Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to Prove on Feb 9th that Former Presidents can be Tried by the Senate.

Question, has roberts still refused to preside over the trial?

If he has how can it be legal to put someone from the competing political party in a position to decide guilt or innocence?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Now is the time for political retribution.

Thanks for that.
That kind of flat out honesty is rare here.
It will not be forgotten.

Impeachment is a political act.

I agree with Lindsey Graham on the message impeachment sends to the American people, politicians and the world, when the Republicans tried to enforce their political retribution on Bill Clinton because of his Oval Office sexy time with Monica.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Clinton was tried for actual crimes, though, like perjury and obstruction of justice, and not for his sexy time.

a reply to: carewemust

I hope that during the impeachment trial, Trump's team brings out evidence of election fraud as a way to justify Trump's own words.

That is, if the evil authoritarian left allows Trump to have a defense.

originally posted by: CitizenZero
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Clinton was tried for actual crimes, though, like perjury and obstruction of justice, and not for his sexy time.

According to Lyndsey Graham's argument, though, "hurting a little person" by Clinton wielding his powerful position was a "high crime".

And, by the way, inciting insurrection is an actual crime. codes.findlaw.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I agree with Lindsey Graham on the message impeachment sends to the American people, politicians and the world, when the Republicans tried to enforce their political retribution on Bill Clinton because of his Oval Office sexy time with Monica.

No you do not.
YOU HAVE CALLED FOR RETRIBUTION NOW.

Nasty people you lot.
Bs "unity" calls.

Quite disgusting

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: CitizenZero
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Clinton was tried for actual crimes, though, like perjury and obstruction of justice, and not for his sexy time.

According to Lyndsey Graham's argument, though, "hurting a little person" by Clinton wielding his powerful position was a "high crime".

And, by the way, inciting insurrection is an actual crime. codes.findlaw.com...

No matter how much you anti 1st Amendment commies try, speech is not a crime.

Especially speech you disagree with commie.

a reply to: shooterbrody

YOU HAVE CALLED FOR RETRIBUTION NOW.

I said, "now is the time for political retribution". Because, if/when Trump is convicted in federal court for his part in the insurrection of Jan 6th, it will be too late for political retribution.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
So don't pretend you didn't
Cause that is a lie

Political retribution is disgusting
As are you

Oh and don't parrot the dem unity bs either, as there is none with your sought political retribution.
Will you be advocating the formation of dem brown shirts to further your thirst for political retribution?

Big smiles
Big smiles

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: CitizenZero
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Clinton was tried for actual crimes, though, like perjury and obstruction of justice, and not for his sexy time.

According to Lyndsey Graham's argument, though, "hurting a little person" by Clinton wielding his powerful position was a "high crime".

And, by the way, inciting insurrection is an actual crime. codes.findlaw.com...

I'm not aware of the DOJ indicting any participants for insurrection, let alone the president (against his own government, oddly enough).

In any case, his actual speech is exculpatory to the charge (he incited them to peaceful protest, not insurrection), protected by the 1st amendment (officials swear an oath to protect the constitution), so it seems a stretch to apply insurrection laws to the capitol hill riot.

a reply to: CitizenZero

The "Article of Impeachment" sent over to the Senate for trial...Article 1, is literally titled "Incitement of Insurrection".

www.cbsnews.com...

No investigation
No committee hearings

Just a majority vote

What a precedent for "unity" dems.


You leave a very very low bar for "impeachment ".

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CitizenZero

The "Article of Impeachment" sent over to the Senate for trial...Article 1, is literally titled "Incitement of Insurrection".

www.cbsnews.com...

Right. Now they have prove it was an insurrection and that Trump incited it, neither of which holds any water.

a reply to: CitizenZero
In the past they have had some sort of discussion, committee meetings, ect prior to a full house vote.
Not this time.....
Wonder why?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

[Quote:deadlysyn]
You do understand "and" is the operative word here, I hope? Removal from office AND disqualification. Not removal from office OR disqualification. The word "and" means that both conditions must be met in legal terms. Since he is no longer the sitting president, he can't be removed from office.[end quote]


Syn knew what I meant apparently. Why don't you? Could it be willful denial?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: CitizenZero
In the past they have had some sort of discussion, committee meetings, ect prior to a full house vote.
Not this time.....
Wonder why?

It’s a show trial in a kangaroo court, plain and simple.

originally posted by: CitizenZero

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: CitizenZero
In the past they have had some sort of discussion, committee meetings, ect prior to a full house vote.
Not this time.....
Wonder why?

It’s a show trial in a kangaroo court, plain and simple.

A poorly disguised attempt at such imo.
The support for such imo is disgusting.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Sookiechacha

[Quote:deadlysyn]
You do understand "and" is the operative word here, I hope? Removal from office AND disqualification. Not removal from office OR disqualification. The word "and" means that both conditions must be met in legal terms. Since he is no longer the sitting president, he can't be removed from office.[end quote]


Syn knew what I meant apparently. Why don't you? Could it be willful denial?

It doesn't matter what you or I, or Syn" think we know about the constitutionality of this impeachment trial. There are 9 impeachment lawyers willing to argue differently in the Senate trial.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
And not 66 votes to pass it.





Not even a nice try this time

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And they all suck on president bidens*bleep*