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.

 

NIXON v. UNITED STATES et al.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: HanyManny

You might be the very first person I would block if I could. Not because of what you are saying but because your incessant posting about impeaching Trump just never seems to stop. Do you have anything else to offer?


Quoted and starred for truth.




posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Lysergic




posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: HanyManny

Here you go man


You know what? Just go ahead and take the whole box.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: HanyManny
When you have nothing left to to argue, attack the person.

No rebuttals here.

I guess you all agree with my assertions.

OK then, off we go to a new topic, like where Trump should be taken to after his removal...

Jail or kicked out of the country?

What about the kids?

Should they be removed also?


Dude there is something wrong with you on a DNA level.
You incessantly post this nonsense and you can’t possibly expect a serious rebuttal.
You are just paid to troll Trump supporters. Period.
Jail or kicked out of the country? I mean come on...let’s hear your reasons on how he would be kicked out of the country for anything.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: HanyManny
When you have nothing left to to argue, attack the person.



Which explains why you're all attacking Trump. What a surprise.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: HanyManny

Ha...this is funny...ask a attorney? So now your a Constitutional Attorney?

I know doctors and they certainly don't cross over like that. I know attorneys and they don't either.

I also know you are the equivalent of a ambulance chaser that would say anything...that is if you even are a attorney.

How's the immigration stuff in CA treating you?



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: HanyManny

The only thing here that is going to actually matter in this whole fiasco is the House vote.

If they take the vote it is going to be shut down when it hits the Senate and Democrats will lose the house in 2020.

If they don't take a vote after all this BS, the Democrats will lose the House in 2020.

The way they are attempting this "impeachment inquiry " is going to have a major political backlash.

This is the funniest thing I've ever seen my old party do.

And please PLEASE keep making threads!!!

All it does is highlight to normal people how crooked and crazy the left has become.




posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Like this?




posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018
And all in the mud pit....LOL



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Lumenari

Like this?



We used to call that troll tracks...




posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: HanyManny


Don't know what some of you guys are smoking, but even at a Senate trial, an impeached official may not demand the kind of due process rights that Trump seeks.


I don't know what you're smoking, Trump's only been asking that the House follows the due process rules in place, which they haven't been doing.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: HanyManny


Don't know what some of you guys are smoking, but even at a Senate trial, an impeached official may not demand the kind of due process rights that Trump seeks.


I don't know what you're smoking, Trump's only been asking that the House follows the due process rules in place, which they haven't been doing.


Maybe he should ask a attorney.....LOL



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

We know he's definitely not an attorney. He doesn't even know how to read the clauses in the Constitution and thinks the House Speaker gets to demand an official impeachment inquiry all on their own authority.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

"I has a paper that say I am power of attourneys for mama... that makes me lawyer, ya?"



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Who are we kidding any rebuttal becomes a new thread starter for HM.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Constitutional provisions The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. — Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 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. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. —Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:11 PM
link   

The Chicken Lawyer (voiced by Maurice LaMarche) is a large blue/green rooster-like chicken with southern mannerisms and a pince-nez perched on his beak. The show never reveals the Chicken Lawyer's name (or the non-existence thereof); in "Brannigan Begin Again", it is revealed that the Chicken Laywer's species is "hyperchicken". In the commentary of "A Tale of Two Santas", David X. Cohen explains that the script simply used the designation "hyperchicken" to refer to the character. He is a terrible lawyer and routinely loses cases for the main characters. The Chicken Lawyer is a parodic cross between "folksy" country lawyers such as Matlock and Atticus Finch with Looney Tunes character Foghorn Leghorn. In a deleted scene from Into the Wild Green Yonder, he is named Matcluck.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: HanyManny
scholar.google.com...


As Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers, the House stands in the role of “accusers” during the impeachment process while the Senate acts as “judges” over anyone impeached by the House. A House impeachment inquiry is not, in other words, analogous to a trial. It is more similar to a police investigation of someone suspected of committing a crime.


www.vox.com...

Don't know what some of you guys are smoking, but even at a Senate trial, an impeached official may not demand the kind of due process rights that Trump seeks.

Get real. An impeachment is not a civil or criminal trial. It is a political assessment of the official (being impeached) to determine their fitness to remain in office.

Anything else is BS.

Ask an attorney, not Fox News or whatever BS you are quoting.

Was that part of Hillary's opening brief that got locked away for eternity ?



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: HanyManny

LOL! Why do you keep posting excerpts from articles that you don't understand and argue against?!



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I looked into Nixon vs The United States a while back researching a thread. There’s two things the OP is missing . First the SCOTUS ruling concerned the constitutional protections after Nixion was impeachment and convicted . Not prior to impeachment hearings . Once the process starts or is finished the rights the defendant is granted in the constitution fall solely upon the Senate or Hourse .

That doesn’t mean the accused doesn’t have any constitutional rights prior or the impeachment proceedings .

At this point the house of representatives haven’t started formal impeachment proceedings. They are at the inquiry stage which could very well mean the presidents constitutional rights apply in either instance‘s.

The second thing not considered in the OP. Was that the case made it to the supreme court which means another case can with different details and possibly a different ruling .

It’s not cut and dry .
edit on 10-10-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join