Mister Meaner
formerly super producer j
- 20,057
- 10,265
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
One doesn't have to be a President to be impeached.All *drumroll* two presidential impeachment trials?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
One doesn't have to be a President to be impeached.All *drumroll* two presidential impeachment trials?
One doesn't have to be a President to be impeached.
Seems you missed the point mr s j king was making as well.Seems you missed the operative word in my post
DAMN RIGHT. Our President could shoot a man on 5th Avenue, and its obviously in the best interest of the nation, as NOBODY else could know what that man was planning except our President and the intelligence he's given by his BFFs. He could also order a missile strike on a man in Iraq and NOBODY else needs to know the reason it was so important. But it was. Our President said so. Therefore you MUST acquit!Alan Dershowitz, one of President Trump's defense lawyers, argued that anything a president does to get re-elected could be considered in the nation's interest and is therefore not impeachable.
Seems you missed the point mr s j king was making as well.
All *drumroll* two presidential impeachment trials?
That’s enough precedent.
Are you against witnesses?
That’s enough precedent.
Are you against witnesses?
Do you every choke on all that bull**** you continuously spew.I don’t think the witnesses would matter in this proceeding.
I think all the arguments against compelling their testimony in the house still exist with compelling them in the Senate.
Further, the president’s attorneys have argued that the allegations, if believed, do not amount to an impeachable offense as a matter of law.
Normally, that means that the party would move for summary judgment, on that argument, and there would be no need to call witnesses. Since the judges are the senators, they make the decision on what’s impeachable.
I don’t think the witnesses would matter in this proceeding.
I think all the arguments against compelling their testimony in the house still exist with compelling them in the Senate.
Further, the president’s attorneys have argued that the allegations, if believed, do not amount to an impeachable offense as a matter of law.
Normally, that means that the party would move for summary judgment, on that argument, and there would be no need to call witnesses. Since the judges are the senators, they make the decision on what’s impeachable.
Of course the president’s attorneys are going to argue that, that doesn’t make it true. You have no idea if witnesses would matter because you haven’t heard their testimony. Senators don’t make the decision of what’s impeachable, he is already impeached. Also, abuse of power is outlined in the constitution.
Before the narrative was he did this to look into corruption in Ukraine but now the goal post has been moved to yeah he abused the power of the office for his own benefit but it’s not impeachable.
Why all the lies?
Who saw this coming? We went from “there was no quid pro quo” to “it doesn’t matter if there was a quid pro quo”.
Who saw this coming? We went from “there was no quid pro quo” to “it doesn’t matter if there was a quid pro quo”.
Who saw this coming? We went from “there was no quid pro quo” to “it doesn’t matter if there was a quid pro quo”.