Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 66,578
- 48,407
I dont think clinton cared about the democrat party once he left office
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Schumer's pipe dream, a trial with.....you know.....evidence.
- Thread starter berg80
- Start date
No, seriously. The president is not being tried for criminal charges, and this is not a criminal proceeding because there are no criminal charges. Therefore, the Senate Republicans have a lot more leeway to run things the way they want to. They can, for example, tell Schumer to pound sand because they won't cover for the House doing a sloppy investigation. They can also keep the democrats in session through campaign season if they want to, applying pressure to get a bipartisan acquittal. They have a lot of options.Now you’re just playing semantics.And that's not included in the articles of impeachment, so it's a totally moot point. There are no criminal offenses in the articles.Now hold on here. Unless it is a jury trial, the judge absolutely determines guilt, and in the case of a dispute between the branches of government, the courts decide who has the ultimate right to enforce their will.A judge merely presides over trial. They do not make determinations of guilt. The president can only be put on trial by the Senate after impeachment of the House. The court cannot decide if what Trump is doing constitutes obstruction.And who presides over a trial? A judge. And we've come full circle. Yes, the courts do decide if the executive branch has a strong enough argument why it should not have to comply with a demand from the legislative. They've been doing it for a long time.
Obstruction of justice is a criminal offense and gets a jury trial.
Nostra
Diamond Member
- Oct 7, 2019
- 65,898
- 56,733
Trump isn't charged with "obstruction of justice", Moron.Now hold on here. Unless it is a jury trial, the judge absolutely determines guilt, and in the case of a dispute between the branches of government, the courts decide who has the ultimate right to enforce their will.A judge merely presides over trial. They do not make determinations of guilt. The president can only be put on trial by the Senate after impeachment of the House. The court cannot decide if what Trump is doing constitutes obstruction.And who presides over a trial? A judge. And we've come full circle. Yes, the courts do decide if the executive branch has a strong enough argument why it should not have to comply with a demand from the legislative. They've been doing it for a long time.And that's for the courts to decide, something Schiff refused to get clarified. Thus, it's untenable to claim Trump is obstructing.
No, it’s not for the courts to decide. Judges don’t decide if obstruction occurred. Trials do.
Obstruction of justice is a criminal offense and gets a jury trial.
Nostra
Diamond Member
- Oct 7, 2019
- 65,898
- 56,733
Oh? Point out where the Constitution instructs the House to pass Articles of Impeachment to the Senate...Lindsey GrahamVerified account @LindseyGrahamSC
If House Dems refuse to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial it would be a breathtaking violation of the Constitution, an act of political cowardice, and fundamentally unfair to President @realdonaldTrump.
5:14 AM - 19 Dec 2019
12,642 replies12,005 retweets39,927 likes
New conversation
Lindsey GrahamVerified account @LindseyGrahamSC 4h4 hours ago
Not allowing the Senate to act on approved Articles of Impeachment becomes Constitutional extortion and creates chaos for the presidency. It also sets in motion a tremendous threat to our Constitutional system of checks and balances.
3,083 replies6,155 retweets19,984 likes
What is driving this crazy idea? Democrats have finally realized they have a very WEAK case which NEVER should have been brought forward to begin with.
2,493 replies5,740 retweets20,639 likes
Nancy Pelosi’s threat to refuse to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for disposition is an incredibly dumb and dangerous idea. There is a reason one person can’t be Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader at the same time!
1,510 replies2,042 retweets7,217 likes
Point out in the Constitution where it says the Speaker gets to dictate how the Senate conducts the trial.
Nostra
Diamond Member
- Oct 7, 2019
- 65,898
- 56,733
Right here:Oh? Point out where the Constitution instructs the House to pass Articles of Impeachment to the Senate...Lindsey GrahamVerified account @LindseyGrahamSC
If House Dems refuse to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial it would be a breathtaking violation of the Constitution, an act of political cowardice, and fundamentally unfair to President @realdonaldTrump.
5:14 AM - 19 Dec 2019
12,642 replies12,005 retweets39,927 likes
New conversation
Not allowing the Senate to act on approved Articles of Impeachment becomes Constitutional extortion and creates chaos for the presidency. It also sets in motion a tremendous threat to our Constitutional system of checks and balances.
3,083 replies6,155 retweets19,984 likes
What is driving this crazy idea? Democrats have finally realized they have a very WEAK case which NEVER should have been brought forward to begin with.
2,493 replies5,740 retweets20,639 likes
Nancy Pelosi’s threat to refuse to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for disposition is an incredibly dumb and dangerous idea. There is a reason one person can’t be Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader at the same time!
1,510 replies2,042 retweets7,217 likes
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
If this is, in fact, an impeachment the Senate SHALL HAVE THE POWER to try it. It is out of Nazi's hands, or Trump wasn't impeached.
Suck on that, Dumbfuck.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,353
- 80,986
That's simply not true. Now you're just making up shit. Clinton had JARs as high the mid to high 60's before being impeached and left office with JARs in the mid to high 60's.That Bubba retired with higher approval numbers than before being impeached. His VP losing had more to do with his inability to even hold his own state.Again, how was it good for Clinton? His party still lost both chambers of Congress in the 1998 election and list them again in the 2000 election where his VP also lost his bid for the White House.If you want to go by history, it's good for the president being impeached. Expect Trump to win re-election and be virtually unchallenged in whatever he wants to do, because trying this again would be really stupid.Republicans impeached Clinton in 1998. Republicans won the House and Senate later that same year. Republicans also won the White House, House and Senate in the ensuing election.Only because Bubba was not up for re-election. If he was,Well, yes, you did. You said....
"But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election"
You were clearly talking about the election, not poll numbers. You only switched to poll numbers after I pointed out Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton. The reality is, the impeachment had no discernible effect on the election.
Seems your point is impeaching a president is good for the party impeaching the president.
I'm not getting your point here.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,353
- 80,986
Nothing was confirmed stop lyingLOLMore lies. The whistleblower's complaint was a pile of lies.There's no whistleblower? Yet everything in his/her complaint has been verified. Pelosi was against impeachment until after the WB became public. The call was a quid pro quo.My wish? My wish is to have this matter taken seriously. The whistleblower cannot indict or exonerate the president. They aren’t actually the “accuser”.
I am not even convinced this is a real whistleblower. IMO, this is a person who colluded with Schiff to find anything that Schiff could use to try to impeach, no matter how weak. This would explain why Pelosi said they were going to impeach BEFORE the information from the whistleblower was actually released. She knew about it all along. She jumped the gun. She also made the assumption that the call with the Ukraine would be a sure quid pro quo, which it wasn't. The whole thing stinks to high heavens and now that she is saying she may not release the article of impeachment to the Senate, it stinks even more. A pure, unadulterated witch hunt...again.
Do not take that tin foil hat off under any circumstances. I don't think you could handle the shock of what reality actually is.
Lying fucking moron, almost everything in the whistleblower's complaint was confirmed in the House impeachment hearings.
Siete
Platinum Member
- May 19, 2014
- 34,325
- 3,988
Oh? Point out where the Constitution instructs the House to pass Articles of Impeachment to the Senate...Lindsey GrahamVerified account @LindseyGrahamSC
If House Dems refuse to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial it would be a breathtaking violation of the Constitution, an act of political cowardice, and fundamentally unfair to President @realdonaldTrump.
5:14 AM - 19 Dec 2019
12,642 replies12,005 retweets39,927 likes
New conversation
Not allowing the Senate to act on approved Articles of Impeachment becomes Constitutional extortion and creates chaos for the presidency. It also sets in motion a tremendous threat to our Constitutional system of checks and balances.
3,083 replies6,155 retweets19,984 likes
What is driving this crazy idea? Democrats have finally realized they have a very WEAK case which NEVER should have been brought forward to begin with.
2,493 replies5,740 retweets20,639 likes
Nancy Pelosi’s threat to refuse to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for disposition is an incredibly dumb and dangerous idea. There is a reason one person can’t be Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader at the same time!
1,510 replies2,042 retweets7,217 likes
Point out in the Constitution where it says the Speaker gets to dictate how the Senate conducts the trial.
SO YOU CAN INGORE WHAT IT SAYS ?
YOU POINT OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE PELOSI IS BREAKING A LAW.
waiting ........................
colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,843
It would help the man in his civil suit against the caller and the police when they arrest him for filing a false report. It's very interesting to me that on the one hand, you're completely gung ho for transparency, need to know everything, just everything, but when it comes to the supposed ignition point, you can't be bothered to even look. In fact, you're likely to get whiplash from your head snapping around so much. I think it's because you know that the WB isn't the real genesis of this. That happened a long time ago, before anything to do with Ukraine.Even better. To incorporate what you want in the analogy, the person who calls the police says he heard one of the group that hates the new guy say that he beat his wife. Think the police would be interested in interviewing him? Yup.There’s a huge problem with your “complete” analogy. The whistleblower has never claimed to have directly witnessed anything, unlike the caller in your hypothetical.Only because Bubba was not up for re-election. If he was,Well, yes, you did. You said....
"But impeachment is a political process and mrs clintons husband got the better of the repubs in the next election"
You were clearly talking about the election, not poll numbers. You only switched to poll numbers after I pointed out Republicans won the House and Senate after impeaching Clinton. The reality is, the impeachment had no discernible effect on the election.
1. A witness does not need to be an accuser. He simply needs to be someone who witnessed something happen.The testimony heard before the committee is being used as evidence against him.
The whistleblower complaint was only critical at identifying where the evidence was. It’s analogous to a person who calls the police saying they heard a gunshot. The police arrive to see a man standing over a body with a gun in their hand. Is the caller the “accuser” here? They were critical to identifying where to look for the crime but not critical in the least at any part of a conviction.
Here’s how I see Republicans making this process so disappointing. They don’t want to hear from sources closest to the president’s actions. They do want to hear sources furthest away. That’s not a group of people interested in the truth.
2. Your analogy is incomplete. It is better described as a group of people who complain about their neighbor for 3 years after he moves in next door and publicly vow to force him out of the neighborhood. Then, one night, one of them calls the police to complain that he saw the neighbor beating his wife. When the police arrive, however, they find a happy wife in the house bearing no signs of abuse and saying that nothing occurred. They then interview the rest of the neighbors who hated the guy, and several of them say they heard one of the others saying he beat his wife and burned her with cigarettes, but didn't actually see it themselves. They just assumed that he was doing it. One of the neighbors says he was actually in the guy's house, and not only saw no abuse, but could clearly see that the wife was happy and unharmed.
Should the caller be interviewed to find out what he actually knew? Yes.
Is the caller an accuser here? Yes.
Exactly how would talking to the caller help determine if the man is beating his wife?
Sounds like that would be an entirely separate matter and has no part in impeachment hearings. Besides, you haven’t established anything about a false report. In fact, the IG confirmed the credibility of the report and witnesses have largely corroborated it.
I’m for transparency, but this isn’t an effort at transparency. It’s intimidation and diversion.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,353
- 80,986
LOLOLOLRight here:Oh? Point out where the Constitution instructs the House to pass Articles of Impeachment to the Senate...Lindsey GrahamVerified account @LindseyGrahamSC
If House Dems refuse to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial it would be a breathtaking violation of the Constitution, an act of political cowardice, and fundamentally unfair to President @realdonaldTrump.
5:14 AM - 19 Dec 2019
12,642 replies12,005 retweets39,927 likes
New conversation
Not allowing the Senate to act on approved Articles of Impeachment becomes Constitutional extortion and creates chaos for the presidency. It also sets in motion a tremendous threat to our Constitutional system of checks and balances.
3,083 replies6,155 retweets19,984 likes
What is driving this crazy idea? Democrats have finally realized they have a very WEAK case which NEVER should have been brought forward to begin with.
2,493 replies5,740 retweets20,639 likes
Nancy Pelosi’s threat to refuse to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for disposition is an incredibly dumb and dangerous idea. There is a reason one person can’t be Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader at the same time!
1,510 replies2,042 retweets7,217 likes
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
If this is, in fact, an impeachment the Senate SHALL HAVE THE POWER to try it. It is out of Nazi's hands, or Trump wasn't impeached.
Suck on that, Dumbfuck.
Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.
What's your point? A president gets impeached and leave office with numbers in the 60's. Didn't hurt him very much, did it? Of course, losing his law license for a while and having his handlers pay 90K+ in fines wasn't much fun, but his approval numbers held strong.That's simply not true. Now you're just making up shit. Clinton had JARs as high the mid to high 60's before being impeached and left office with JARs in the mid to high 60's.That Bubba retired with higher approval numbers than before being impeached. His VP losing had more to do with his inability to even hold his own state.Again, how was it good for Clinton? His party still lost both chambers of Congress in the 1998 election and list them again in the 2000 election where his VP also lost his bid for the White House.If you want to go by history, it's good for the president being impeached. Expect Trump to win re-election and be virtually unchallenged in whatever he wants to do, because trying this again would be really stupid.Republicans impeached Clinton in 1998. Republicans won the House and Senate later that same year. Republicans also won the White House, House and Senate in the ensuing election.Only because Bubba was not up for re-election. If he was,
Seems your point is impeaching a president is good for the party impeaching the president.
I'm not getting your point here.
colfax_m
Diamond Member
- Nov 18, 2019
- 38,988
- 14,843
The president can’t be tried for criminal charges. He can only be impeached. That’s why the courts don’t have a part to play in determining if he is guilty or obstruction. Don’t forget where this is coming from.No, seriously. The president is not being tried for criminal charges, and this is not a criminal proceeding because there are no criminal charges. Therefore, the Senate Republicans have a lot more leeway to run things the way they want to. They can, for example, tell Schumer to pound sand because they won't cover for the House doing a sloppy investigation. They can also keep the democrats in session through campaign season if they want to, applying pressure to get a bipartisan acquittal. They have a lot of options.Now you’re just playing semantics.And that's not included in the articles of impeachment, so it's a totally moot point. There are no criminal offenses in the articles.Now hold on here. Unless it is a jury trial, the judge absolutely determines guilt, and in the case of a dispute between the branches of government, the courts decide who has the ultimate right to enforce their will.A judge merely presides over trial. They do not make determinations of guilt. The president can only be put on trial by the Senate after impeachment of the House. The court cannot decide if what Trump is doing constitutes obstruction.
Obstruction of justice is a criminal offense and gets a jury trial.
If the Senate Republicans want to turn this into a quest for truth into a charade, there’s very little I can do to stop them. But let’s at least acknowledge the fact that they aren’t fulfilling the role the founders intended.
It's not a separate matter when it comes to judging the integrity of the process and ultimately the quality of the evidence. If Schiff mishandled things, he needs to be held accountable. You're still trying to avoid transparency on this.It would help the man in his civil suit against the caller and the police when they arrest him for filing a false report. It's very interesting to me that on the one hand, you're completely gung ho for transparency, need to know everything, just everything, but when it comes to the supposed ignition point, you can't be bothered to even look. In fact, you're likely to get whiplash from your head snapping around so much. I think it's because you know that the WB isn't the real genesis of this. That happened a long time ago, before anything to do with Ukraine.Even better. To incorporate what you want in the analogy, the person who calls the police says he heard one of the group that hates the new guy say that he beat his wife. Think the police would be interested in interviewing him? Yup.There’s a huge problem with your “complete” analogy. The whistleblower has never claimed to have directly witnessed anything, unlike the caller in your hypothetical.Only because Bubba was not up for re-election. If he was,
1. A witness does not need to be an accuser. He simply needs to be someone who witnessed something happen.
2. Your analogy is incomplete. It is better described as a group of people who complain about their neighbor for 3 years after he moves in next door and publicly vow to force him out of the neighborhood. Then, one night, one of them calls the police to complain that he saw the neighbor beating his wife. When the police arrive, however, they find a happy wife in the house bearing no signs of abuse and saying that nothing occurred. They then interview the rest of the neighbors who hated the guy, and several of them say they heard one of the others saying he beat his wife and burned her with cigarettes, but didn't actually see it themselves. They just assumed that he was doing it. One of the neighbors says he was actually in the guy's house, and not only saw no abuse, but could clearly see that the wife was happy and unharmed.
Should the caller be interviewed to find out what he actually knew? Yes.
Is the caller an accuser here? Yes.
Exactly how would talking to the caller help determine if the man is beating his wife?
Sounds like that would be an entirely separate matter and has no part in impeachment hearings. Besides, you haven’t established anything about a false report. In fact, the IG confirmed the credibility of the report and witnesses have largely corroborated it.
I’m for transparency, but this isn’t an effort at transparency. It’s intimidation and diversion.
Nostra
Diamond Member
- Oct 7, 2019
- 65,898
- 56,733
LOLOLOLRight here:Oh? Point out where the Constitution instructs the House to pass Articles of Impeachment to the Senate...Lindsey GrahamVerified account @LindseyGrahamSC
If House Dems refuse to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial it would be a breathtaking violation of the Constitution, an act of political cowardice, and fundamentally unfair to President @realdonaldTrump.
5:14 AM - 19 Dec 2019
12,642 replies12,005 retweets39,927 likes
New conversation
Not allowing the Senate to act on approved Articles of Impeachment becomes Constitutional extortion and creates chaos for the presidency. It also sets in motion a tremendous threat to our Constitutional system of checks and balances.
3,083 replies6,155 retweets19,984 likes
What is driving this crazy idea? Democrats have finally realized they have a very WEAK case which NEVER should have been brought forward to begin with.
2,493 replies5,740 retweets20,639 likes
Nancy Pelosi’s threat to refuse to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for disposition is an incredibly dumb and dangerous idea. There is a reason one person can’t be Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader at the same time!
1,510 replies2,042 retweets7,217 likes
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
If this is, in fact, an impeachment the Senate SHALL HAVE THE POWER to try it. It is out of Nazi's hands, or Trump wasn't impeached.
Suck on that, Dumbfuck.
Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.
You asked where the Constitution says she had to send it to the Senate. I showed you where it says she does. You lose.
Now you want to move the goalposts.
If she doesn't send it, she is in violation of the Constitution, Fuckwit.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,353
- 80,986
I'm still not getting your point? Sounds like you're saying Democrats will win the Executive branch, House and Senate in 2020 and that Trump will vacate the White House in January 2021 with a higher job approval rating than the 45% he currently enjoys.What's your point? A president gets impeached and leave office with numbers in the 60's. Didn't hurt him very much, did it? Of course, losing his law license for a while and having his handlers pay 90K+ in fines wasn't much fun, but his approval numbers held strong.That's simply not true. Now you're just making up shit. Clinton had JARs as high the mid to high 60's before being impeached and left office with JARs in the mid to high 60's.That Bubba retired with higher approval numbers than before being impeached. His VP losing had more to do with his inability to even hold his own state.Again, how was it good for Clinton? His party still lost both chambers of Congress in the 1998 election and list them again in the 2000 election where his VP also lost his bid for the White House.If you want to go by history, it's good for the president being impeached. Expect Trump to win re-election and be virtually unchallenged in whatever he wants to do, because trying this again would be really stupid.Republicans impeached Clinton in 1998. Republicans won the House and Senate later that same year. Republicans also won the White House, House and Senate in the ensuing election.
Seems your point is impeaching a president is good for the party impeaching the president.
I'm not getting your point here.
Their role, as intended by the FF, was to TRY the case presented by the House. It is not to cover for sloppy investigative work or to dig up additional information that the House didn't bother to get. It is to try the case as it is presented. You calling that a charade means you don't understand their role at all.The president can’t be tried for criminal charges. He can only be impeached. That’s why the courts don’t have a part to play in determining if he is guilty or obstruction. Don’t forget where this is coming from.No, seriously. The president is not being tried for criminal charges, and this is not a criminal proceeding because there are no criminal charges. Therefore, the Senate Republicans have a lot more leeway to run things the way they want to. They can, for example, tell Schumer to pound sand because they won't cover for the House doing a sloppy investigation. They can also keep the democrats in session through campaign season if they want to, applying pressure to get a bipartisan acquittal. They have a lot of options.Now you’re just playing semantics.And that's not included in the articles of impeachment, so it's a totally moot point. There are no criminal offenses in the articles.Now hold on here. Unless it is a jury trial, the judge absolutely determines guilt, and in the case of a dispute between the branches of government, the courts decide who has the ultimate right to enforce their will.
Obstruction of justice is a criminal offense and gets a jury trial.
If the Senate Republicans want to turn this into a quest for truth into a charade, there’s very little I can do to stop them. But let’s at least acknowledge the fact that they aren’t fulfilling the role the founders intended.
Of course not, she has to have time to collude with Senate democrats.LOLOLOLRight here:Oh? Point out where the Constitution instructs the House to pass Articles of Impeachment to the Senate...Lindsey GrahamVerified account @LindseyGrahamSC
If House Dems refuse to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial it would be a breathtaking violation of the Constitution, an act of political cowardice, and fundamentally unfair to President @realdonaldTrump.
5:14 AM - 19 Dec 2019
12,642 replies12,005 retweets39,927 likes
New conversation
Not allowing the Senate to act on approved Articles of Impeachment becomes Constitutional extortion and creates chaos for the presidency. It also sets in motion a tremendous threat to our Constitutional system of checks and balances.
3,083 replies6,155 retweets19,984 likes
What is driving this crazy idea? Democrats have finally realized they have a very WEAK case which NEVER should have been brought forward to begin with.
2,493 replies5,740 retweets20,639 likes
Nancy Pelosi’s threat to refuse to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for disposition is an incredibly dumb and dangerous idea. There is a reason one person can’t be Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader at the same time!
1,510 replies2,042 retweets7,217 likes
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
If this is, in fact, an impeachment the Senate SHALL HAVE THE POWER to try it. It is out of Nazi's hands, or Trump wasn't impeached.
Suck on that, Dumbfuck.
Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.
Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,205
Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.
Indeed, she can keep them parked up her anus as long as she so desires. However, her idea that in holding them she gains some leverage over the Republican Senate is laughable.
Siete
Platinum Member
- May 19, 2014
- 34,325
- 3,988
LOLOLOLRight here:Oh? Point out where the Constitution instructs the House to pass Articles of Impeachment to the Senate...Lindsey GrahamVerified account @LindseyGrahamSC
If House Dems refuse to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial it would be a breathtaking violation of the Constitution, an act of political cowardice, and fundamentally unfair to President @realdonaldTrump.
5:14 AM - 19 Dec 2019
12,642 replies12,005 retweets39,927 likes
New conversation
Not allowing the Senate to act on approved Articles of Impeachment becomes Constitutional extortion and creates chaos for the presidency. It also sets in motion a tremendous threat to our Constitutional system of checks and balances.
3,083 replies6,155 retweets19,984 likes
What is driving this crazy idea? Democrats have finally realized they have a very WEAK case which NEVER should have been brought forward to begin with.
2,493 replies5,740 retweets20,639 likes
Nancy Pelosi’s threat to refuse to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for disposition is an incredibly dumb and dangerous idea. There is a reason one person can’t be Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader at the same time!
1,510 replies2,042 retweets7,217 likes
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
If this is, in fact, an impeachment the Senate SHALL HAVE THE POWER to try it. It is out of Nazi's hands, or Trump wasn't impeached.
Suck on that, Dumbfuck.
Dumbfuck, it doesn't say the House has immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is no timeframe.
she can send them to the impeachment hearing JUDGE AND JURY !
(if she can find them)
Sure, good luck with making that happen. I'm not saying anything will happen beyond Trump will be in office until January, 2021. I am saying that impeachment followed by acquittal doesn't seem to harm a president a whole lot. We have unique circumstance here, because Trump is in his first term, unlike Bubba.I'm still not getting your point? Sounds like you're saying Democrats will win the Executive branch, House and Senate in 2020 and that Trump will vacate the White House in January 2021 with a higher job approval rating than the 45% he currently enjoys.What's your point? A president gets impeached and leave office with numbers in the 60's. Didn't hurt him very much, did it? Of course, losing his law license for a while and having his handlers pay 90K+ in fines wasn't much fun, but his approval numbers held strong.That's simply not true. Now you're just making up shit. Clinton had JARs as high the mid to high 60's before being impeached and left office with JARs in the mid to high 60's.That Bubba retired with higher approval numbers than before being impeached. His VP losing had more to do with his inability to even hold his own state.Again, how was it good for Clinton? His party still lost both chambers of Congress in the 1998 election and list them again in the 2000 election where his VP also lost his bid for the White House.If you want to go by history, it's good for the president being impeached. Expect Trump to win re-election and be virtually unchallenged in whatever he wants to do, because trying this again would be really stupid.
I'm not getting your point here.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 46
- Views
- 502
- Replies
- 129
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 101
- Replies
- 72
- Views
- 358
- Replies
- 246
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 378
- Views
- 2K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8496
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 482
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-