Senate cannot try a private citizen !!!

[366h34d]

So what? Neither did Johnson's nor Clinton's. It's still a stain on a presidency that can't be washed away.

There have been four presidential impeachments. And half of them were Trump.

YOu are right. He has 2. However, it just shows you how wrong the process was?

Oh? Why is that?

Do you think impeachment is for jaywalking?

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. Read the Constitution, you fucking moron. It clearly says that an impeachment trial is for THE PRESIDENT.

No...it does NOT you stupid little turd

I've quoted that part a dozen times already, fuckstick

 

[Lesh]

It is, Dummy.

Show me where impeachment is for former Presidents.

Impeachment trials are not for former Presidents either, Halfwit.

You lose again.

You're half right. Impeachments are for President/Vice President, and officers of the US only.

Impeachment trials are for anybody who was impeached.

Not according to the Constitution. Try reading it.

Dumbfuck, nothing in the Constitution indicates Twice Impeached Trump can't stand trial in the Senate. You're just too brain-dead to know any better.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. ​

So, just like the hurt Democrat children in the congress, you're making it up as you go....It won't stand.

LOL

Imbecile, I didn't make that up -- I copied & pasted that italicized text from the Constitution.

Hey, I didn't call you names asshole...While you may have copied a portion of text from the Constitution, you left out much of it, and distorted the meaning.

Don't be an imbecile and I won't call you one. I left out nothing that affects that sentence. What part of "ALL" is too confusing for you??

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments. ​

What part of " When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside" didn't you understand? Where does is say "former president?"

Wrong dickface

The History of American Impeachment

There’s a precedent that it's not just for presidents

www.smithsonianmag.com

Virtually every Impeachment of a non-sitting President has been presided over by the VP or the President Pro Tem. In terms of the Senate those two positions are interchangeable

You've been corrected.

Claiming it again would be lying and will be noted as such

 

[Lesh]

Wrong. Read the Constitution, you fucking moron. It clearly says that an impeachment trial is for THE PRESIDENT.

No...it does NOT you stupid little turd

I've quoted that part a dozen times already, fuckstick

So how did those Justices and judges and Cabinet members get impeached you stupid fucking little man?

 

[BS Filter]

They just took Patrick Leahy to the hospital. Probably fell down drunk and broke his fat lying nose.

 

[bripat9643]

It is, Dummy.

Show me where impeachment is for former Presidents.

Impeachment trials are not for former Presidents either, Halfwit.

You lose again.

You're half right. Impeachments are for President/Vice President, and officers of the US only.

Impeachment trials are for anybody who was impeached.

Not according to the Constitution. Try reading it.

Dumbfuck, nothing in the Constitution indicates Twice Impeached Trump can't stand trial in the Senate. You're just too brain-dead to know any better.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. ​

So, just like the hurt Democrat children in the congress, you're making it up as you go....It won't stand.

LOL

Imbecile, I didn't make that up -- I copied & pasted that italicized text from the Constitution.

Hey, I didn't call you names asshole...While you may have copied a portion of text from the Constitution, you left out much of it, and distorted the meaning.

Don't be an imbecile and I won't call you one. I left out nothing that affects that sentence. What part of "ALL" is too confusing for you??

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try ALL Impeachments. ​

What part of " When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside" didn't you understand? Where does is say "former president?"

Wrong dickface

The History of American Impeachment

There’s a precedent that it's not just for presidents

www.smithsonianmag.com

Virtually every Impeachment of a non-sitting President has been presided over by the VP or the President Pro Tem. In terms of the Senate those two positions are interchangeable

You've been corrected.

Claiming it again would be lying and will be noted as such

I qouted the Constitution, shitstain. What part of " When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside" didn't you understand?

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. Read the Constitution, you fucking moron. It clearly says that an impeachment trial is for THE PRESIDENT.

No...it does NOT you stupid little turd

I've quoted that part a dozen times already, fuckstick

So how did those Justices and judges and Cabinet members get impeached you stupid fucking little man?

#1. They aren't the president of the United States. Even a brain damaged retard can understand that.

 

[bripat9643]

They just took Patrick Leahy to the hospital. Probably fell down drunk and broke his fat lying nose.

I hope he goes into a coma for a couple of years.

 

[Nostra]

Chief Justice Roberts states he will not participate in this unconstitutional farce.

Should I go with his knowledge of the Constitution, or that of unhinged, single digit IQ Dimwinger fuckwits on an innerweb message board?

Hmmmmm......

 

[bripat9643]

Chief Justice Roberts states he will not participate in this unconstitutional farce.

Should I go with his knowledge of the Constitution, or that of unhinged, single digit IQ Dimwinger fuckwits on an innerweb message board?

Hmmmmm......

Do you have a link to that?

 

[Skylar]

They have zero constitutional power or right to do so
Trying T on fake charges is only a “ Soviet show trial “

The senate has sole authority over all impeachments. Trump was impeached. Thus, the Senate has full authority over it.

 

[Skylar]

Chief Justice Roberts states he will not participate in this unconstitutional farce.

Should I go with his knowledge of the Constitution, or that of unhinged, single digit IQ Dimwinger fuckwits on an innerweb message board?

Hmmmmm......

Where did Roberts say it was an 'unconstitutional farce'? Because I'm pretty sure that's you, citing yourself AS Roberts.

That's not exactly the same thing, is it?

 

[Nostra]

Chief Justice Roberts states he will not participate in this unconstitutional farce.

Should I go with his knowledge of the Constitution, or that of unhinged, single digit IQ Dimwinger fuckwits on an innerweb message board?

Hmmmmm......

Do you have a link to that?

Your ignorance of Roberts’ refusal to oversee the Shampeachment trial isn’t my concern.

Go get educated.

 

[Nostra]

Chief Justice Roberts states he will not participate in this unconstitutional farce.

Should I go with his knowledge of the Constitution, or that of unhinged, single digit IQ Dimwinger fuckwits on an innerweb message board?

Hmmmmm......

Where did Roberts say it was an 'unconstitutional farce'? Because I'm pretty sure that's you, citing yourself AS Roberts.

That's not exactly the same thing, is it?

If he thought is was constitutional he would participate. Otherwise he is refusing to perform his constitutional duty and should be immediately impeached by Nazi Pelosi. Why hasn’t she impeached him?

 

[Skylar]

Chief Justice Roberts states he will not participate in this unconstitutional farce.

Should I go with his knowledge of the Constitution, or that of unhinged, single digit IQ Dimwinger fuckwits on an innerweb message board?

Hmmmmm......

Do you have a link to that?

Your ignorance of Roberts’ refusal to oversee the Shampeachment trial isn’t my concern.

Translation: You're citing yourself AS Roberts. As Roberts has never claimed that the impeachment is an 'unconstitutional farce'.

Color me shocked.

 

[Skylar]

Chief Justice Roberts states he will not participate in this unconstitutional farce.

Should I go with his knowledge of the Constitution, or that of unhinged, single digit IQ Dimwinger fuckwits on an innerweb message board?

Hmmmmm......

Where did Roberts say it was an 'unconstitutional farce'? Because I'm pretty sure that's you, citing yourself AS Roberts.

That's not exactly the same thing, is it?

If he thought is was constitutional he would participate. Otherwise he is refusing to perform his constitutional duty and should be immediately impeached by Nazi Pelosi. Why hasn’t she impeached him?

Says you, pretending you're justice Roberts. Alas, you playing pretend isn't legal evidence.

The only impeachment that Roberts must preside over is for the President of the United States. And Trump is no longer President.

 

[Nostra]

Chief Justice Roberts states he will not participate in this unconstitutional farce.

Should I go with his knowledge of the Constitution, or that of unhinged, single digit IQ Dimwinger fuckwits on an innerweb message board?

Hmmmmm......

Do you have a link to that?

Your ignorance of Roberts’ refusal to oversee the Shampeachment trial isn’t my concern.

Translation: You're citing yourself AS Roberts. As Roberts has never claimed that the impeachment is an 'unconstitutional farce'.

Color me shocked.

Then he must be impeached. Why isn’t Nazi impeaching him?

You can’t win this.

 

[Skylar]

Chief Justice Roberts states he will not participate in this unconstitutional farce.

Should I go with his knowledge of the Constitution, or that of unhinged, single digit IQ Dimwinger fuckwits on an innerweb message board?

Hmmmmm......

Do you have a link to that?

Your ignorance of Roberts’ refusal to oversee the Shampeachment trial isn’t my concern.

Translation: You're citing yourself AS Roberts. As Roberts has never claimed that the impeachment is an 'unconstitutional farce'.

Color me shocked.

Then he must be impeached. Why isn’t Nazi impeaching him?

You can’t win this.

Who is 'nazi' in your little imagination?

Remember, you're not quoting Roberts. You're quoting yourself. The only one saying that Roberts must be impeached is you, citing yourself as a constitutional authority.

And your source doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Nostra]

Chief Justice Roberts states he will not participate in this unconstitutional farce.

Should I go with his knowledge of the Constitution, or that of unhinged, single digit IQ Dimwinger fuckwits on an innerweb message board?

Hmmmmm......

Do you have a link to that?

Your ignorance of Roberts’ refusal to oversee the Shampeachment trial isn’t my concern.

Translation: You're citing yourself AS Roberts. As Roberts has never claimed that the impeachment is an 'unconstitutional farce'.

Color me shocked.

Then he must be impeached. Why isn’t Nazi impeaching him?

You can’t win this.

Who is 'nazi' in your little imagination?

Remember, you're not quoting Roberts. You're quoting yourself. The only one saying that Roberts must be impeached is you, citing yourself as a constitutional authority.

And your source doesn't know what he's talking about.

If this trial is Constitutional the Constitution requires Roberts to preside.
Either it is Constitutional, or he is violating his oath and needs to be impeached.

 

[Skylar]

Chief Justice Roberts states he will not participate in this unconstitutional farce.

Should I go with his knowledge of the Constitution, or that of unhinged, single digit IQ Dimwinger fuckwits on an innerweb message board?

Hmmmmm......

Do you have a link to that?

Your ignorance of Roberts’ refusal to oversee the Shampeachment trial isn’t my concern.

Translation: You're citing yourself AS Roberts. As Roberts has never claimed that the impeachment is an 'unconstitutional farce'.

Color me shocked.

Then he must be impeached. Why isn’t Nazi impeaching him?

You can’t win this.

Who is 'nazi' in your little imagination?

Remember, you're not quoting Roberts. You're quoting yourself. The only one saying that Roberts must be impeached is you, citing yourself as a constitutional authority.

And your source doesn't know what he's talking about.

If this trial is Constitutional the Constitution requires Roberts to preside.

Says you, citing yourself as the constitutional authority. And you don't know what you're talking about.

The constitution has only this requirement of Roberts: "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside"

Since Trump is no longer president, Roberts is under no obligation to preside. See how simple that was?

Either it is Constitutional, or he is violating his oath and needs to be impeached.

Or....you don't know what you're talking about.