The first domino has finally been played...

AlwaysWrite

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
Greg T. said:
Click to expand...
It was more than obvious that Pelosi (and House Democrats) would never allow the Republicans to have input regarding how they should conduct impeachment proceedings, so why should Nancy think she'd be able to tell the Senate how to conduct the impeachment trial?
 
9andaWiggle

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
AlwaysWrite said:
It was more than obvious that Pelosi (and House Democrats) would never allow the Republicans to have input regarding how they should conduct impeachment proceedings, so why should Nancy think she'd be able to tell the Senate how to conduct the impeachment trial?
Click to expand...
You know better, AW. They don't play by the same rules!

 
AlwaysWrite

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
Hear ye, hear ye!

Impeachment is just a legal statement of charges, parallel to what an indictment is in criminal law. However, indictments obviously do not constitute guilt, and a trial (be it a courtroom or Senate impeachment trial) cannot be started unless charges are brought forth -- and that's not the situation as it now stands.

It's quite simple, is it not?
 
W

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
IMPEACHMENT IS FAR DIFFERENT AND MORE FAR REACHING THAN A NORMAL CRIMINAL OFFENSE. AND YES, A PRESIDENT, WHO HAS BEEN IMPEACHED BY THE HOUSE, CAN BE CHARGED FOR OFFENCES THAT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED CRIMINAL IN A NORMAL COURT.
 
Last edited:
W

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
HEAR YE, HEAR YE, PART 2

"IF AN OFFICIAL IS IMPEACHED BY THE HOUSE AND CONVICTED BY THE REQUISITE VOTE IN THE SENATE, THEN ARTICLE 1, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 7, PROVIDES THAT THE PERSON CONVICTED IS FURTHER BARRED FROM ANY "OFFICE OF HONOR, TRUST OR PROFIT UNDER THE UNITED STATES." THE CONVICTED OFFICIAL ALSO LOSES ANY POSSIBLE FEDERAL PENSIONS. WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS, THOSE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED HAVE GENERALLY FADDED INTO OBSCURITY.

IT IS QUITE SIMPLE, NOT SURE WHY ITS NOT GETTING THRU. WEIRD.
 
Last edited:
W

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
IT IS NOT A SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. THE SENATE IS TO DECIDE IF HE STAYS OR IF HE GOES. IMPEACHMENT IS INPLACE.

THE HOUSE IS NOT THE LOCAL DA'S OFFICE. IT IS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THEY DO HAVE THE POWER TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. THE SENATE HOWEVER, HAS THE POWER TO REMOVE OR ACQUIT.

THE SENATE TRIAL IS NOT A NORMAL JURY TRIAL. THERE ARE FAR MORE THAN 12 PEOPLE PRESIDING. AND THE JUDGE DOES NOT GET TO ASK THEM IF THEY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE DEFENDANT. THE DEMS OBVIOUSLY DO, YET STILL GET TO VOTE. NOT THE SAME BY EVEN THE WEAKEST OF STANDARDS.

IMPEACHMENT HAS HAPPENED WHETHER PAPERWORK REACHES SENATE OR NOT.

WHEN DONALD TRUMP RUNS AGAIN IN 2020, THE DEMS CAN USE THE TERM "IMPEACHED PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP"
AND THERE IS NOTHING HE CAN DO.

THANKS FOR ALL THIS BACK AND FORTH THOUGH, I KNOW ALOT MORE THAN I EVER DID, OR EVER WANTED TO!
 
AlwaysWrite

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
WAMO said:
IMPEACHMENT IS FAR DIFFERENT AND MORE FAR REACHING THAN A NORMAL CRIMINAL OFFENSE. AND YES, A PRESIDENT, WHO HAS BEEN IMPEACHED BY THE HOUSE, CAN BE CHARGED FOR OFFENCES THAT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED CRIMINAL IN A NORMAL COURT.
Click to expand...
Dear WAMO:

ANYONE can be CHARGED with ANYTHING, but that DOESN'T constitute guilt. And you are correct that a president can be charged with offenses not considered criminal in a normal court, AS WE FOUND OUT IN THE CURRENT IMPEACHMENT FIASCO, in which Trump has yet to be charged with a real crime!
 
W

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
:Thumbsup:

THE FIRST GUY...UUMMM...WHATS HIS NAME. THE SECOND GUY...UUMMM...YOU KNOW (HIS NAME IS BILL TOO)

AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS SKEWED TO YOUR WAY OF THINKING. YOU KNOW, LIKE A DEMOCRAT.
 
Greg T.

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
WAMO said:
:Thumbsup:

THE FIRST GUY...UUMMM...WHATS HIS NAME. THE SECOND GUY...UUMMM...YOU KNOW (HIS NAME IS BILL TOO)

AGAIN, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS SKEWED TO YOUR WAY OF THINKING. YOU KNOW, LIKE A DEMOCRAT.
Click to expand...
NO presidents have ever been removed from office. What's your point?
 
W

WAMO

Spanking His Monkey
ABOUT THE SAME AS SOME OF THE POINTS IN THIS THREAD FROM OTHERS G, POINTLESS. JUST DRIBBLE FROM SOME THAT WANT TO BELIEVE SO BAD THEY KNOW IT ALL, BUT THEY DO NOT. AND WHEN CALLED OUT ABOUT IT, THEY RESORT TO NONSENSE POSTS. REPEATING THE SAME STUFF OVER AND OVER, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE PROVED WRONG. BUT THANK YOU FOR ASKING SIR. ITS GOOD TO KNOW YOU CARE ABOUT ME BUDDY. :Thumbsup: :Biggrin:
 
Greg T.

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
WAMO said:
ABOUT THE SAME AS SOME OF THE POINTS IN THIS THREAD FROM OTHERS G, POINTLESS. JUST DRIBBLE FROM SOME THAT WANT TO BELIEVE SO BAD THEY KNOW IT ALL, BUT THEY DO NOT. AND WHEN CALLED OUT ABOUT IT, THEY RESORT TO NONSENSE POSTS. REPEATING THE SAME STUFF OVER AND OVER, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE PROVED WRONG. BUT THANK YOU FOR ASKING SIR. ITS GOOD TO KNOW YOU CARE ABOUT ME BUDDY. :Thumbsup: :Biggrin:
Click to expand...
Check out in the other thread what HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR SAID.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top