Inquiries and Impeachment of Trump

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

But first you’ll be watching the fat lying bastards impeachment hearings and Senate trial.
Get that Vagisil ready the first witness is testifying in the morning, and eleven more witnesses coming soon.

But but but .. the testimony!


BAHHAHAAAAAAAA

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Get that Vagisil ready the first witness is testifying in the morning, and eleven more witnesses coming soon.

I sent a bucket each of Vagisil and Preparation H to the House members for when the Senate fucks them and their bullshit trial.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eccielover

I sent a bucket each of Vagisil and Preparation H to the House members for when the Senate fucks them and their bullshit trial.

After the United States Supreme Court fires its salvo.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

After the United States Supreme Court fires its salvo.

What do you mean by this Lex?

Chief Justice Roberts saw what happened during the Kavanaugh hearings. I believe 70% of sitting judges think the Democrats discredited themselves. That's my nonprofessional opinion.

IMO, the Dims are drawing this out closer to the election and when they can get their hands on Trumps tax returns. They may already have them but can't do anything until eventually, the Supremem Court allows them to be used.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

What do you mean by this Lex?

1. Who "presides" over a trial in the Senate?
2. Who determines if congressional action meets due process and equal protection standards?

Not this piece of mindless garbage:



Before anyone ventures into the quagmire of LameStreamMedia reports of the role of the SCOTUS and the Presiding Judge a learned inspection of the past opinions and language (not just the results) suggest that oversight is available and the history of the SCOTUS is revisiting prior conclusions based upon a current set of facts.

If the Dims want to be literal as to the history, then they've already fucked it up! There is language in opinions that support interference with regard to the process and the definitions. There are approaches that result in the Court stating in the opinion what the appellant desired to be determined on appeal.

[gnadfly]

That's harsh. Did you really have to show a picture of pencil neck this early in the morning?

I agree but what specifically can Justice Roberts do? Send the "impeachment trial" back to the House for "re-try" with those guarantees in place? Based on the Clinton and Nixon impeachment processes in the House the Dims "grand jury" analogy is flawed. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to force a do-over by the House?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

That's harsh. Did you really have to show a picture of pencil neck this early in the morning?

I agree but what specifically can Justice Roberts do? Send the "impeachment trial" back to the House for "re-try" with those guarantees in place? Based on the Clinton and Nixon impeachment processes in the House the Dims "grand jury" analogy is flawed. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to force a do-over by the House?

There is no "trial" in the House for a "re-try" .... the "indictment/grand jury" process is analogous for simpletons (not you!) to understand that a decision by the House has no "teeth" with respect to the "removal" process.

What role does Roberts play? He not only calls the "balls and strikes," but he can determine admissibility questions as to reliability and relevance to "treason, high crimes, and misdemeanors" ... my prediction is the House doesn't decide what activities are "treason, high crimes, and misdemeanors" ... that's already been decided. My prediction is they cannot ex post facto create crimes from hearsay and speculation.

That smells of the frequent remark by prosecutors and LE:

"He's good for it"! Just look at the dumbass loons on here.

You will hear this soon enough:

A sitting President charged with "articles of impeachment" cannot serve the country as POTUS and all of his administrative decisions and appointments will be voidable, if not void.

In otherwords: If you are "indicted" for a felony you can't vote! Republicans, of course!

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by eccielover

I sent a bucket each of Vagisil and Preparation H to the House members for when the Senate fucks them and their bullshit trial.

Maybe I have you confused with another loyalist, haven’t you posted there would be no impeachment and no trial? I suggest you hold on to your trump impeachment survival kit you’re gonna need it.

Happy impeachment hearing day

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Maybe I have you confused with another loyalist, haven’t you posted there would be no impeachment and no trial? I suggest you hold on to your trump impeachment survival kit you’re gonna need it.

Happy impeachment hearing day

As is customary you display your ignorance of the process.

The current circus starring the loons won't vote on "impeachment."

Not one of those fools (including Pelosi) would dare vote for the "impeachment" of Trump before the Fall elections ... especially those who ran on the platform of .... "No Impeachment" and "No Pelosi" ... and doing something substantively while in office!!!

Your loudmouth diatribe on here is typical of want-a-be high schoolers trying to pretend to be heroic "firefighters"!!!!

You're way over your head in here. Getting it out of your ass would be a step in the right direction.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

As is customary you display your ignorance of the process.

The current circus starring the loons won't vote on "impeachment."

You're way over your head in here. Getting it out of your ass would be a step in the right direction.

why this level of rudeness? some people think Trump will be impeached.. you don't. but why the attack, saying he is ignorant, with an extreme tone of hatred?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

why this level of rudeness? some people think Trump will be impeached.. you don't. but why the attack, saying he is ignorant, with an extreme tone of hatred?

Maybe he can explain it .... maybe! I don't "hate" anyone. I will leave that up to you and yours. I also believe being ignorant is not a bad thing. It's curable. Stupidity on the other hand is not.

Why do you attack me for directly addressing attitudes in this forum that distract from substantive discussions ... like your attack on me and accusing me of things not true.

The Little Puke you are seemingly defending attacks anyone and everyone as a "response" to an intellectual conversation ... why don't you "monitor" him? Are you a racist?

As a "retired" firefighter (says he was a "captain") he claimed to not be on the government tit ... go figure. He tried to sell the fact that his retirement was "private" sector earnings!!!!

The TAXPAYERS pay the Little Puke ... while he was "earning" his retirement from TAXPAYER funds and having it "matched" with TAXPAYER funds. That started a long line of bs on his part. Arent' you tired of the SocialistLiberalAntiTrumpers' bullshit?

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why do you attack me for directly addressing attitudes in this forum that distract from substantive discussions ... like your attack on me and accusing me of things not true.

The Little Puke you are seemingly defending attacks anyone and everyone as a "response" to an intellectual conversation ... why don't you "monitor" him? Are you a racist?

you are all over the place.. I didn't attack you, I'm asking why you use such offensive language, when someone disagrees that Trump will be impeached. when did I attack you, accusing you of things not true? where did the racism card come from?

[oeb11]

Quote LL -
You will hear this soon enough:

A sitting President charged with "articles of impeachment" cannot serve the country as POTUS and all of his administrative decisions and appointments will be voidable, if not void.

In otherwords: If you are "indicted" for a felony you can't vote! Republicans, of course!



I tend to agree - it is a DPST maneuver to invalidate every appointment Trump has made. and been confirmed by the Senate.

and strips the POTUS of the right of innocent until proven guilty. Not to mention the right to confront accusers - who run like roaches from the light.

Typical DPST's.

Trying their best to strip the Constitution from their circus - rights they would demand if the situation were reversed - and rights respected in the impeachment of Clinton.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

you are all over the place.. I didn't attack you, I'm asking why you use such offensive language, when someone disagrees that Trump will be impeached. when did I attack you, accusing you of things not true? where did the racism card come from?

I can read. Why are you asking me such asinine questions?

Did you accuse me of "hate"? You don't even know me! Yet you get on your high horse and start criticizing with innuendos. Chan, move on! And while doing so take a look at the posts of the Little Puke you are defending and championing!!!! It took about 50 posts for him to figure out a House vote doesn't oust Trump! Or do you agree with him it will?

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I can read. Why are you asking me such asinine questions?

Did you accuse me of "hate"? You don't even know me! Yet you get on your high horse and start criticizing with innuendos. Chan, move on! And while doing so take a look at the posts of the Little Puke you are defending and championing!!!! It took about 50 posts for him to figure out a House vote doesn't oust Trump! Or do you agree with him it will?

I said you had a tone of hatred in that post.. yes. and my name is not "Chan", why don't you refer to me by my proper name? I have not seen the "Little Puke" assume the House can oust Trump.. I have seen you and others assume he believes that.