Politics SPECIAL COUNSEL APPOINTED!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Impeachment doesn't need to be a convictable crime. High Crimes and Misdemeanors candy include a wide variety of issues that don't amount to a convictable offense.

What the hell are you talking about? Don't amount to a convictalbe offense?? You need 68 of the 101 present to vote to convict and I would think you need to name the crime.
 
What the hell are you talking about? Don't amount to a convictalbe offense?? You need 68 off the 101 present to vote to convict and I would think you need to name the crime.

As numerous people have noted, an impeachable offense is whatever congress decides it is. The constitution was a little sloppy on that point, or maybe the founders meant for the congress to decide.
barfo
 
As numerous people have noted, an impeachable offense is whatever congress decides it is. The constitution was a little sloppy on that point, or maybe the founders meant for the congress to decide.
barfo

No barf. It seems very precise, Treason is specifically defined and limited as to when it can occur. High Crime is, as you say what ever the House says it is. But I am quite sure you are going to need to name it, define it and prove it, to get 68 of the people present in the Senate to convict the President of doing. Seem tight as a bugs ear to me, you need 68 of the 101 present to vote for conviction. The part that piss me off is, we all know it can't happen, so the whole mess is specifically intended to disrupt the functioning of the government. We need to fix this crap and enforce sedition laws, therefore we need some.

This bullshit of losing elections and disrupting the government of the winner needs to end unless the Constitution is not adhered to by the new government.
 
This bullshit of losing elections and disrupting the government of the winner needs to end unless the Constitution is not adhered to by the new government.

Had you objected to that during the prior 8 years, I'd be more inclined to take you seriously now.

barfo
 
Had you objected to that during the prior 8 years, I'd be more inclined to take you seriously now.

barfo

Ha! Well pay attention! I pointed out several times the dude failed to adhere to the Constitution.
I also complained loudly about his failing in Commander in Chief's responsibility to protect the American people, his first duty under the Constitution.
I know you know this to be true.
 
Conviction has different meanings at different times. Yes, 68 need to vote to convict but the bar for reaching that vote isn't what would be a conviction in the court of law. Rather, as barfo pointed out, it's whatever those 68 agreed was sufficient to agree on. It could be a crime, or incompetence, or mental malfunction, or a anything that those 68 agreed matched high crimes or misdemeanors.
 
This is sort of silly....you give the media more power than it has..people do think for themselves and more often than not....that's the story. You no longer read or trust any content from CNN, Washington Post or New York Times....? You realize they buy stories from freelance journalists as well as publish their own staff's editorials....if you think those 3 news outlets are completely incapable of printing something that's true...well...I don't see news that way. I'll even listen to Fox news or BBC or the radio more often than not....Fox is the sketchiest from my filter...the BBC is no fan of Trump in tone either...I tend to agree with their slant pretty often

Apparently people don't think for themselves. The media is working to drive down Trump's poll numbers.

CNN does have people on who tell the truth. It's funny to watch when their guests don't say what they're expected to say (like Don Lemon and two FBI agents one night). Those are the guests that don't get invited back (while many others are on over and over again).
 
Last edited:
No, I cherry pick

Enough said.

See how cherry picking works?

That's what the press is doing, and you're repeating it.

This is what Trump said:

"As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly," Trump said. "Maybe I'll expand that, you know, lengthen the time (of the Russia probe) because it should be over with, in my opinion, should have been over with a long time ago. 'Cause all it is, is an excuse but I said to myself, I might even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people."​


Do tell where he says he fired Comey to squash the investigation, as you suggest.
 
anything that those 68 agreed matched high crimes or misdemeanors.

True.

Now, can you articulate the crime that Trump did, that would come even remotely close to convincing those 68 Senators to explain their actions to the people that voted them into office, when
these same guys need the same voters to vote for them one more time?
 
True.

Now, can you articulate the crime that Trump did, that would come even remotely close to convincing those 68 Senators to explain their actions to the people that voted them into office and
these same guys need the same voters to vote for them one more time?

Good luck to that one.

barfo had it pretty much correct - they'll investigate without good reason until maybe they find something.
 
Good luck to that one.

barfo had it pretty much correct - they'll investigate without good reason until maybe they find something.

Or they'll stall this in the hope/gamble that they get a Democrat majority in congress in 2018.
 
Or they'll stall this in the hope/gamble that they get a Democrat majority in congress in 2018.

They've lost 1000 seats in various state houses since Obama. They'll continue to be scratching their heads after another beating.
 
hope/gamble that they get a Democrat majority in congress in 2018.

68 is a hell of a big number. Dems had 60 for awhile when they stuff the dumb ass Obama Care on us. Can't remember when they ever had that before. Hard to think they ever will again.
 
True.

Now, can you articulate the crime that Trump did, that would come even remotely close to convincing those 68 Senators to explain their actions to the people that voted them into office, when
these same guys need the same voters to vote for them one more time?
Obstruction of justice
 
Enough said.

See how cherry picking works?

That's what the press is doing, and you're repeating it.

This is what Trump said:

"As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly," Trump said. "Maybe I'll expand that, you know, lengthen the time (of the Russia probe) because it should be over with, in my opinion, should have been over with a long time ago. 'Cause all it is, is an excuse but I said to myself, I might even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people."​


Do tell where he says he fired Comey to squash the investigation, as you suggest.


You want the opposite, for us to overlook statements because Trump also said something to the contrary. Of course he will try to course correct when he realizes he said something fucked, or when he stays on script he'll be coherent till he ad libs and let's some truth shine through.

If I say barfo is a patriot over and over and then in a momentary laps say barfo is a commie, that's actually something important to note when discussing how I view barfo.

What Trump said? A) the Holt response

and next is reported and not disputed but also not verified -> B) from NYT :
WASHINGTON — President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
 
True.

Now, can you articulate the crime that Trump did, that would come even remotely close to convincing those 68 Senators to explain their actions to the people that voted them into office, when
these same guys need the same voters to vote for them one more time?

No one has brought impeachment charges, so it's a little early to demand to know what they are. When and if impeachment charges are filed, we'll find out what they are.

barfo
 
If I say barfo is a patriot over and over and then in a momentary laps say barfo is a commie, that's actually something important to note when discussing how I view barfo.

Commies can be patriots, so both could be true.

barfo
 
See how cherry picking works?

This is what Trump said:

"As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly," Trump said. "Maybe I'll expand that, you know, lengthen the time (of the Russia probe) because it should be over with, in my opinion, should have been over with a long time ago. 'Cause all it is, is an excuse but I said to myself, I might even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people."​

Yes, that is one thing that Trump said. He also said a bunch of things that contradict that. Seems like you are indeed demonstrating how cherry picking works.

Who are you going to believe, Lyin' Donald, or Lyin' Trump?

barfo
 
Ha! Well pay attention! I pointed out several times the dude failed to adhere to the Constitution.
I also complained loudly about his failing in Commander in Chief's responsibility to protect the American people, his first duty under the Constitution.
I know you know this to be true.

You also didn't complain about "this bullshit of losing elections and disrupting the government of the winner".

barfo
 
and in the 5th dimension you sing songs about the dawning of the age of aquarius

Sometimes I get the feeling that your life is just one giant flashback.

Speaking of flashbacks you going to the Oregon Country Fair?
 
Hopefully Trump will finally tell us the truth about Area 51 before he is kicked out of office.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top