Here's a List of the Nine RINO, Never-Trumper Senators Who Are Ready to Stab Trump in the Back By Voting to Impeach
archive.fo/aTBOVPosted Oct 26, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC
10927
archive.fo
IT ENDED AT THREE.
10
Sauce?
0
I know it
1
[removed]
1
I wish people could understand that this literally isn't an impeachment. Let's break it down, succinctly:
-
Impeachment has to be brought to an official floor vote in the House. They won't do that, because they don't have the votes, and they don't have the evidence. And, even if they did, it would be shut down in the Senate.
-
They use specific language like "impeachment inquiry" (which isn't a thing), to rally the useful idiots into thinking impeachment is coming. If you think an "impeachment inquiry" is a thing, you fell for the bait.
-
People like Graham send strongly worded letters to "condemn" their "opponents" across the aisle, which means exactly fuckall. Less than shit.
Stop wasting your time on this hot garbage.
8
An Obama federal judge disagrees with everything you wrote. He ruled yesterday that the impeachment proceeding is legit, that no vote is required by the Constitution, and that the House can make up its own rules for how to impeach a president. But sure, your opinion matters.
-3
Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution. A vote must be initiated in the US House of Representatives, and MUST be brought via Articles of Impeachment. That is, passage of a resolution listing the charges (what is referred to when they mention high crimes and misdemeanors).
That is NOT what's happening, no matter how you want to spin it. What's happening is as follows:
The Speaker of the House, in a desperate attempt at saving face, is using specific language to rile up desperate morons on the left. She is not following the official protocol - which means the result will be exactly nil - because she doesn't have the votes, and realizes that it's career suicide.
Sorry for your feelings.
Spez: The process, for the uninitiated (or dim...):
House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment.
Chairman, Judiciary Committee proposes resolution calling for formal inquiry into impeachment. (Note: this is not the step we're at, because they skipped the first step, and are playing make-believe.)
Following the inquiry, Judiciary Committee sends another resolution containing one or more Articles of Impeachment, providing judgment as to whether or not impeachment is warranted (or, in the case where there's no evidence, why it's not).
The House (all of it) debates and votes on each Article of Impeachment.
If any one of the Articles of Impeachment is approved by simple majority vote, the President (or other official) will be impeached.
Since impeachment is a formal accusation of a "high crime or misdemeanor", the Senate must hold an impeachment trial.
The Senate will then receive Articles of Impeachment from the House and establish rules and procedures for holding the trial.
The trial will be held with the President and his representation (lawyers). House members serve as prosecutors, effectively. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (John Roberts) presides with all 100 Senators as the jury.
Following the trial, the Senate meets in closed door sessions to debate a verdict.
Following the debate, the Senate (in open session) votes on aforementioned verdict. In order to convict, there must be a two-thirds vote (supermajority).
The Senate will vote to remove the President from office (which has never happened).
Following a conviction, the Senate may also vote (by simple majority) to bar the President from holding any public office in the future.
In short, good fucking luck. If you think a Federal Judge has any sway over how the US Constitution applies to this procedure, you're beyond hope.
4
Let me red pill you:
"The House ... shall have the sole power of impeachment."
That's all it says. Nothing more.
All that shit you wrote is literally made up out of whole cloth, just like the "Right to Privacy." Put another way, your comment is no better than the Leftist majority's opinion in Roe v. Wade. Totally devoid of textual analysis.
What Pelosi is doing is unconstitutional, but not because it violates Article I Section 2. It violates the "Due Process" clause by any and every measure found in the history of constitutional jurisprudence.
Now, when you get a law degree, you can come back and have a substantive discussion with those of us who do.
-3
Now, when you get a law degree, you can come back and have a substantive discussion with those of us who do.
Take your own advice. While you're at it, review Article I § 3, which states that the Senate is the sole arbiter of impeachments, or Article II § 4, which sets the legal requirement for impeachment. There's a reason those clauses are in there. That reason is so that a rogue Speaker or Judiciary in the House couldn't interpret Article I § 2 to mean "Whatever the fuck we want to do.", because they still have to operate within the confines of the established standard. The Constitutional Convention experimented with numerous impeachment proceedings and finally agreed that - assuming an impeachable offense had been committed (Article II § 4) - a majority vote by the House of Representatives is required to bring impeachment charges (Article I § 2, Clause 5), which are then tried before the Senate (Article I § 3, Clause 6). Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict (Article I § 3, Clause 6).
It's all there. I can slow walk you there if I have to, but...
If you're a lawyer you might want to contact your alma mater for a refund.
3
Source? Doesn’t matter, the Constitution is explicitly clear on impeachment. It must come from the House. Historic precedent has been set that the House must vote and establish rules before an inquiry can proceed with a vote on articles of impeachment.
2
Please quote the language from the Constitution that says the House must do it differently than what Pelosi is doing.
-1
Article 1 Section 2 specifically states “The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” The Speaker is not the House, Hell the Speaker doesn’t even need to be an elected official.
5
Unfortunately, you are correct both about the judge's rule and Pelosi's actions. They will still fail though.
1
It's down to 3. I know Isakson made a special statement that he supports Grahams resolution.
Doesn't matter much for him anyway, he is retiring early at the end of this year and Governor Kemp will appoint a new Senator in his place. Kemp is pro-MAGA, so I trust whoever he puts in the position
6
Again I ask, sauce? I linked a reputable article.
-1
These are known. Who are the others?????
3
Looks like a list of nine enemies of the Republic that need removed from office.
2
[deleted]
2
Content Policy Reminder: Content that "encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence", or that shares someone's personal information is not permitted on The_Donald. Violations may result in T_D or sitewide ban.
If you see potentially rule breaking content, immediately downvote & report.
Official The_Donald Discord invite: https://discord.gg/rd3r4N8
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
[deleted]
1
Nine is not enough to convict. It requires 67 votes.
1
Murkowsky, Collins and Delecto were the only three
If Delecto gets Electo-Ed again, Utah is going to hear from me.