The text of the Constitution is available free on line. Read it before talking out of your ass.
Republican Senator Warns About Impeachment Of Past Democratic Presidents
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
meanwhile another cop killed himself
www.politico.com
Second police officer died by suicide following Capitol attack
“We honor the service and sacrifices of Officers Brian Sicknick, Howard Liebengood, and Jeffery Smith," said the acting D.C. police chief.
www.politico.com
Except for banning, that is decided by the senate.
Match point.
And tone down the insults.
If I were Phil McNasty or contact you'd be banned already.
I don't care if they impeach him if they can ensure that he is unable mount his divisive campaign of lies and conmanship and run again.
Doesn't look like the senate will convict, but there will be an actual trial this time, with actual evidence (my nipples get hard just thinking about it) and by the time it's over the Donald will not be electable at the national level. He wouldn't even make it to Super Tuesday...
My statement is accurate. That explains why it makes no sense to you in your Bizarro world. You'll have to do better than that.
By the way, you got the saying wrong.
And I believe that evidence presented and proven at the senate trial would be admissible as evidence if there were ever any criminal trial related to these occurrences. This would be another good reason for the Dems to proceed, even if nothing comes of it. The evidence is now on the record.
"trump has already been removed from office. The only thing left to decide is if he gets banned from future attempts"- this is your quote. It is factually wrong. Trump hasn't been removed. He stepped down after losing the vote. And to ban Trump from running again the Senate needs to secure a conviction removing him from office- which it cannot. Btw, I'm not a language expert such as yourself, English is only my third language, but I believe that we capitalize proper names, even when that name is Trump.My statement is accurate. That explains why it makes no sense to you in your Bizarro world. You'll have to do better than that.
By the way, you got the saying wrong.
You didn't fix anything. You only demonstrated, again, that you're either invested in a particular outcome or you're clueless. Bad, either way or hilarious- depending on the pov.
Last edited:
trump was removed. He had no options.
Seriously, you are sounding more agitated lately and your posts have become more delusional starting Nov. 3 and even more so since Jan.6. Clearly this has hit you hard, but I suspect that this is a common reaction when a cultist realizes that everything that he believed in and dedicated himself to was a big fat fairy tale of a lie. It must be a shock to realize that you've been duped and played for a fool. Sorry that you have to go through this. I imagine that it's going to take a while for you to work through this. Good luck.
I have read it. You should try. Then look at the Federalist papers maybe? The debates at the convention are interesting as well. Also the debates about whether to ratify it once written.
Gives you a good sense of what they wrote and why.
This might explain why you are having trouble. You seem to be assuming the text of the constitution is following some kind of narrow constrained logic. For instance, you seem to think "and" is a logical conjunction and not a grammatical one. If I say I like redheads, blondes, and brunettes I am not saying that someone has to have all three hair colours for me to like them.
This whole argument that they can't secure a conviction to bar him from previous office because they can't secure a conviction to remove him from office first seems to be tied together by this idea of strict formal logic which isn't applicable. It's ok. I really am starting to think it is a language problem he has, trapping him in this kind of formal logic analysis instead of reading the Constitution as written.
When the Constitution says that during the impeachment of president the Chief Justice of SCOTUS shall preside, I stick with the text. You can spin it any way you want it. When the text explicitly states that the judgement shall not extend beyond removal AND disqualification- I side with the text. You, since you have a far superior knowledge of the language, can spin, revise and extend until the cows come home. Yet, in the end, the Senate Democrats will still be in the violation of the law.I have read it. You should try. Then look at the Federalist papers maybe? The debates at the convention are interesting as well. Also the debates about whether to ratify it once written.
Gives you a good sense of what they wrote and why.
This might explain why you are having trouble. You seem to be assuming the text of the constitution is following some kind of narrow constrained logic. For instance, you seem to think "and" is a logical conjunction and not a grammatical one. If I say I like redheads, blondes, and brunettes I am not saying that someone has to have all three hair colours for me to like them.
It's ok. I really am starting to think it is a language problem he has, trapping him in this kind of formal logic analysis instead of reading the Constitution as written.
Sure. And Trump isn't President so it doesn't apply. If it did, then Roberts would be presiding, or he would have specified that he isn't presiding because it is unconstitutional or something.
He would have had to explain why he is shirking his constitutional duty.
As do I. The Democrats are not asking for a judgment beyond those two elements. They are asking for disqualification, since removal is moot.
What law are they in violation of? As you can see above, they aren't in violation of the constitution. Is there some statute you think they are in violation of?
Do you think Professor Laurence Tribe read the constitution before he wrote the book on Constitutional Law which is used in most law schools?
