What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

VIDEO: Watch Larry Elder Brilliantly Turn the Tables on "The Big Lie"

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,721
Reaction score
5,916
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
You're misguided understanding of events aside. Do you even know what the definition of treason is as defined by our Constitution?

Do you ever have the courage to call people Nazis to their face? Cuz, I'm itching to travel.

I am far left, but one failed impeachment is horrific, and two is absurdly criminal.
The way they were done also was totally corrupt.
Here is what the constitution outlines for a presidential impeachment:
{...
At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.[17]
...}

Notice the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS is supposed to preside over third step, the Senate proceedings?
Well that never happened.
So then the impeachments were not conducted according to the Constitution.
Why I do not know, but that made them illegal.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,721
Reaction score
5,916
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
The Mueller investigation never exonerated trump. It specifically said it didn't, and it also said the only reason it didn't recommend charges is because they didn't think they were allowed to file charges on a sitting president.

But the FBI investigation also found no illegal acts, otherwise they would have been required to turn the evidence over to Congress for possible prosecution.
Just because the FBI can not press charges on a standing president, does not mean the charges are not supposed to be prosecuted.
The facts turned out there simply not only was no evidence, but no crime.
There was no illegal collusion with Russia to violate election laws.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,721
Reaction score
5,916
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
They weren't illegal and your reasoning for thinking they were is dumb.

When you press an impeachment without any evidence, that is wrongful prosecution, an attempt to smear, and is totally illegal.
There was nothing wrong with meetings between supporters and Russians.
There was nothing wrong with asking the Ukraine to investigate an obviously suspicious behavior by the Bidens.
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
34,930
Reaction score
16,126
Points
1,600
Location
Niagara Escarpment


All of these are from 2019 - more than 3 years after the election.
Hillary is a scag.

When you have nothing to say, you fling your monkey shit at the passing humans.
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
34,930
Reaction score
16,126
Points
1,600
Location
Niagara Escarpment
But the FBI investigation also found no illegal acts, otherwise they would have been required to turn the evidence over to Congress for possible prosecution.
Just because the FBI can not press charges on a standing president, does not mean the charges are not supposed to be prosecuted.
The facts turned out there simply not only was no evidence, but no crime.
There was no illegal collusion with Russia to violate election laws.

Well those are convenient lies.

From Part II of the Mueller Report, Mueller’s executive summary Page 2:

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent present difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Mueller could have exonerated Trump, if he found no crimes, but he did not because he he found multiple crimes.
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
34,930
Reaction score
16,126
Points
1,600
Location
Niagara Escarpment
When you press an impeachment without any evidence, that is wrongful prosecution, an attempt to smear, and is totally illegal.
There was nothing wrong with meetings between supporters and Russians.
There was nothing wrong with asking the Ukraine to investigate an obviously suspicious behavior by the Bidens.

When you refuse to look at the evidence or call any witnesses you’re not gonna find much.

Republicans refused to impeach Trump saying that the public should decide in the election. When the public decided resoundingly in the election that Trump was gone, Republicans then tried to claim that these people didn’t vote him out, the election was stolen.

The people never elected Trump in the first place. The electoral college did. Republicans didn’t nominate Trump they simply had a system of winner take all on delegates and Trump won with less than 50% of the total vote. In many primaries trump won with 15% of the vote in a crowded field. Even the Republicans didn’t want him.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,721
Reaction score
5,916
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Well those are convenient lies.

From Part II of the Mueller Report, Mueller’s executive summary Page 2:



Mueller could have exonerated Trump, if he found no crimes, but he did not because he he found multiple crimes.

Wrong.
What Mueller is saying is the investigation was inconclusive.
They found neither evidence of guilt nor evidence to exonerate.

The legal standard is NOT guilty unless exonerated.

Mueller did not find any definitive crimes.
He just could not rule out that crimes could have been committed.

But the point is that is not sufficient for an impeachment.
Trump may be terrible as a president, but he was elected and then should not have been impeached without more proof.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,721
Reaction score
5,916
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
When you refuse to look at the evidence or call any witnesses you’re not gonna find much.

Republicans refused to impeach Trump saying that the public should decide in the election. When the public decided resoundingly in the election that Trump was gone, Republicans then tried to claim that these people didn’t vote him out, the election was stolen.

The people never elected Trump in the first place. The electoral college did. Republicans didn’t nominate Trump they simply had a system of winner take all on delegates and Trump won with less than 50% of the total vote. In many primaries trump won with 15% of the vote in a crowded field. Even the Republicans didn’t want him.

Wrong.
Trump campaigned for the electoral college, so then spent most of his time in places like IL, IN, WI, CO, etc.
If there were no electoral college, then Trump would have concentrated on the big states, like CA, NY, FL, etc.
Trump simply campaigned well, and Hillary campaigned badly.

And Trump did not lose by that much in 2020 either.
It was a fairly close race.
If about 2% of the voters switched, then Trump would have won.

I do not like Trump at all, but Hillary was not a viable alternative.
Her long standing support for war and gun control totally disqualified her.
She should never have been nominated.
Someone like Tulsi Gabbard, Sanders, or Warren, would not only have been MUCH better, but could have won.
 

HappyJoy

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
31,442
Reaction score
5,675
Points
1,140
I am far left, but one failed impeachment is horrific, and two is absurdly criminal.
The way they were done also was totally corrupt.
Here is what the constitution outlines for a presidential impeachment:
{...
At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.[17]
...}

Notice the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS is supposed to preside over third step, the Senate proceedings?
Well that never happened.
So then the impeachments were not conducted according to the Constitution.
Why I do not know, but that made them illegal.
It's not required that the chief justice preside over the resulting trial in the senate unless it's for a sitting U.S president.

Stop abusing drugs. I have no idea what "far left" means anymore, but if you think I'm going to agree with your uninformed opinion because you like to make bogus claims then I'm not interested.
 
Last edited:

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,721
Reaction score
5,916
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
It's not required that the chief justice preside over the resulting trial in the senate unless it's for a sitting U.S president.

Stop abusing drugs. I have no idea what "far left" means anymore, but if you think I'm going to agree with your uninformed opinion because you like to make bogus claims then I'm not interested.

Actually is really is required the Chief Justice preside over the trial of the temporarily impeached president.
Both other branches of government are required.
Judges have been impeached with out a member of the judiciary presiding, but that was in error.
That should NEVER be allowed.
And a president is not a judge, so the Chief Justice is absolutely required.
A sitting president cannot be tried at all, and has to be impeached first.

I don't care what you think "far left" means, but the point is my statement is not biased in Trump's favor.
 

HappyJoy

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
31,442
Reaction score
5,675
Points
1,140
Actually is really is required the Chief Justice preside over the trial of the temporarily impeached president.

What the hell does temporarily impeached mean? He was impeached, twice. It happened in the house. I saw it with my own eyes.

The trial that took place in the senate started on February 9th. Guess who wasn't president.


Both other branches of government are required.
Judges have been impeached with out a member of the judiciary presiding, but that was in error.
That should NEVER be allowed.
And a president is not a judge, so the Chief Justice is absolutely required.
A sitting president cannot be tried at all, and has to be impeached first.

I don't care what you think "far left" means, but the point is my statement is not biased in Trump's favor.

The chief justice is only required to sit in on impeachment trials of the current president. Period. End of story.

You people are so annoying in how uninformed you are.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,721
Reaction score
5,916
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
What the hell does temporarily impeached mean? He was impeached, twice. It happened in the house. I saw it with my own eyes.

The trial that took place in the senate started on February 9th. Guess who wasn't president.




The chief justice is only required to sit in on impeachment trials of the current president. Period. End of story.

You people are so annoying in how uninformed you are.

Obviously all impeachments are temporary.
The house impeaches so that the president is out of office, so that the senate can then conduct a trial.
After the trial, the impeachment is over.
The president either returns to power or is removed from office completely.

You can not legally impeach an ex-president, whose term has expired.
So the chief justice is required for any trial after an impeachment.

What happened with Trump was totally illegal.
 

HappyJoy

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
31,442
Reaction score
5,675
Points
1,140
Obviously all impeachments are temporary.

Why say it then? Trump is and will always be (so far) the only twice impeached president in U.S. history. It's as true today as it was in January.
The house impeaches so that the president is out of office, so that the senate can then conduct a trial.

An impeachment vote in the House doesn't throw the president out of office. I honestly can't tell if you know this or not.
After the trial, the impeachment is over.

No, the trial is. The impeachment is over after the House votes.
The president either returns to power or is removed from office completely.
Ok.

You can not legally impeach an ex-president, whose term has expired

So the chief justice is required for any trial after an impeachment.

What happened with Trump was totally illegal.
You can impeach a former president and since he's no longer the current office holder it doesn't require the chief justice to preside.

You guys really are this dumb.
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
34,930
Reaction score
16,126
Points
1,600
Location
Niagara Escarpment
Wrong.
What Mueller is saying is the investigation was inconclusive.
They found neither evidence of guilt nor evidence to exonerate.

The legal standard is NOT guilty unless exonerated.

Mueller did not find any definitive crimes.
He just could not rule out that crimes could have been committed.

But the point is that is not sufficient for an impeachment.
Trump may be terrible as a president, but he was elected and then should not have been impeached without more proof.

Mueller found five clear cases of obstruction of justice and laid out a roadmap for impeachment.

There was no equivocation as to whether Trump committed crimes or not. Mueller was clear that he would not accuse the president of committing crimes while he was in the office, but he based on the evidence, could not and would not exonerate him.

Your interpretation of Mueller’s refusal or inability to prosecute, as vindication and proof of Trump’s innocence is simply a desperate ploy to deny that Trump is a criminal.
 

hadit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
32,215
Reaction score
9,514
Points
1,330
The Mueller investigation never exonerated trump. It specifically said it didn't, and it also said the only reason it didn't recommend charges is because they didn't think they were allowed to file charges on a sitting president.
Note the two different and very important words in your post, "recommend" and "file". Now note what is different about them. Now tell me where anyone said there is a law that a special prosecutor could not state that the president broke a law. Remember, NOT "file charges".
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
97,108
Reaction score
27,426
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
You're misguided understanding of events aside. Do you even know what the definition of treason is as defined by our Constitution?
Are you denying that Peter Strzok filed a false FISA application, felony perjury, in order to engage in espionage against the president of the United States for the purpose of overthrowing the executive branch of the United States Government?


This is established fact

Do you ever have the courage to call people Nazis to their face? Cuz, I'm itching to travel.

Ohhh, we have an internet tough guy...

1638119397556.png
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
97,108
Reaction score
27,426
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Mueller found five clear cases of obstruction of justice and laid out a roadmap for impeachment.

:rofl:

Fucking liar.

You Nazis are pathetic.

There was no equivocation as to whether Trump committed crimes or not. Mueller was clear that he would not accuse the president of committing crimes while he was in the office, but he based on the evidence, could not and would not exonerate him.


Yes, he WAS clear, you fucking lying pile of shit.

{The Office considered in particular whether contacts between Trump Campaign officials and Russia-linked individuals could trigger liability for the crime of conspiracy-either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language (e.g. , 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 195l(a)), or under the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371). The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law- including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section 371 's offenses clause. The Office also did not charge any campaign official or associate with a conspiracy under Section 371 's defraud clause. That clause criminalizes participating in an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the U.S. government or its agencies through deceitful or dishonest means. See Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 861 (1966); Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924); see also United States v. Concord Mgmt. & Consulting LLC, 34 7 F. Supp. 3d 38, 46 (D.D.C.2018). The investigation did not establish any agreement among Campaign officialsor between such officials and Russia-linked individuals-to interfere with or obstruct a lawful function of a government agency during the campaign or transition period. And, as discussed in Volume I, Section V.A, supra, the investigation did not identify evidence that any Campaign official or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that the Office charged, namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume I, Section II, supra. Accordingly, the Office did not charge any Campaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy}



Your interpretation of Mueller’s refusal or inability to prosecute, as vindication and proof of Trump’s innocence is simply a desperate ploy to deny that Trump is a criminal.

You're just a filthy, fucking liar.

Everyone here knows it.

Such is the way of you Nazis.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
97,108
Reaction score
27,426
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
The Mueller investigation never exonerated trump. It specifically said it didn't, and it also said the only reason it didn't recommend charges is because they didn't think they were allowed to file charges on a sitting president.

Yes, Mobbed Up Mueller was a hack to the end, yet failed to get anything to support the acts of your Reich.

When Mueller failed with the Inquisition, you filthy Nazis went forward with the Attempted coup anyway.

That was an act of war by you traitor fucks. One that your treason party will pay dearly for.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
97,108
Reaction score
27,426
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
They weren't illegal and your reasoning for thinking they were is dumb.

You claimed colluding with the Russians was illegal if Trump did it. Now that it's proven you fucking Nazis colluded with Russia to try and overthrow the Trump presidency, you claim it isn't illegal?

You fucking Nazis are such pathetic hypocrites - as well as being traitors to this nation.
 

Uncensored2008

Libertarian Radical
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
97,108
Reaction score
27,426
Points
2,180
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
It's not required that the chief justice preside over the resulting trial in the senate unless it's for a sitting U.S president.

Stop abusing drugs. I have no idea what "far left" means anymore, but if you think I'm going to agree with your uninformed opinion because you like to make bogus claims then I'm not interested.

Impeachment is ONLY for a sitting president, you dumb Nazi twat.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$80.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top