It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nuclear Bomb Memo is about to explode - Mark Taylor

page: 2
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: Jubilation T Cornpone

Thank you Jubilation T Cornpone... HA! Love the name....also had admiration for your response. You got a star from me Jubi T Corn..

JTC, believe me, I still hope and pray for this to see the light of day, this memo, and all the cats it might "let out of the bag" as well.

Honestly, I am not after a certain persuasion of people, or political affiliation. But I do honestly admit I would absolutely be over the moon with joy if something actually tears down any corruption and actually prosecutes any guilty parties. BOTH political parties have been guilty to more or lesser degree over the years.

I also don't think we have seen it all yet, this could be the tip of iceberg... I just want honest justice is all... unbiased and fair. I worry that it may not be possible in todays culture and society's mindset.

You are also very correct, they are supposed to be serving the electorate.

We all sure hope you are correct on the WW3 not gonna happen thing..and we honestly hope it truly is alarmist nonsense.

Pravdaseeker




posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: musicismagic

Thanks musicismagic. Funny you mention Nixon.

What was it 18 minutes of missing tapes??? And it was Nixon's downfall...

Yet 5 months of missing text messages, thousands and thousands of missing emails...Uranium One deal, Certain "foundations", all seem to be magnitudes more "incriminating" than minutes missing from recorded voices..forget mentioning all the coincidental dead bodies too???

Yet, no bad guy/girl has gotten scorched and burned by their wrongful behaviour yet anyhow.

If they do the job they are supposed to, there should be a lot of people in trouble over all of this.

Pravdaseeker



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: musicismagic

Thanks musicismagic. Funny you mention Nixon.

What was it 18 minutes of missing tapes??? And it was Nixon's downfall...

Yet 5 months of missing text messages, thousands and thousands of missing emails...Uranium One deal, Certain "foundations", all seem to be magnitudes more "incriminating" than minutes missing from recorded voices..forget mentioning all the coincidental dead bodies too???

Yet, no bad guy/girl has gotten scorched and burned by their wrongful behaviour yet anyhow.

If they do the job they are supposed to, there should be a lot of people in trouble over all of this.

Pravdaseeker



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: pravdaseeker
Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: schuyler

Thanks schuyler, good point.. you mention something I intended to have people think about.

Extremism.... religious extremism is also quite dangerous. Extremism in any form I dare say has great potential to be dangerous to society.

Pravdaseeker


The concept of religion, plain and simple... is extremist. To convince people that they do not need to seek proof, or verify claims to believe them is what creates naive people. Religious people are three things, the most extreme, the most naive, and the most numerable. It's no coincidence that the biggest sample of humans is the least intelligent, and that the least intelligent are also the most religious.

This is what flat out enables acts of war and is in someway responsible for every great war on the entire planet from the beginning of time. The simple belief that God knows all and has a "plan" and can influence people on earth is extreme. There is absolutely nothing to suggest this is true. The simple idea that if you live your life well and according to "scripture" you get to go to a miraculous "good place" and if you don't; you're denied entry and sent to be tortured is absolutely the definition of extreme. The simple notion that people will adjust their way of living to rationalize their god rating based on total fantasy is extreme.

If you're religious, you cannot reconcile the texts of any holy scripture with the intention of behavior control. What about the holy crusades? Thousands of years of murder in the name of conversion is not good in any context, yet was completely condoned and sanctioned by "God" right? EXTREME.

The stories of the Bible, the Qur'an, the Tanakh; what ever all contain nothing short of stories where the punchline is extremism.

There is no such thing as faith, it's the biggest lie told on the planet. If you believe in "Prayer" and that "Praying" for someone works, then you believe in straight up magic. Not one person didn't die of stage 4 cancer because enough people prayed, and to think this is extreme. To take the credit away from the doctors who came up with a solid plan for treatment based on the position and size of the tumors, and to suggest that because you dropped to you knees in your bedroom and prayed is extremist.

By now you should be falling a fair bit into reality, but it'll be fleeting as you refresh your brainwashing script and default back to "the loving faith of the light and goodness" or what ever cult bullchite you recite to help you "get through" being a "poor peon."

Life is hard, and believing in God or Jesus hasn't made it any less difficult. I was raised roman catholic and even went to catholic school for 8 years and I knew in second grade that the stories they were selling as real were impossible. It's also the year I asked for a telescope and started star gazing and learning about astrophysics. See the correlation?

What scientists view as "god" isn't some sort of magical deity, it's just the answer to the next unanswered question. God is physics, it is the rules of the universe, it's the constants and variables, it's not a conscious entity that will save your life because you asked it well enough or gather enough people to "pray" for extra "prayer power."

These are all EXTREME ideas. Religion by it's very nature is extreme, it's designed to exploit and indoctrinate people before their brain develops and keep them from making decisions that are in their best interest, because that's how you get the most productivity out of your citizens.

Extremism is the most dangerous thing on the planet; you're absolutely correct about that. I ask you, what if you never spoke of god to a child. Would he divine it's existence all on his own, and which is more extreme? Pumping a child full of god rhetoric from as soon as it's born, or just raising your child to be a good caring person who understands science and finance?

The answer should be obvious; it's more extreme to teach a child something is real that you cannot know and solely because you were told since you were a child, than it is to ignore it and just focus on raising your child.

I understand what I say is "blasphemous" and "unpopular" with you, but it's cute how you don't respect me enough to even reply. Not very religious of you, is it? Deep down inside; the real reason you didn't answer was because you know it to be true, you cannot prove religion is real, and thus, cannot refute it's belief is indeed extreme, and knowing this, you still choose to be religious, which shows how extreme even you are.

Case and point.

If we can't come to realize that it's all fake, than how are we supposed to stop people from shooting other people based on a belief that's rooted in the same amount of reality [none]? When a suicide bomber blows himself up in the name of Allah, he thinks he'll be rewarded based on the same amount of factual evidence you believe you'll be going to heaven. None.

When a person wakes up and decides they are going to shoot 62 people, they are doing so based on an unfounded belief. When 85% of the world is prone to believing unfounded information, they are more subject to extreme behavior, because the root of their belief is indeed extreme behavior.

I ask you to please explain one huge conflict, any great war that wasn't spurred by religion? You will quickly come to the realization that all middle eastern terror attacks are caused by their religious beliefs. The entire fight between Palestine and Israel and the entire destabilization of the entire region is based solely on religious beliefs. WW2 was based on religious beliefs. The entire thousands of years the holy crusade lasted for; entirely on religious beliefs, and every war that's told of in every religious text was also predicated on believers vs non-believers.

You should come to the firm conclusion that the state of the world is caused entirely by religion, and that if we didn't have it, we'd get a long a lot better.
edit on 28-1-2018 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: Revolution9

Thanks Revo9, good stuff...good response.

It is a pretty complicated Kabuki show isn't it!

Pravdaseeker



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: pravdaseeker
Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: Revolution9

Thanks Revo9, good stuff...good response.

It is a pretty complicated Kabuki show isn't it!

Pravdaseeker


It would have been good stuff.. except for the main factual error..... Bill Clinton WAS impeached by the House.
He was not removed from office, because of the results of the party line vote in the Senate.
edit on b000000312018-01-28T17:41:46-06:0005America/ChicagoSun, 28 Jan 2018 17:41:46 -0600500000018 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: pravdaseeker
Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: Revolution9

Thanks Revo9, good stuff...good response.

It is a pretty complicated Kabuki show isn't it!

Pravdaseeker


It would have been good stuff.. except for the main factual error..... Bill Clinton WAS impeached by the House.
He was not removed from office, because of the results of the party line vote in the Senate.


Semantics; the impeachment proceedings started. It has to pass congress and senate, it failed to do so. He also was not indicted while he was sitting as POTUS.

The truth is, not a single one president has ever really been impeached, but 3 have had the process started against them. Andrew Johnson had the process of impeachment started against him for "political" reasons, republicans didn't like his policy. He finished his term and was acquitted shortly after.

Bill Clinton had the process of impeachment started against him; also for political reasons. He was suspected of having some shady real estate deals from before he was president, but during the investigation they found nothing except that he had an affair. They tried to impeach him because he lied under oath about having said affair. It only passed one phase. He was also Acquitted after finishing his second term.

Richard Nixon would have been the first president actually impeached, but he stepped down before the impeachment process could begin. He was pardoned by his successor before any indictment could be formally filed.

So there you have it; 0 presidents have ever actually been impeached. The impeachment process is the filing of the Articles of Impeachment, then the House vote, then the senate holds a trial. If the senate find you guilty, you're impeached. If not; you're not.

The word impeached is being used in place of the term "Indicted" incorrectly as far as I'm concerned, considering that a House vote of impeachment is just congress issuing an indictment, in which you're then tried in the court of senate.

As far as what that means in reality; being Impeached just means accused of a crime, it's a formal charge. When you're found not guilty and acquitted, you're being found to be innocent, and it should not be held against your reputation.


edit on 28-1-2018 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   
@butcherguy _ Sorry, yes that should have been better worded. I was being clumsy. I meant he never had to leave office. Thanks for picking me up on that. The greenery is strong this evening. Too much analysis. I better not let Mueller find out or he'll be having me up for FAKE NEWS, lol.


edit on 28-1-2018 by Revolution9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   

It would have been good stuff.. except for the main factual error..... Bill Clinton WAS impeached by the House.
He was not removed from office, because of the results of the party line vote in the Senate.


Except the part where the senate doesn't vote, but they hold an actual trial and have found both of the presidents that had been "indicted" with the intent to "remove" them from office, innocent.

Nixon Resigned before the house vote and was pardoned on the same day by his successor, so he completely dodged the entire trial despite being the only guilty president that should have ever been impeached. He was never indicted, nor impeached, he just quit and let his VP pardon him to squash the entire thing.

Really the most abusive thing that ever happened in American history, with the exception of what's happening now -- which is undoubtedly much bigger, and similarly, the same exact content of what Nixon was facing. Using his authority to undermine, surveil, and rob his political opposition.

Nixon was a republican who sabotaged a democrat office, the entire DNC is now trying to do what nixon did to the current and sitting POTUS. Complete with money trail and hidden text messages and email transcripts proving that their actions were absolutely intentional.
edit on 28-1-2018 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime

That is where I was coming from.

This is nowhere near the scandal. Trump has not actually done anything wrong. Wow, is a man not able to fire off in the office without it being a mortal sin? Thank goodness I do not have to live in that. Imagine how stressful it must be.

How many times in the day do I swear and moan? Imagine having someone feeding your every move as some possible propaganda piece. Seems a man is surrounded by enemies even when he calls them friend.



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: pravdaseeker
Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: Revolution9

Thanks Revo9, good stuff...good response.

It is a pretty complicated Kabuki show isn't it!

Pravdaseeker



Your welcome. Thanks for the thread, OP.



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: visitedbythem
God allowed Hitler into power for a reason. To encourage the Jews to go back to Israel.

They were sent away as punishment. It was time for them to go home.

Jehu Trump has a purpose too. He fulfills alot of it, but not all. For not following through on all things, he will eventually be removed from power by God
Trumps family however, will remain in power for quite some time. So that is either his daughter or son that will take his place. I would like to see his daughter take the reins.

I'm down with Ivanka.She would be the perfect anti-chelsea!



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: pravdaseeker

Up until trumps presidency the FBI, has been doing a bang up job...Now suddenly they are the bad guys. Give me a break, you people need to stop drinking trumpaid.


Are you that Naive?

The FBI was in bed with the Government covering up their illegal deeds'
Its not that the FBI wasnt corrupt, its that the government was too and neither were going to out each other.

sheesh, its like some of you need your abc's spelled out to you



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Revolution9
a reply to: SRPrime

That is where I was coming from.

This is nowhere near the scandal. Trump has not actually done anything wrong. Wow, is a man not able to fire off in the office without it being a mortal sin? Thank goodness I do not have to live in that. Imagine how stressful it must be.

How many times in the day do I swear and moan? Imagine having someone feeding your every move as some possible propaganda piece. Seems a man is surrounded by enemies even when he calls them friend.





It's the exact opposite; it's a much worse scandal, precisely because the POTUS hasn't done anything wrong. The scandal is in the treason of Obstructing the acting President of the United States. The fact that the conspiracy involves the NSA, the FBI, and the DOJ, as well as involved actors from the previous administration, the fact that they shut down the country to make the POTUS look bad, is all High Treason. It's all acts of war against the American people to hinder the government from properly functioning by Obstructing the President, and then blaming the president for being lazy despite the fact that he's just Obstructed. It exposes that not only were the top 3, three letter agencies involved in this conspiracy, but also almost all of the main stream media as well.

They want to ruin his reputation, harm is potential for winning re-election by lying to the world. Their intent is actually to remove him from the position, so the faith in the republican party would be "crushed" but the reality is -- the DNC has hurt itself beyond repair by attempting to carry out the obvious plot to politically destroy and impede a sitting president for winning an election, using all falsified and fake evidence. His only crime, is that he won.

Biggest scandal in US history, makes Nixon's scandal look like a birthday party. It's the biggest scandal, because it outs the majority of the government for being corrupt, it exposes the real truth of a deep state; a government within a government, that's sole purpose is to make themselves wealthy off their ability to sell policy.

This is why campaign contributions were lifted, this is why propaganda was legalized, this is why lobbying caps were lifted; it's all about becoming super wealthy for selling favors, and then using that wealth to continue to influence the government for your private business holdings once you've moved on from the government positions.
edit on 28-1-2018 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: SRPrime

It would have been good stuff.. except for the main factual error..... Bill Clinton WAS impeached by the House.
He was not removed from office, because of the results of the party line vote in the Senate.


Except the part where the senate doesn't vote, but they hold an actual trial and have found both of the presidents that had been "indicted" with the intent to "remove" them from office, innocent.

Nixon Resigned before the house vote and was pardoned on the same day by his successor, so he completely dodged the entire trial despite being the only guilty president that should have ever been impeached. He was never indicted, nor impeached, he just quit and let his VP pardon him to squash the entire thing.

Really the most abusive thing that ever happened in American history, with the exception of what's happening now -- which is undoubtedly much bigger, and similarly, the same exact content of what Nixon was facing. Using his authority to undermine, surveil, and rob his political opposition.

Nixon was a republican who sabotaged a democrat office, the entire DNC is now trying to do what nixon did to the current and sitting POTUS. Complete with money trail and hidden text messages and email transcripts proving that their actions were absolutely intentional.

The Senate had to 'vote' for that acquittal.
It came down along party lines.

On February 9, after voting against a public deliberation on the verdict, the Senate began closed-door deliberations instead. On February 12, the Senate emerged from its closed deliberations and voted on the articles of impeachment. A two-thirds vote, 67 votes, would have been necessary to convict and remove the President from office. The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against.[24] (Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania voted "not proved" for both charges,[25] which was considered by Chief Justice Rehnquist to constitute a vote of "not guilty".) The obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.[26]

wikipedia: Impeachment of Bill Clinton



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime

Well I agree... We can call it that. They will just call it...

POLITICS or POLITRICKS.

The whole of politics is a scandal. It will be a very nice world when Ol' Forked Tongue with his rattle is finally pinioned.

You are right. They have laid into Trump more heavily than any President I can think of. Every little word and movement has been filed. They don't call it "Bureau" for nothing do they.

I really do think it has everything to do with Trump's "America First" strategy. It is displeasing the International Money People. I think they are losing somehow. America is gaining it seems. I have seen it with my own eyes that globalism does suck like a vampire bat on their American cash cow. I never liked that. They would not know where to stop. I get the feeling the U.S is safer in his hands.

As I said before too much depends on America being strong for them to make it weak. They did make it weak and look what a mess it ended up as. It is building its strength up with Trump. They'll keep him on his toes over this. They'll be hammering him to make sure his stretegy is worth waiting a while before they can tuck in to the feast again.


edit on 28-1-2018 by Revolution9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: SRPrime

It would have been good stuff.. except for the main factual error..... Bill Clinton WAS impeached by the House.
He was not removed from office, because of the results of the party line vote in the Senate.


Except the part where the senate doesn't vote, but they hold an actual trial and have found both of the presidents that had been "indicted" with the intent to "remove" them from office, innocent.

Nixon Resigned before the house vote and was pardoned on the same day by his successor, so he completely dodged the entire trial despite being the only guilty president that should have ever been impeached. He was never indicted, nor impeached, he just quit and let his VP pardon him to squash the entire thing.

Really the most abusive thing that ever happened in American history, with the exception of what's happening now -- which is undoubtedly much bigger, and similarly, the same exact content of what Nixon was facing. Using his authority to undermine, surveil, and rob his political opposition.

Nixon was a republican who sabotaged a democrat office, the entire DNC is now trying to do what nixon did to the current and sitting POTUS. Complete with money trail and hidden text messages and email transcripts proving that their actions were absolutely intentional.

The Senate had to 'vote' for that acquittal.
It came down along party lines.

On February 9, after voting against a public deliberation on the verdict, the Senate began closed-door deliberations instead. On February 12, the Senate emerged from its closed deliberations and voted on the articles of impeachment. A two-thirds vote, 67 votes, would have been necessary to convict and remove the President from office. The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against.[24] (Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania voted "not proved" for both charges,[25] which was considered by Chief Justice Rehnquist to constitute a vote of "not guilty".) The obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.[26]

wikipedia: Impeachment of Bill Clinton


I don't feel like I have to tell you that every trial is a vote, it's a vote of the jury, or the vote of arbitration, or a vote from the judge, and that calling a trial a vote is absolutely disingenuous even though all trials are concluded with a vote.

In the case of a senate trial; the senate is the jury, and with a jury that large -- it will never be unanimous.

You can say party line vote, but then explain the 50/50. It had nothing to do with "party lines" and everything to do with more people thought he was a victim in a witch hunt that explored his private relationships for no reason; the entire thing started over real estate deals. The entire witch hunt into his sexual endeavors only started because they came up with nothing in their real estate investigation.

It's pretty obvious that what happened to Bill is quasi the same thing that's happening to Trump right now, only less corrupt. Bill got to the middle of his second term before his "impeachment" despite the real estate dealings being publicly known about prior to his first election.



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime



The truth is, not a single one president has ever really been impeached,

Semantics; the impeachment proceedings started. It has to pass congress and senate, it failed to do so. He also was not indicted while he was sitting as POTUS.

Wrong.
Impeachment is basically bringing formal charges. Bill Clinton WAS impeached by the Congress.

What goes to the senate is basically a trial to determine if the formal charges layed down by the Congress merit the removal of the impeached person from office.

A common misconception is that impeachment of an official means his or her removal from office.

In fact, impeachment functions as an indictment of a public official; it allows the legislature to bring formal charges against a civil officer of government.
After an official has been impeached, or formally charged, a trial is held to determine whether or not the official will be removed from office.

In the US Federal Government, the House of Representatives impeaches government officials and the trial takes place before the Senate.
The House votes on the articles of impeachment, requiring a simple majority to pass them. Upon passage of the articles, an individual has been impeached.

Source


edit on 1 28 2018 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: SRPrime

It would have been good stuff.. except for the main factual error..... Bill Clinton WAS impeached by the House.
He was not removed from office, because of the results of the party line vote in the Senate.


Except the part where the senate doesn't vote, but they hold an actual trial and have found both of the presidents that had been "indicted" with the intent to "remove" them from office, innocent.

Nixon Resigned before the house vote and was pardoned on the same day by his successor, so he completely dodged the entire trial despite being the only guilty president that should have ever been impeached. He was never indicted, nor impeached, he just quit and let his VP pardon him to squash the entire thing.

Really the most abusive thing that ever happened in American history, with the exception of what's happening now -- which is undoubtedly much bigger, and similarly, the same exact content of what Nixon was facing. Using his authority to undermine, surveil, and rob his political opposition.

Nixon was a republican who sabotaged a democrat office, the entire DNC is now trying to do what nixon did to the current and sitting POTUS. Complete with money trail and hidden text messages and email transcripts proving that their actions were absolutely intentional.

The Senate had to 'vote' for that acquittal.
It came down along party lines.

On February 9, after voting against a public deliberation on the verdict, the Senate began closed-door deliberations instead. On February 12, the Senate emerged from its closed deliberations and voted on the articles of impeachment. A two-thirds vote, 67 votes, would have been necessary to convict and remove the President from office. The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against.[24] (Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania voted "not proved" for both charges,[25] which was considered by Chief Justice Rehnquist to constitute a vote of "not guilty".) The obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.[26]

wikipedia: Impeachment of Bill Clinton


I don't feel like I have to tell you that every trial is a vote, it's a vote of the jury, or the vote of arbitration, or a vote from the judge, and that calling a trial a vote is absolutely disingenuous even though all trials are concluded with a vote.

In the case of a senate trial; the senate is the jury, and with a jury that large -- it will never be unanimous.

You can say party line vote, but then explain the 50/50. It had nothing to do with "party lines" and everything to do with more people thought he was a victim in a witch hunt that explored his private relationships for no reason; the entire thing started over real estate deals. The entire witch hunt into his sexual endeavors only started because they came up with nothing in their real estate investigation.

It's pretty obvious that what happened to Bill is quasi the same thing that's happening to Trump right now, only less corrupt. Bill got to the middle of his second term before his "impeachment" despite the real estate dealings being publicly known about prior to his first election.

So why tell me that the Senate didn't vote?



Except the part where the senate doesn't vote

^^that was you^^, straightening me out.

It was a vote.

I am happy that you admitted it.

The vote did fall along party lines, regardless of what their 'reasoning' might have been.



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: SRPrime



The truth is, not a single one president has ever really been impeached,

Semantics; the impeachment proceedings started. It has to pass congress and senate, it failed to do so. He also was not indicted while he was sitting as POTUS.

Wrong.
Impeachment is basically bringing formal charges. Bill Clinton WAS impeached by the Congress.

What goes to the senate is basically a trial to determine if the formal charges layed down by the Congress merit the removal of the impeached person from office.

A common misconception is that impeachment of an official means his or her removal from office.

In fact, impeachment functions as an indictment of a public official; it allows the legislature to bring formal charges against a civil officer of government.
After an official has been impeached, or formally charged, a trial is held to determine whether or not the official will be removed from office.

In the US Federal Government, the House of Representatives impeaches government officials and the trial takes place before the Senate.
The House votes on the articles of impeachment, requiring a simple majority to pass them. Upon passage of the articles, an individual has been impeached.

Source



You didn't even finish reading my post, you noped out at the first sentence.


The impeachment process is the filing of the Articles of Impeachment, then the House vote, then the senate holds a trial. If the senate find you guilty, you're impeached. If not; you're not.

The word impeached is being used in place of the term "Indicted" incorrectly as far as I'm concerned, considering that a House vote of impeachment is just congress issuing an indictment, in which you're then tried in the court of senate.


From the post you didn't bother to finish reading.

In terms of understanding, a common misconception like "Impeached" means "out of office" usually requires a redefining or a default to the already existing language that people understand.

If someone said "The President was being Indicted" people would know that charges were brought against him. If found guilty of a crime as the acting president, you cannot hold the position -- it's moral turpitude for sure. When people say "Impeach him!" they don't mean "Charge him with a crime" they mean "Remove him from Office."

Therefor, anyone who uses the word impeachment in it's correct use, is actually doing a disservice, since it literally has no difference in meaning than the word "Indict" and the popular misconception is more common than the correct meaning.

That's why I started my post with "Semantics:"

But you wanted to be right so hard you just went off to the press.
edit on 28-1-2018 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join