Get Your Tickets....This Could Become The 'Never-Ending-Impeachment-Circus Show'

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: chr0naut

Not hoity toity, just unbearingly smug in the knowledge that I'm right and you're not.

No , Your RIGHT . Your Always Righteous Sir , from what I have Gleamed here on ATS . A Battler , No Surrender indeed .........)

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burdman30ott6

90% of US Media says President Trump is SCARED TO DEATH of facing Joe Biden next November. That's why he's pulling strings all over the globe to find anything that can be used against this juggernaut.

The same media also stood over the impeachment like the Grinch standing over Whoville after stealing all the Who presents, decorations, and food and was mystified as to how we Trump supporters viewed the aftermath of the impeachment that was supposed to cripple us with a sense of wonderment and joy... embracing the opportunity it released upon us and seeing it as a grand contribution to a reelection campaign rather than as any sort of hunderance.

At this point 4 years ago I believed he could win... today I know he's already won and that's an incredible feeling.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yep... President Trump will definitely do another 4 years...and possibly followed by a Trump family member in 2025.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Exactly what negative did the President have to endure in this showing of "the power of the gavel?" His numbers are up, the economy continues to boom, he's still POTUS, and the Senate isn't going to entertain this ridiculous BS the House Dems patted themselves on the back over. LMAO, talk about a toothless power display!

Democrats have "cheapened" impeachment. I don't think anyone (including President Trump) considers it a big deal anymore.

Well..maybe the scholars and some in the MSM still do.

Think I'll start a thread on this subject later...

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yep... President Trump will definitely do another 4 years...and possibly followed by a Trump family member in 2025.

Truly you Jest Sir >? .................................)////////

a reply to: chr0naut

Well, I see you're back in fine form.

Will the senate trial un-impeach Trump? Or, will it in fact remove him from office, or not, as the vote may be?

An impeachment is nothing more than a formal accusation. It has no merit until and unless the Senate convicts. We don't do "guilty until proven innocent" over here. The House used partisan politics to level formal accusations at President Trump (assuming Pelosi actually delivers the Articles of Impeachment... if not, all they did was flap their lips). Now he gets his day in court, in front of the US Senate. If he is acquitted (which he likely will be if a trial is held at all) then yes, I suppose you could say he is "un-impeached." He remains innocent.

Never heard anyone use the term "un-impeach"... did you come up with that all by yourself?

They aren't going to declare Trump innocent. Almost no-one at this stage doubts that he did what he did. What they are going to vote on is if he stays in his job, or if we all get to say "You're fired"!

Whoa, you're getting better at being wrong!

Firstly, Donald Trump is innocent legally. He has not been convicted of anything (despite the best attempts of the FBI, a partisan Special Counsel, and the House Democrats using kangaroo court tactics). Secondly, the polls say you are a liar... a great many people in the US think he is actually innocent (what people in other countries think is a moot subject). Thirdly, "we" won't get to say "you're fired." The Senate has that power, but the Senate is not the people... the Senate is 100 out of about 300,000,000 people. The people speak through the voting booth, not through a super-minority of people they really don't trust in the first place. And finally, since by using the pronoun "we" you have included yourself, even if the people were to say "you're fired" in 2020 (which is about as likely now as a snowflake in a hot oven lasting twenty years), YOU are not one of them. YOU do not vote for the US President. YOU get a voice in the politics where YOU are. YOU have zero say in American politics.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Well, I see you're back in fine form.

Will the senate trial un-impeach Trump? Or, will it in fact remove him from office, or not, as the vote may be?

An impeachment is nothing more than a formal accusation. It has no merit until and unless the Senate convicts. We don't do "guilty until proven innocent" over here. The House used partisan politics to level formal accusations at President Trump (assuming Pelosi actually delivers the Articles of Impeachment... if not, all they did was flap their lips). Now he gets his day in court, in front of the US Senate. If he is acquitted (which he likely will be if a trial is held at all) then yes, I suppose you could say he is "un-impeached." He remains innocent.

]Never heard anyone use the term "un-impeach"... did you come up with that all by yourself?

I wouldn't credit myself with its invention.

Bill Clinton was impeached but acquitted. He wasn't un-impeached.

They aren't going to declare Trump innocent. Almost no-one at this stage doubts that he did what he did. What they are going to vote on is if he stays in his job, or if we all get to say "You're fired"!

Whoa, you're getting better at being wrong!

Firstly, Donald Trump is innocent legally. He has not been convicted of anything (despite the best attempts of the FBI, a partisan Special Counsel, and the House Democrats using kangaroo court tactics). Secondly, the polls say you are a liar... a great many people in the US think he is actually innocent (what people in other countries think is a moot subject). Thirdly, "we" won't get to say "you're fired." The Senate has that power, but the Senate is not the people... the Senate is 100 out of about 300,000,000 people. The people speak through the voting booth, not through a super-minority of people they really don't trust in the first place. And finally, since by using the pronoun "we" you have included yourself, even if the people were to say "you're fired" in 2020 (which is about as likely now as a snowflake in a hot oven lasting twenty years), YOU are not one of them. YOU do not vote for the US President. YOU get a voice in the politics where YOU are. YOU have zero say in American politics.

TheRedneck

But I can debate on ATS.

And it is still a long way until the election.

Perhaps when Trump starts to loose I will take the adversarial side of the debate against his detractors? Nah, he has a really abrasive way about him.

And I think that nearly every news outlet has a "YOUR FIRED" headline locked away (for contingency purposes). Not very original but then no one actually cares.

a reply to: chr0naut

You do realize you are innocent until convicted in the US...not sure how it is in NZ but thats how it is here. So if not convicted he is innocent because guilt must be proven not innocence.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I always love when bias opinionated foriegners argue American law especially the constitution to Americans who actually paid attention in civics. In this case saying they won't declare him innocent as if they needed to anyway.

a reply to: chr0naut

Bill Clinton was impeached but acquitted. He wasn't un-impeached.

And served out two terms. In the history books, his impeachment is a footnote of trivia. They tend to focus more on his achievements (and yes, Clinton had some achievements). The scandal gets more print time than the impeachment.

But I can debate on ATS.

Well, that's debatable in itself. You can post on ATS; I'll give you that.

And it is still a long way until the election.

Yep. Trump may, at this pace, be the first President ever to have over 100% approval. Hell, he's already done a half-dozen things I never thought were possible, so what's one more?

TheRedneck

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Just my opinion. . . .

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is going to cross that rainbow bridge sooner rather than later.

Democrats are terrified that Trump will put in someone that will change the course of the Judicial system for decades, removing the leftist activist elements from the system.

This upsets the left more than anything because they won't easily be able to eliminate rights, freedoms without the court in their favor.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Just my opinion. . . .

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is going to cross that rainbow bridge sooner rather than later.

Democrats are terrified that Trump will put in someone that will change the course of the Judicial system for decades, removing the leftist activist elements from the system.

This upsets the left more than anything because they won't easily be able to eliminate rights, freedoms without the court in their favor.

Ummm...that’s my opinion as well...and I’ve articulated that a couple times on this site...

This whole debacle is...ALL...about the Supreme Court...

When President Trump wins re-election he might just be able to appoint not one...not two...but three more justices to the Supreme Court...

That my friend...scares the hell out of the dems...





YouSir

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: chr0naut

You do realize you are innocent until convicted in the US...not sure how it is in NZ but thats how it is here. So if not convicted he is innocent because guilt must be proven not innocence.

Innocence until proven guilty only stands procedurally in a court of law, and prior to conviction. That is under British Common Law. That is why you can be detained without charge, your property can be impounded and why you can be breathylized and arrested at traffic stops. Because they don't presume innocence. The Police and prosecution presume guilt until cleared by a court of law.

Presumption of innocence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, the US has nor specific statute or documented law that protects presumption of innocence. Do some research. What you think is some sort of universal protection, doesn't exist. That is why the Miranda law is important.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Bill Clinton was impeached but acquitted. He wasn't un-impeached.

And served out two terms. In the history books, his impeachment is a footnote of trivia. They tend to focus more on his achievements (and yes, Clinton had some achievements). The scandal gets more print time than the impeachment.

But I can debate on ATS.

Well, that's debatable in itself. You can post on ATS; I'll give you that.

And it is still a long way until the election.

Yep. Trump may, at this pace, be the first President ever to have over 100% approval. Hell, he's already done a half-dozen things I never thought were possible, so what's one more?

TheRedneck

One of only three Presidents who have ever been impeached and it's a footnote?

I don't think he will ever get 100% approval. He has yet to pass 50%.

I think he has been beaten by eight previous Presidents in consistent popularity.

Presidential Approval Ratings -- Donald Trump - Gallup

How popular is Donald Trump? - FiveThirtyEight

President Trump Job Approval - RealClearPolitics

President Trump's Approval Rating Is Lower Than Any Modern President - Time

Trump approval rating plummets in every 2020 battleground state, including Republican strongholds - The Independent

United States presidential approval rating
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a reply to: DBCowboy

I personally think it's more sinister than that. This whole thing kicked into high gear about the time Volodymyr Zelensky was elected President of Ukraine. I think Trump is sticking his nose into a Ukrainian web of corruption, money laundering, and Lord only knows what else that has every Democrat and several Republicans worried about a noose.

Remember what Hillary said? "If this doesn't work, we'll all hang." If I'm not mistaken, hanging is still the punishment for treason and sedition, and while sitting Congressmen cannot be prosecuted for breaking most laws, there is an exception for treason and sedition.

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

Innocence until proven guilty only stands procedurally in a court of law, and prior to conviction.

What exactly do you think a trial by the Senate is? A knitting class?

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

Thats literally so far from American law I honestly think you've probably never even been here once!

So in America under reasonable suspicion of a crime you can be investigated further...like breathalyzer, or a car search, house search, records...you get the point right. So you can be investigated pretty easily...and it is the job of the investigators to gather enough evidence for the supposed crime so that the prosecution can argue a case that removes all doubt of the crime. You have to prove guilt...the defenses job is to show reasonable doubt...thats how it works here. You are innocent until a judge or jury depending on the type of trial convicts you guilty.

And remember that reasonable suspicion of a crime...that means investigations usually have to have a judge sign off on any of the searches...until then you can observe and thats about it.

So hopefully you learned something here and maybe one day you can tell us all about whatever law they have in your country...

Since you like Wiki which btw is weak as hell when making any serious argument...

Let me give you a quality PDF summary from a legal documents sight to help you understand a corner stone of American legal precedent.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Yeah, but you guys frequently said she was delaying, and that it wouldn't happen.

Then, it did, and before Christmas.

Now, six days after the impeachment, once again you are saying she is delaying and it won't happen.

Wake up and smell the covfefe!

Just so I understand you POV, is this a "win" for you?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: shawmanfromny
Yeah, but you guys frequently said she was delaying, and that it wouldn't happen.

Some did, I didn't - I was actually surprised at how fast she was driving the train, because it was obviously helping Trump, not the demwits.

Now, six days after the impeachment, once again you are saying she is delaying

She is... are you seriously denying that she has failed to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate immediately upon the successful vote, as has been done every time in the past?

Wake up and smell the covfefe!

I've been enjoying the covfefe ever since he sent that typo, thanks!

Are you enjoying the long, slow, painful suicide of the demwit party as much as I am?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: shawmanfromny
The Trump presidency is a crime wave. It probably will not end.

Yeah, I can see how radical leftist demwits would see it that way.

Thanks for not letting us all down, and Merry Christmas!