Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
If the Bidens are corrupt (and they are) how is it election interference?
Even Biden admits it didn't look good that his inexperienced crack head son got a job paying $600,000/year. Was it white privilege that got him the job or that his daddy was VP and leading Ukrainian policy? If you choose to keep your head in the sand about that kind of corruption then so be it. Both parties do it. McConnell is one of the worst
But to pretend that what Hunter Biden was doing was on the up and up is laughable on its face.
Earl (01-25-2020), Truth Detector (01-29-2020)
The vote will be on the merits of the case presented by the Democrats (note that there are no Republicans presenting the case which is telling). It appears to be a totally partisan effort to remove a sitting president that the American people elected (which Nervous Nancy said should never happen). If the vote is for acquittal (exoneration) the significance is that the Democrats did not present a compelling case. If the vote is guilty, it means that the case was compelling.
See how easy that was?
Truth Detector (01-29-2020)
Every fiber of my being screams Trump is a crook.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Earl (01-25-2020)
Truth Detector (01-29-2020)
What crime?
Where? Congress is still functioning. The court system is still functioning.
Nixon didn't get booted. He was never even impeached.
They all do. It is similar to husband-wife privilege. This goes back to English Common Law.
Nope. The concept goes all the way back to English Common Law.
I am not red, I assure you.
All they can do is remove the President from office.
Earl (01-25-2020), Truth Detector (01-29-2020)
You can't charge someone with a 'crime' that cannot be defined!!! See Articles 1.$9, 2.$2, 3.$2, 3.$3, 4.$2, 4.$4, 5, and 6, and the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 105th, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 26th amendments.
Interfering with a foreign government is not a crime, else Congress would be guilty of the same crime every time it declared a war, confirmed a treaty, or had ANYTHING to do with a foreign government!!
The Ukraine has no capability to interfere with U.S. elections.
What crime?
It pretty much does, dude.
The House does not have authority to demand documents and witnesses. They must use the court.
Nixon was not impeached.
Circular argument fallacy. They do NOT have the authority to define an ex-post facto crime. They do NOT have the authority to impeach without specifying a crime.
No.
Contextomy fallacy. The Senate does NOT have the authority to do anything more than remove a President from office, and ONLY under specific circumstances.
Only of the impeachment articles, and only to remove a president from office. They cannot throw him in jail or exact any other penalty. Contextomy fallacy.
Earl (01-25-2020), Truth Detector (01-29-2020)
I did not say Nixon was impeached. I said the House Judiciary Committed voted to impeach him (and the House would have followed suit if he had not resigned) for withholding documents and information.
And all the other things you claim cannot or must be done (defining a crime, etc) have already been done when the president was impeached. The House does not have to go to court to subpoena--even the president's attorneys are not arguing that. They just claim Congress needed a resolution for the committees to subpoena.
You are attempting to refute arguments I never made. Of course, the Senate conviction is only for impeachment articles, but you claimed they cannot convict. And I clearly said impeachment and conviction only allow two penalties, so the whole jail thing is never an argument I made.
You said the Senate cannot convict and now you are admitting they can.
Yes you did. You also have claimed that he was impeached in the past. You also claim that Nixon was booted out of office.
What crime?
Yes they do.
They HAVE been arguing that.
The House is not Congress. Repetitious redefinition fallacy (RRF).
Truth Detector (01-29-2020)
Liar. You did make them. You continue to make them from time to time.
Repetitious distortion and Contextomy fallacy. (RDCF)
Just one. Removal from office and barred from holding office in the future.
Lie.
RDCF.
Truth Detector (01-29-2020)
You are confusing your posters. I never claimed Nixon was impeached or booted out of office. He would have been impeached and convicted if he had not resigned.
The president's lawyer argued the House needed to issue a resolution to give the committee power to issue subpoenas. They never claimed they had to go to court.
Bookmarks