Politics Thread

[bjf123]

I'm guessing you never read that article, or actually know what they are doing.
They are talking about retiring decades old news about people who have reformed their lives. Not censorship of someone saying something.
Read the article.

My question would be are they only retiring old news about people of a particular political persuasion who’ve reformed their lives, or everyone? I’m guessing it’s not a bipartisan purge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

He can be tried by the Senate. Senate has the right to bar him from holding any further office.

I’ll have to reread the Constitution but I don’t believe the Legislative branch was given that power by the States. Could be wrong. Hope not. It sets a dangerous and scary precedent for future office holders.

For example, a future Congress could decide to impeach and hold a trial for Obama’s execution of an American citizen (a total dirtbag) without due process.

[Strange Brew]

In case you missed it and judging by the media coverage you did. Research NGFS and I apologize for ruining your weekend in advance.

[Strange Brew]

In other news. Leftist riot in Ohio Catholic Church.

Anybody woking up to the problem yet?

[STL_XUfan]

I’ll have to reread the Constitution but I don’t believe the Legislative branch was given that power by the States. Could be wrong. Hope not. It sets a dangerous and scary precedent for future office holders.

For example, a future Congress could decide to impeach and hold a trial for Obama’s execution of an American citizen (a total dirtbag) without due process.

No need to reread as my post you quoted had the provision in it.

Here it is again: Art. I Sec. 3.: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

[bobbiemcgee]

SB has some reading comprehension problems for sure.

[bobbiemcgee]

In other news. Leftist riot in Ohio Catholic Church.

Anybody woking up to the problem yet?

Orthodox Church of America suspended him.

[Masterofreality]

No need to reread as my post you quoted had the provision in it.

Here it is again: Art. I Sec. 3.: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

In answer to your slam at me above, the boldened words in your post above prove my point. “Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall extend no further than to removal from Office.... Trump is not in office. He cannot be removed. He’s already gone. Without a person in office to be removed there is nothing. Nothing after that matters. It’s all irrelevant and performative. That is why John Roberts wants nothing to do with this travesty.

[STL_XUfan]

In answer to your slam at me above, the boldened words in your post above prove my point. “Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall extend no further than to removal from Office.... Trump is not in office. He cannot be removed. He’s already gone. Without a person in office to be removed there is nothing. Nothing after that matters. It’s all irrelevant and performative. That is why John Roberts wants nothing to do with this travesty.

You strangely choose to cut out the remainder of the sentence: “and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States”

[bjf123]

You strangely choose to cut out the remainder of the sentence: “and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States”

Depends on what your definition of “and” is, and if the two options are linked as one result, or if they stand separate and unique. That’s something the attorneys on both sides will be arguing.

I think if it said or disqualification, you could make a case for the impeachment of a President no longer in office. I interpret it such that the “and” joins the two penalties as one that can’t be separated, or at least that you can’t add the second penalty without having also done the first. But then I’m not an attorney, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk