Why We're Moving Forward With Impeachment

[IJTSSG]

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

That says what can happen. It doesn't say the Senate has to hold a trial.

 

[JEDIYoda]

That says what can happen. It doesn't say the Senate has to hold a trial.

Your an idiot!! We will forgive you that English is not your firdst language....which is probably Russian!
It says -- The senate shall have the sole power to try all impeqchments!1 -- That word -- Try -- means a trial....duh....

 

[IJTSSG]

Your an idiot!! We will forgive you that English is not your firdst language....which is probably Russian!
It says -- The senate shall have the sole power to try all impeqchments!1 -- That word -- Try -- means a trial....duh....

LoL.

 

[JEDIYoda]

That says what can happen. It doesn't say the Senate has to hold a trial.

Bull shit!! In order to have an impeachment there must be a trial!!Nice try though.....instead of playing word games which you asuck at -- why not post a link backing up your diatribe??

 

[IJTSSG]

Bull shit!! In order to have an impeachment there must be a trial!!Nice try though.....instead of playing word games which you asuck at -- why not post a link backing up your diatribe??

LoL.

 

[UglyCasanova]

So have we moved forward at all with the impeachment ?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Bull shit!! In order to have an impeachment there must be a trial!! Nice try though.....instead of playing word games which you asuck at -- why not post a link backing up your diatribe??

LoL.

So since thee is no link that you can provide the question is who do I trust more -- your word that something is so? or a non existant link that you cannot provide? Obviously anything Trumpsw your word! You don`t exactly have a track record that is based on honesty...lol TRIGGERED!!

 

[IJTSSG]

Bull shit!! In order to have an impeachment there must be a trial!! Nice try though.....instead of playing word games which you asuck at -- why not post a link backing up your diatribe??

LoL.

So since thee is no link that you can provide the question is who do I trust more -- your word that something is so? or a non existant link that you cannot provide? Obviously anything Trumpsw your word! You don`t exactly have a track record that is based on honesty...lol TRIGGERED!!

I provided a link in a previous post dummy. Drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Okay?

Sorry, I should have commented. I just thought it would be useful to have in the discussion exactly what the Constitution says the Senates duties are for an Impeachment.
The term 'sole power' has been deemed in other cases concerning other question to include the ability to not do the thing, so from that I would agree that they could decide to not to hold a trial, but the fact that the Chief Justice presides over it that I think changes things. In my reading once the House voting to impeach is what starts the trial, and at that point the Chief Justice is then the one in charge, not the Senate Majority leader or Vice President, so he would be the one to decide if and when the trial would start. It is the specific wording of the Constitution that states that once the House votes affirmative on articles of impeachment the trial has at that point begun, otherwise what does impeachment even mean?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I'm looking further ahead. People like Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren suggest an unforgiving sentiment for a Trump out of office. Back in 2007 or 2008, there was talk of holding Bush accountable for the Iraq War and myriad corruption issues, but the Dems sent out a signal that they would rather let all be forgiven and move forward. Somewhere, there are probably clips of Obama holding the same sentiment. But now, the above-mentioned opposition leadership wants to see Trump in Super Max.

I certainly do.

Then, MSNBC can feature him on the weekend "Lockup" reality-TV seasons. It's beyond realistic to see him get 99 years in the electric chair, but I imagine an exchange such as this:

"So . . . Inmate Trump -- prisoner number 666 -- tell us about the oranges of the Russian investigation . . . "

"Bzzzz . . . Bzzz-t . . . Bzzzzzz! I've made some pretty good Pruno from the oranges here . . . Bzzzzt! Bzzzzzz . . . Crack! Bzzzzz! But those Hoax oranges were pretty bad . . . Bzzzzt! Bzzzzz! They were all out to get me! It's so obvious! Bzzzz-Bzzzzzt! I've been set up! Framed! Bzzz-crackle-Bzzzt . . . . Bigly -- Big League!"

"Well, you're big-league yourself here in Super Max!"

"Bzzzzt! It's not so great. And now that the Clintons have killed my friend Jeffrey . . Bzzzz! There's nobody to share stories with about the young stuff . . . BZZZZt!"

 

[fskimospy]

The pressure for the next president to pretend Trump never happened and to let bygones be bygones will be very strong and something they must resist for the sake of the country. We aren’t talking about policy differences here, we are talking about blatant criminal activity and even worse, criminal activity abusing the powers of the presidency for personal gain. The next president should simply allow the justice department to pursue any charges it finds relevant against any prior administration official, which I suspect will be quite a few.

Yes, Republicans will scream bloody murder. They are part of the problem though so they should be ignored.

Honestly it seems pretty likely that the Republicans will keep the senate even if a Democrat wins so if that happens then no policy is being made anyway so why not undertake a mission to rehabilitate the rule of law?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm looking forward to all the dirty laundry being hung out.

Me too. It's going to be a circus, I'm sure.

If the Democrats were smarter (they're not) they'd focus less on trying to impeach Trump out of office and more on figuring out how to win the Presidential election by crafting and promoting a policy platform that a majority of Americans including the swing voters who voted for Trump in 2016 would support.

 

[cytg111]

Me too. It's going to be a circus, I'm sure.

If the Democrats were smarter (they're not) they'd focus less on trying to impeach Trump out of office and more on figuring out how to win the Presidential election by crafting and promoting a policy platform that a majority of Americans including the swing voters who voted for Trump in 2016 would support.

Do both?
Impeachment has the potential to control the narrative in regards to "Trump news" and drown out whatever bigoted shit his going to center his campaign around... while the other hand is serving up delicious democrat polices and paradigme shifts for 2020. I like it.

 

[cytg111]

I provided a link in a previous post dummy. Drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.

I can stop drinking, you on the other hand are stuck with stupid.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I can stop drinking, you on the other hand are stuck with stupid.

I'd say that whether or not you like the guy isn't important, but whether or not he's right and I think he is. Their is no mandate in the Constitution which says the Senate must try after impeachment most likely because those who wrote it assumed that future generations wouldn't have decended into worthless chattel and would do their duty. Whatever the Senate does will result in no adverse consequences for Trump, which is why I agree with others that impeachment should serve as a process of illumination to expose as much as possible before the election.

 

[cytg111]

I'd say that whether or not you like the guy isn't important, but whether or not he's right and I think he is. Their is no mandate in the Constitution which says the Senate must try after impeachment most likely because those who wrote it assumed that future generations wouldn't have decended into worthless chattel and would do their duty. Whatever the Senate does will result in no adverse consequences for Trump, which is why I agree with others that impeachment should serve as a process of illumination to expose as much as possible before the election.

And I totally agree... noone is expecting this to pass the senate, but it can take up some air time... About my reply, that was just an autoreply to a toxic post.

 

[IJTSSG]

I can stop drinking, you on the other hand are stuck with stupid.

Why did you answer that comment? It wasn't directed at you. Are you confused about which account you're using this morning?

 

[cytg111]

Why did you answer that comment? It wasn't directed at you. Are you confused about which account you're using this morning?

And I welcome any mod to cross reference IP adresses, browsers, browser versions, tracking cookies, with any other member on here thanks .
If anyone is suspected of being a #moscowbot, I think its you (and slow).

 

[IJTSSG]

And I welcome any mod to cross reference IP adresses, browsers, browser versions, tracking cookies, with any other member on here thanks .
If anyone is suspected of being a #moscowbot, I think its you (and slow).

Why did you respond to that comment when it clearly wasn't directed at you?

 

[cytg111]

Why did you respond to that comment when it clearly wasn't directed at you?

I suppose your error was to not do it in a pm? Out here, it is all fair game.

 

[brycejones]

Why did you respond to that comment when it clearly wasn't directed at you?

Don’t post in a public forum if you don’t want responses

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Do both?

That would be fine, my concern is that I think they're just going to focus on impeachment while failing to craft a platform that most Americans would support. If they jump on the racial reparations bandwagon and then advocate for all but open borders in name and free health care for anyone who crosses the border, they might drive away lots of voters.

 

[UglyCasanova]

If they jump on the racial reparations bandwagon and then advocate for all but open borders in name and free health care for anyone who crosses the border, they might drive away lots of voters.

It definitely will. It’s the Dems election to lose and that would do the trick.

 

[tweaker2]

Of course, Pelosi can make or break the Dems efforts toward getting Trump ousted whether voluntarily or by force. If she can run a tight orderly ship, keep her youngster Reps from revolting and going off on a jaunt to the left of left while structuring a clear mission statement that is supported and promoted by her caucus (yes, including the DINO's) AND time her impeachment of Trump at the most ideal moment for maximum impact chances are good things will end well for her party.

Don't know how the upcoming presidential elections are going affect Trump's chances of getting successfully impeached, but if it looks like those folks who could have went either way are walking away in droves from Trump, it may be enough for McConnell to decide that it would be better for the party's future if Trump got the 'ol rail ride out of office.

 

[cytg111]

#MoscowMitch is all in on this one, for reasons we can hope to read about in history books 20 years from now.