McConnell now supports Trump IMPEACHMENT

conserveguy877

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
5,740
Reaction score
1,717
Points
195


Well, this puts that whole house impeachment charade to bed.
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908


Well, this puts that whole house impeachment charade to bed.
Keep grasping at straws. Sedition doesnt have to include plans or attempts to kill anyone. And as the article states, the investigation is still in its early stages. Trump hasn’t been exonerated by any means. And given your ignorance regarding what impeachment is, I don’t have much faith in your understanding of sedition.

have you noticed that instead of acknowledging that I was right, you keep deflecting by insisting that the impeachment , that you insisted wouldn’t happen, is not justified.

if impeachment didn’t HAPPEN, then why are you saying it was wrong. And if impeachment did happen, why do you keep pretending you weren’t wrong. Face your mistake and move on,
 

dudmuck

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
7,575
Reaction score
2,255
Points
275
Location
Camarillo, CA
Your NAZI partner in crime failed miserably
you do realize, don’t you, that the Nazis weren’t Socialists, despite their choice of names? And it was German conservatives, the wealthy elites, who put the Nazis in power. So when you call someone a Nazi, you’re calling him a right winger.

so it could be inferred here that YOU are the Nazi here
The NAZI's were socialists, moron. I've proven it 1000 times over.


“National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.” – January 27, 1934, interview with Hanns Johst in Frankforter Volksblatt
“There is a difference between the theoretical knowledge of socialism and the practical life of socialism. People are not born socialists, but must first be taught how to become them.” – October 5, 1937, speech in Berlin
“Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism.” – August 15, 1920, speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus.
“Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national.” – 1923, Interview with George Sylvester Viereck
“Is there a nobler or more excellent kind of Socialism and is there a truer form of Democracy than this National Socialism which is so organized that through it each one among the millions of German boys is given the possibility of finding his way to the highest office in the nation, should it please Providence to come to his aid?” – January 30, 1937, On National Socialism and World Relations speech in the German Reichstag
“Germany’s economic policy is conducted exclusively in accordance with the interests of the German people. In this respect I am a fanatical socialist, one who has ever in mind the interests of all his people.” – February 24, 1941, speech on the 21st anniversary of the Nazi Party
for Hanns Johst, in that same interview

"I took a close look at the new political command and recognized in it the true face of Marxism. With that began my fight against the politics of this theory and its practice."

The best example of Hitler’s own views on socialism are evident in a debate he had over two days in May 1930 with then-party member Otto Strasser. Strasser and his brother Gregor, who was an avowed socialist of sorts, were a part of the Nazi Party’s left wing, arguing in favor of political socialism as an essential ingredient in Nazism.

when Strasser calls for the return of 41 percent of private property to the state and dismisses the role of private property in an industrialized economy, Hitler tells him that will not only ruin “the entire nation” but also “end all progress of humanity.”
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,930
Reaction score
10,799
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
He wont be impeached, old lady.
By this evening, he WILL be impeached. Will you be back to admit you were wrong.
Will you go crazy if he isn't?
Check back later. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. Would you do the same?
Did not take long
Where is your admission of fail?
You apparently don’t know what impeachment means. If the House passes the articles of impeachment, then Trump has been impeached again, regardless of when it moves to trial.
Wrong. Plus your statement was as to Senate and MCConnel who are the entity that conveys impeachment. The house merely sends it over for a vote but we know you fact absent liberals must hang onto your feeling that a charge is the same thing as a conviction.
Plus your dishonesty over failing to concede error as you stated you would not 20 minutes ago may be a new USMB record
Word parse fail by you.
Do a little more reading. an impeachment is an indictment, not a trial. If that weren’t the case, why are Johnson, Clinton, and Trump on record as having been impeached.

the House impeached (indicts) and the Senate conducts the trial. The House today will indict.
And he willl never be convicted. Dims are wasting their time on this show trial.

It will never be tried, there is no provision in the Constitution for impeaching a former president.

.
He's not a former president. He's still president, therefore, once he leaves office, there is still unfinished business. I said he would be impeached today, and there will be a conviction in the senate after he is gone. Stay tuned.

So show me in the Constitution were an impeachment trial is provided for a former president. Once a president leaves office the accusations made by the house are moot. But hey, feel free to show me in the text where I'm wrong.

.

The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office Your gotcha question has no meaning. It goes without saying, that if you commit impeachable offenses right before you leave office and be criminally charged without consequences, you would be above the law. In other words, your question makes no sense. Next?

There is no Constitutional option for impeachment of a president after he leaves office, the founder contemplated it, and rejected it. Article 2 Section 4 leaves zero wiggle room. You also note that there is no impeachment without conviction. nazi palousey and a vast majority of the talking heads obviously can't read any better than you can.

.
There is legal precedent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will probably be involved but there definitely NOT total certainty that Trump will escape a trial.

Actually there isn't, show me where the question was addressed in the courts.

.
In the case against William Blount, the Senate made the decision not to proceed After initially commencing proceedings. In the case of William Belknap, the Senate conducted a trial and did not convict. It is uncertain where the Supreme Court will go with this, but if Trump loses his 61st case, he’ll REALLY lose big.

The fact that it didn’t make it to the courts isn’t entirely true though because a sitting justice presides over impeachment trials. And precedent can be set when the courts choose NOT act.

You should make a note to self, congressional political actions are NOT legal precedents. LMAO

.
Ah, but they are impeachment precedents. Parse the words any way you want but you can’t change the fact that neither of us can say with absolutely certainty which way this will go. I’ve considered both sides. Sadly, you just choose to parse words and let your arrogance prevail.

Poor little childish commie, you're the one that claimed "legal precedents" existed, thanks for admitting you LIED.

.
Sadly, you still dont understand. Legal precedents can exist withou direct court action. The Constitution is essentially a framework That lays out two things. Things that MUST happen and things that aren’t prohibited. Basically, anything that ISN’T prohibited in the Constitution is permitted by it. However, Legislative bodies can enact legislation regarding anything else. So it can be argued that if the Constitution doesn’t PROHIBIT an impeachment of someone who has already left office, then such a trial does not go against the Constitution. If that’s the case, then rules adopted by the Senate would be legal and Constitutional.

Try focusing a little less on parsing words and a little more on concepts.

BTW your second lie was Trump lost 60 court cases, he or his campaign didn't file any where close to that many cases.

Also I prefer to focus on the Supreme Law of the Land.

Article II Section 4 The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Now with three new textualist on SCOTUS, how do you think they'll read it?

But hey keep swallowing the commie propaganda, it's what you chose to do.

.
It doesn’t prohibit a trial. And a trial can have consequences BESIDES removal from office.

and my point remains, legal experts have talked both sides of the argument. You certainly aren’t a legal expert so I’ll defer to those who are.

And here’s an itemized list of trumps cases - 60 that were lost and 1 that was won. But I won’t call you a liar because sonething isn’t a lie if you believe it to be true. But I WILL call you ignorant because you just don’t know any better.


if you don’t believe the list, please tell me which you think are wrong.

Well you poor little illiterate commie, the two blocks in the link only show one case filed by the campaign in PA and it says it's ongoing.

This is what you were supposedly refuting, and you failed like the miserable commie you typically are.
BTW your second lie was Trump lost 60 court cases, he or his campaign didn't file any where close to that many cases.
ROFLMFAO

.
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908

Do you only look at the picture when you get a book? Try reading the first paragraph (one of those thingies with words in it.

Heres some help.
“After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost over 60 lawsuits[1][2][3][4][5] contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.[6]

if you look at my post, I didn’t limit the scope to Pennsylvania.

the page lists or references the 60 suits I was referring to.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,930
Reaction score
10,799
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
He wont be impeached, old lady.
By this evening, he WILL be impeached. Will you be back to admit you were wrong.
Will you go crazy if he isn't?
Check back later. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. Would you do the same?
Did not take long
Where is your admission of fail?
You apparently don’t know what impeachment means. If the House passes the articles of impeachment, then Trump has been impeached again, regardless of when it moves to trial.
Wrong. Plus your statement was as to Senate and MCConnel who are the entity that conveys impeachment. The house merely sends it over for a vote but we know you fact absent liberals must hang onto your feeling that a charge is the same thing as a conviction.
Plus your dishonesty over failing to concede error as you stated you would not 20 minutes ago may be a new USMB record
Word parse fail by you.
Do a little more reading. an impeachment is an indictment, not a trial. If that weren’t the case, why are Johnson, Clinton, and Trump on record as having been impeached.

the House impeached (indicts) and the Senate conducts the trial. The House today will indict.
And he willl never be convicted. Dims are wasting their time on this show trial.

It will never be tried, there is no provision in the Constitution for impeaching a former president.

.
He's not a former president. He's still president, therefore, once he leaves office, there is still unfinished business. I said he would be impeached today, and there will be a conviction in the senate after he is gone. Stay tuned.

So show me in the Constitution were an impeachment trial is provided for a former president. Once a president leaves office the accusations made by the house are moot. But hey, feel free to show me in the text where I'm wrong.

.
We don't know...but I'm ready to find out!!!


Your link is very specific. From your link:

The Constitution’s Article II, Section 4 reads that “the President,

No where does it say the outgoing president or former president. It says, The President, there is only one president at a time, Trump will not be "the President", he will be the former president at the point the senate could take up the house resolution. So tell me child, what is there to be found out? The Constitution is clear.

.
We will see, won't we? I can be patient. Can you, "child"?

I can be very patient, the TRUTH is already coming out. The Sergeants of Arms of both chambers were warned by the Capitol Hill police chief well in advance, like days before the riot, that the FBI had intel from the web that an attack was being planned. Evidently they did nothing. Also the attack started before Trump even spoke to the protesters, So once again, Trump was impeached on a lie. No wonder nazi palousey was in such a hurry, she couldn't allow the facts to come out.

.
They were there because Trump 1) Lied to them about the election being "stolen" and 2 ) He told them to be there.

Trump has yet to be impeached on a lie. He really did pressure a foreign government to interfere in our elections and he is responsible for his supporters storming the capital.

LMAO, There was a rally being held, Trump didn't organize it, he did decide to show them his appreciation by speaking to them. At the end he said he knew they were going to the capitol "to peacefully and patriotically have their voices heard". He at no time told his supporters to violate any law and as I said before the riot at the capitol was planned in advance and was underway before Trump finished speaking. So like the typical commie child you are, you've swallowed the party lies.

I guess you think BLM thugs are taking their marching orders from Trump now.
He was egging others to set fire to the capitol according to the video HE provided to the FBI.

.
 
Last edited:

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,930
Reaction score
10,799
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
BTW your second lie was Trump lost 60 court cases, he or his campaign didn't file any where close to that many cases.



Can you count dumb fuck? How many of those has Trumps or the campaigns name on them. God you commies are fucking idiots. Can you count to ONE, in the two blocks in the link? A PA case that's still ongoing.

.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,930
Reaction score
10,799
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX

Do you only look at the picture when you get a book? Try reading the first paragraph (one of those thingies with words in it.

Heres some help.
“After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost over 60 lawsuits[1][2][3][4][5] contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.[6]

if you look at my post, I didn’t limit the scope to Pennsylvania.

the page lists or references the 60 suits I was referring to.

"others" had nothing to do with what I said, did they? Fucking idiot.

.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,930
Reaction score
10,799
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
He wont be impeached, old lady.
By this evening, he WILL be impeached. Will you be back to admit you were wrong.
Will you go crazy if he isn't?
Check back later. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. Would you do the same?
Did not take long
Where is your admission of fail?
You apparently don’t know what impeachment means. If the House passes the articles of impeachment, then Trump has been impeached again, regardless of when it moves to trial.
Wrong. Plus your statement was as to Senate and MCConnel who are the entity that conveys impeachment. The house merely sends it over for a vote but we know you fact absent liberals must hang onto your feeling that a charge is the same thing as a conviction.
Plus your dishonesty over failing to concede error as you stated you would not 20 minutes ago may be a new USMB record
Word parse fail by you.
Do a little more reading. an impeachment is an indictment, not a trial. If that weren’t the case, why are Johnson, Clinton, and Trump on record as having been impeached.

the House impeached (indicts) and the Senate conducts the trial. The House today will indict.
And he willl never be convicted. Dims are wasting their time on this show trial.

It will never be tried, there is no provision in the Constitution for impeaching a former president.

.
He's not a former president. He's still president, therefore, once he leaves office, there is still unfinished business. I said he would be impeached today, and there will be a conviction in the senate after he is gone. Stay tuned.

So show me in the Constitution were an impeachment trial is provided for a former president. Once a president leaves office the accusations made by the house are moot. But hey, feel free to show me in the text where I'm wrong.

.
We don't know...but I'm ready to find out!!!


Your link is very specific. From your link:

The Constitution’s Article II, Section 4 reads that “the President,

No where does it say the outgoing president or former president. It says, The President, there is only one president at a time, Trump will not be "the President", he will be the former president at the point the senate could take up the house resolution. So tell me child, what is there to be found out? The Constitution is clear.

.
I hope it works out, I really do.

Then, eventually, when the GOP takes office again, maybe they can set a precedent and not only impeach Obama. . . then they can go on and impeach FDR as well!


:auiqs.jpg:
Lol! Impeach Obama for what? Crimes you can't prove? :auiqs.jpg:

You could start with thousands of violations of immigration law.

.
No, I won't, you will. I asked you specifically what crimes? And where is the documentation proving your claim?

Did he issue work documents to people here illegally contrary to law, well yes, yes he did. He even said 23 fucking times he didn't have the authority to do what he ultimately did. When he tried the same shit with DAPA the courts bitch slapped his ass and sent his lawyers to ethics classes.

.
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908

Do you only look at the picture when you get a book? Try reading the first paragraph (one of those thingies with words in it.

Heres some help.
“After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost over 60 lawsuits[1][2][3][4][5] contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.[6]

if you look at my post, I didn’t limit the scope to Pennsylvania.

the page lists or references the 60 suits I was referring to.

"others" had nothing to do with what I said, did they? Fucking idiot.

.
All the parsing in the world wont change the fact that you were wrong and still are. Whether they were filed by Trump or on his behalf. He lost all but one.

The post says Trump AND others, not Trump OR others. Some suits on behalf included other litigants.

But read on to see for yourself. Stop parsing and start learning.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,930
Reaction score
10,799
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX

Do you only look at the picture when you get a book? Try reading the first paragraph (one of those thingies with words in it.

Heres some help.
“After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost over 60 lawsuits[1][2][3][4][5] contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.[6]

if you look at my post, I didn’t limit the scope to Pennsylvania.

the page lists or references the 60 suits I was referring to.

"others" had nothing to do with what I said, did they? Fucking idiot.

.
All the parsing in the world wont change the fact that you were wrong and still are. Whether they were filed by Trump or on his behalf. He lost all but one.

The post says Trump AND others, not Trump OR others. Some suits on behalf included other litigants.

But read on to see for yourself. Stop parsing and start learning.

There were no parsing of words, I said neither Trump or his campaign filed that many suits, and they didn't. All you're doing is trying to shoehorn your lie into something plausible, here's a hint for ya commie, it ain't working.

.
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908

Do you only look at the picture when you get a book? Try reading the first paragraph (one of those thingies with words in it.

Heres some help.
“After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost over 60 lawsuits[1][2][3][4][5] contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.[6]

if you look at my post, I didn’t limit the scope to Pennsylvania.

the page lists or references the 60 suits I was referring to.

"others" had nothing to do with what I said, did they? Fucking idiot.

.
All the parsing in the world wont change the fact that you were wrong and still are. Whether they were filed by Trump or on his behalf. He lost all but one.

The post says Trump AND others, not Trump OR others. Some suits on behalf included other litigants.

But read on to see for yourself. Stop parsing and start learning.

There were no parsing of words, I said neither Trump or his campaign filed that many suits, and they didn't. All you're doing is trying to shoehorn your lie into something plausible, here's a hint for ya commie, it ain't working.

.
“Out of the 62 lawsuits filed challenging the presidential election, 61 have failed, according to Elias.“

doesn’t get any clearer than that. SOMEBODY filed them. And they were all done in an attempt to benefit Trump.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
51,930
Reaction score
10,799
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX

Do you only look at the picture when you get a book? Try reading the first paragraph (one of those thingies with words in it.

Heres some help.
“After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost over 60 lawsuits[1][2][3][4][5] contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.[6]

if you look at my post, I didn’t limit the scope to Pennsylvania.

the page lists or references the 60 suits I was referring to.

"others" had nothing to do with what I said, did they? Fucking idiot.

.
All the parsing in the world wont change the fact that you were wrong and still are. Whether they were filed by Trump or on his behalf. He lost all but one.

The post says Trump AND others, not Trump OR others. Some suits on behalf included other litigants.

But read on to see for yourself. Stop parsing and start learning.

There were no parsing of words, I said neither Trump or his campaign filed that many suits, and they didn't. All you're doing is trying to shoehorn your lie into something plausible, here's a hint for ya commie, it ain't working.

.
“Out of the 62 lawsuits filed challenging the presidential election, 61 have failed, according to Elias.“

doesn’t get any clearer than that. SOMEBODY filed them. And they were all done in an attempt to benefit Trump.

Fuck off and die commie, already been addressed.

.
 

MadDog

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
800
Reaction score
426
Points
908

Do you only look at the picture when you get a book? Try reading the first paragraph (one of those thingies with words in it.

Heres some help.
“After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost over 60 lawsuits[1][2][3][4][5] contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.[6]

if you look at my post, I didn’t limit the scope to Pennsylvania.

the page lists or references the 60 suits I was referring to.

"others" had nothing to do with what I said, did they? Fucking idiot.

.
All the parsing in the world wont change the fact that you were wrong and still are. Whether they were filed by Trump or on his behalf. He lost all but one.

The post says Trump AND others, not Trump OR others. Some suits on behalf included other litigants.

But read on to see for yourself. Stop parsing and start learning.

There were no parsing of words, I said neither Trump or his campaign filed that many suits, and they didn't. All you're doing is trying to shoehorn your lie into something plausible, here's a hint for ya commie, it ain't working.

.
“Out of the 62 lawsuits filed challenging the presidential election, 61 have failed, according to Elias.“

doesn’t get any clearer than that. SOMEBODY filed them. And they were all done in an attempt to benefit Trump.

Fuck off and die commie, already been addressed.

.
My initial comment was that Trump lost 61 cases. I made no distinction over who filed them. You, on the other hand kept trying to parse it into something is. The fact is that Trump lost 61 cases.

“Out of the 62 lawsuits filed challenging the presidential election, 61 have failed, according to Elias.“

declaring victory and then running off to hide doesnt change the fact that youre wrong. Neithrt does a childish ad hominem (you may need to look that one up, though there probably wont be any pictures.
 
Last edited:

Seawytch

Information isnt Advocacy
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
40,962
Reaction score
6,705
Points
1,860
Location
Peaking out from the redwoods
He wont be impeached, old lady.
By this evening, he WILL be impeached. Will you be back to admit you were wrong.
Will you go crazy if he isn't?
Check back later. If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. Would you do the same?
Did not take long
Where is your admission of fail?
You apparently don’t know what impeachment means. If the House passes the articles of impeachment, then Trump has been impeached again, regardless of when it moves to trial.
Wrong. Plus your statement was as to Senate and MCConnel who are the entity that conveys impeachment. The house merely sends it over for a vote but we know you fact absent liberals must hang onto your feeling that a charge is the same thing as a conviction.
Plus your dishonesty over failing to concede error as you stated you would not 20 minutes ago may be a new USMB record
Word parse fail by you.
Do a little more reading. an impeachment is an indictment, not a trial. If that weren’t the case, why are Johnson, Clinton, and Trump on record as having been impeached.

the House impeached (indicts) and the Senate conducts the trial. The House today will indict.
And he willl never be convicted. Dims are wasting their time on this show trial.

It will never be tried, there is no provision in the Constitution for impeaching a former president.

.
He's not a former president. He's still president, therefore, once he leaves office, there is still unfinished business. I said he would be impeached today, and there will be a conviction in the senate after he is gone. Stay tuned.

So show me in the Constitution were an impeachment trial is provided for a former president. Once a president leaves office the accusations made by the house are moot. But hey, feel free to show me in the text where I'm wrong.

.
We don't know...but I'm ready to find out!!!


Your link is very specific. From your link:

The Constitution’s Article II, Section 4 reads that “the President,

No where does it say the outgoing president or former president. It says, The President, there is only one president at a time, Trump will not be "the President", he will be the former president at the point the senate could take up the house resolution. So tell me child, what is there to be found out? The Constitution is clear.

.
We will see, won't we? I can be patient. Can you, "child"?

I can be very patient, the TRUTH is already coming out. The Sergeants of Arms of both chambers were warned by the Capitol Hill police chief well in advance, like days before the riot, that the FBI had intel from the web that an attack was being planned. Evidently they did nothing. Also the attack started before Trump even spoke to the protesters, So once again, Trump was impeached on a lie. No wonder nazi palousey was in such a hurry, she couldn't allow the facts to come out.

.
They were there because Trump 1) Lied to them about the election being "stolen" and 2 ) He told them to be there.

Trump has yet to be impeached on a lie. He really did pressure a foreign government to interfere in our elections and he is responsible for his supporters storming the capital.

LMAO, There was a rally being held, Trump didn't organize it, he did decide to show them his appreciation by speaking to them. At the end he said he knew they were going to the capitol "to peacefully and patriotically have their voices heard". He at no time told his supporters to violate any law and as I said before the riot at the capitol was planned in advance and was underway before Trump finished speaking. So like the typical commie child you are, you've swallowed the party lies.

I guess you think BLM thugs are taking their marching orders from Trump now.
He was egging others to set fire to the capitol according to the video HE provided to the FBI.

.
There was a "rally" because Trump told them to be there. He lied to his cult and told them the election was being stolen from him. Trump has been pouring gasoline out for months whether he lit the actual match or not. Trump does not get to throw rocks and hide his hand.

"The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.” ~ Kevin McCarthy Republican Minority Leader
 

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
5,180
Reaction score
7,601
Points
2,080
Location
North Carolina
Just breaking on MSNBC. Below is The New York Times link. So, if true, will McConnell expedite Senate impeachment proceedings - or continue to drag his feet?

Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, has told associates that he believes President Trump committed impeachable offenses and that he is pleased that Democrats are moving to impeach him, believing that it will make it easier to purge him from the party, according to people familiar with his thinking. The House is voting on Wednesday to formally charge Mr. Trump with inciting violence against the country.

Mr. McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, has indicated that he wants to see the specific article of impeachment that the House is set to approve on Wednesday, which is expected to draw support from as many as a dozen Republicans, potentially including Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the party’s No. 3 in the House. But he has made clear in private discussions that he believes now is the moment to move on from the weakened lame duck, whom he blames for causing Republicans to lose the Senate.

McConnell is said to be pleased about impeachment, believing it will be easier to purge Trump from the G.O.P.

1610994600409.png
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
47,065
Reaction score
6,563
Points
1,870

Do you only look at the picture when you get a book? Try reading the first paragraph (one of those thingies with words in it.

Heres some help.
“After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost over 60 lawsuits[1][2][3][4][5] contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.[6]

if you look at my post, I didn’t limit the scope to Pennsylvania.

the page lists or references the 60 suits I was referring to.

"others" had nothing to do with what I said, did they? Fucking idiot.

.
All the parsing in the world wont change the fact that you were wrong and still are. Whether they were filed by Trump or on his behalf. He lost all but one.

The post says Trump AND others, not Trump OR others. Some suits on behalf included other litigants.

But read on to see for yourself. Stop parsing and start learning.

There were no parsing of words, I said neither Trump or his campaign filed that many suits, and they didn't. All you're doing is trying to shoehorn your lie into something plausible, here's a hint for ya commie, it ain't working.

.
“Out of the 62 lawsuits filed challenging the presidential election, 61 have failed, according to Elias.“

doesn’t get any clearer than that. SOMEBODY filed them. And they were all done in an attempt to benefit Trump.

Fuck off and die commie, already been addressed.

.
Your stupid fantasy got laughed out of court. Get as whiny and throw as many tantrums as you like.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top