" are you incapable of understanding?

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

Impeachment is what the House says it is -- and the House says Trump is impeached. That's never going away. Not ever.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

What happened to the danger president Trump presents to America that nan was blowing up your ass?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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!

I’ll type slowly so that even an illiterate little yellow coward like, you with no brain cells might understand. The process has NOT been completed moron. Thus you have no impeachment per the Dims OWN WITNESS. Quoting the same one guy over and over doesn’t change that. You’ve been getting your ass kicked all over this thread you brain dead moron. But keep spinning and lying. Just proving the fact that you are uneducated as we’ll as a stark COWARD. Denying your own words. You are the unhinged one. Enjoy 5 more years of Trump.

LOLOLOL

Poor, deranged rightard. What part of "sole power" are you incapable of understanding?

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

Impeachment is what the House says it is -- and the House says Trump is impeached. That's never going away. Not ever.

And the President is still appointing judges to the bench and leading the country
I thought democrats said Trump was a danger to America.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Because you wrote
"So Johnson couldn't run again??"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Plainly, Congress has similar ministerial acts of transference that must occur in order for legislation to pass.

 

[Care4all]

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.

What happened to the danger president Trump presents to America that nan was blowing up your ass?

he was temporarily curbed from colluding with Foreign leaders to give himself an advantage in the upcoming elections and temporarily curbed from withholding military aid for allied countries... as an advantage to self deal, also....

Removal from office, and taking his crooked fallen angel admin with him, is the only thing that can stop his threat to our Nation.... the sooner, the better! Removal by impeachment now would be best, but in the election in November would suffice!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

What happened to the danger president Trump presents to America that nan was blowing up your ass?

he was temporarily curbed from colluding with Foreign leaders to give himself an advantage in the upcoming elections and temporarily curbed from withholding military aid for allied countries... as an advantage to self deal, also....

Removal from office, and taking his crooked fallen angel admin with him, is the only thing that can stop his threat to our Nation.... the sooner, the better! Removal by impeachment now would be best, but in the election in November would suffice!

Why do you think Trump believes he needed help from a foreign government to beat the presidential candidates in the democrat party? Hell, even the democrats believe they can't beat the president.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Senate conducts a trial - tries all cases of impeachment - meaning that the Senate along with the House Impeachment managers (the prosecution) form a court.

There's no constitutional mandate for this - the House has no constitutionally specified role in the impeachment trial.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Obstruction only exists with a concrete demonstration of corrupt intent;

The corrupt intent is to keep witnesses from testifying and documents from establishing facts before a Congressional Impeachment Investigation.

Trump is forcing Congress

Why? If he did nothing wrong then simply letting people directly involved testify would clear him of all these accusations...right?

The bullshit is right under your nose and you still don't smell it.

It is, and the people not smelling it are those who believe Trump obstructed Congress.

 

[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.

What happened to the danger president Trump presents to America that nan was blowing up your ass?

That became moot the day McConnell announced he would not hold an impartial trial and was working directly with Impeached Trump to ensure an acquittal regardless of what the evidence would show.

 

[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!

I’ll type slowly so that even an illiterate little yellow coward like, you with no brain cells might understand. The process has NOT been completed moron. Thus you have no impeachment per the Dims OWN WITNESS. Quoting the same one guy over and over doesn’t change that. You’ve been getting your ass kicked all over this thread you brain dead moron. But keep spinning and lying. Just proving the fact that you are uneducated as we’ll as a stark COWARD. Denying your own words. You are the unhinged one. Enjoy 5 more years of Trump.

LOLOLOL

Poor, deranged rightard. What part of "sole power" are you incapable of understanding?

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

Impeachment is what the House says it is -- and the House says Trump is impeached. That's never going away. Not ever.

And the President is still appointing judges to the bench and leading the country
I thought democrats said Trump was a danger to America.

So? Who said he was no longer president?

 

[Faun]

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.

Because you wrote
"So Johnson couldn't run again??"

Because willhaftawaite idiotically said he couldn't.

 

[Faun]

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.

Plainly, Congress has similar ministerial acts of transference that must occur in order for legislation to pass.

It matters not if these articles pass or not in terms of Impeached Trump is already Impeached and will remain so.

 

[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.

What happened to the danger president Trump presents to America that nan was blowing up your ass?

That became moot the day McConnell announced he would not hold an impartial trial and was working directly with Impeached Trump to ensure an acquittal regardless of what the evidence would show.

Mitch watched how the Nazi's in the House ran their farce on nothing but hearsay, and has concluded you have nothing.............just like all thinking Americans, Fuckwit.

 

[Nostra]

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.

Plainly, Congress has similar ministerial acts of transference that must occur in order for legislation to pass.

It matters not if these articles pass or not in terms of Impeached Trump is already Impeached and will remain so.

Nope. Not yet, Chowderhead.

 

[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.

What happened to the danger president Trump presents to America that nan was blowing up your ass?

That became moot the day McConnell announced he would not hold an impartial trial and was working directly with Impeached Trump to ensure an acquittal regardless of what the evidence would show.

Mitch watched how the Nazi's in the House ran their farce on nothing but hearsay, and has concluded you have nothing.............just like all thinking Americans, Fuckwit.

 

[Faun]

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.

Plainly, Congress has similar ministerial acts of transference that must occur in order for legislation to pass.

It matters not if these articles pass or not in terms of Impeached Trump is already Impeached and will remain so.

Nope. Not yet, Chowderhead.

Yup, yet. You already said you trust the opinion of Harvard Law professors and I've now quoted two of them saying he was impeached on December 18th and remains impeached.