Trump will most likely not be convicted in the senate. Impeachment is about airing his dirty laundry and his crimes so that he loses re-election.
Again, you don't know politics.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Trump will most likely not be convicted in the senate. Impeachment is about airing his dirty laundry and his crimes so that he loses re-election.
Again, you don't know politics.
Obviously Trump isn't going to be impeached... clearly. Republicans run the senate, and Democrats are too busy chasing after hearsay and ghosts.
Also your reply doesn't even disprove my original post... Who becomes president if Trump IS impeached and removed... please entertain me with your answer..
(FYI I'm a journalist, but hey.. you know more than I do... clearly by your response buttercup),
No, he definitely will be impeached. He will probably not be convicted, these terms are different for a reason.
Also, your comment about democrats chasing what? Is that a conspiracy or are you just kidding?
Your original post makes no sense because it presumes democrats want pence as president or even care about that possibility. It ignores the actual politics in favor of what you learned reading wikipedia the other night.
If you're a journalist and you don't know the difference between impeachment and conviction, and think discussing a President Pence is even worth a single second.... then lmfao. The absolute state of american journalism.
If not Wikipedia then read something from NBC leftist news organizations about how impeachment works... I assume you wouldn't read a right-wing media outlet so here a left wing outlet...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/what-impeachment-how-does-it-work-10-facts-know-n1072451
"Congress derives the authority from the Constitution. The term "impeachment" is commonly used to mean removing someone from office, but it actually refers only to the filing of formal charges. If the House impeaches, the Senate then holds a trial on those charges to decide whether the officer — a president or any other federal official — should be removed and barred from holding federal office in the future."
So... repeat after me.....
Democrats have no power to formally convict him or remove him from office at the second stage, that power is maintained in the SENATE, not in the HOUSE. The Senate is the only one that can formally convict him, and the Senate is the only one that can get him removed, the house cannot vote on that.
MY
FUCKING
SIDES
HE ACTUALLY THINKS NBC IS "LEFTIST" HAHAHAHAHAHA
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Wow, I love how you're actually explaining to me what I told you beforehand like it's something I didn't know. This is incredible. I might make a video about this. Thanks for the laughs.
LMAO. Democrats hold no power to convict Trump. The senate holds the power and the Republicans run the senate... Trump isn't getting impeached, period.
dude... holy shit.
you just explained the difference between impeachment and conviction. You literally just did. It's in the text you copy/pasted. He WILL get impeached, but not convicted. You can't read your own writing????
The bolded section you posted only disproves the point you are trying to make. Impeachment is the filing of formal charges (performed by the House). You are trying to claim impeachment is the act of removing him from office. Are you off your rocker?
I am not trying to claim that, Im referring to some democrats thinking Trump being impeached in the house means he will be removed from office (hence look at my original post), its addressing some thoughts that democrats have about impeachment.
No, he isn't going to be impeached. Republicans run the Senate and the Republicans have the only authority to formally convict him. Democrats are just doing this impeachment inquiry for a show, they hold no actual power to convict him, that power remains in the Senate. That's political science in the USA 101...
"Your original post makes no sense because it presumes democrats want pence as president or even care about that possibility."
It makes perfect sense because if they actually impeach Trump and push for removal (which isn't mandatory in impeaching someon) then PENCE becomes president, that's how this works. It's not a matter if I presume that they want him as president, its a matter that if they push for it in the House and it reaches the Senate then regardless of their views on Pence, Pence will become president and republicans will remain in power. Since they don't hold the power to remove him from office their calls for impeachment is just all fluff and all of that "get him removed from office" rhetoric falls apart. Democrats don't have the legal authority to remove him from office after an impeachment inquiry.
If you're a journalist and you don't know the difference between impeachment and conviction, and think discussing a President Pence is even worth a single second.... then lmfao. The absolute state of American journalism.
I'm talking about being convicted and removed from office after an impeachment hearing. Which can only happen after the SENATE formally impeaches him and convicts him of a crime.
You need to read more about this because If you're actually trying to converse with me about this, I expect you to be informed on how impeachment works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States
From WIKI:
"In contrast to the British system, in the United States impeachment is only the first of two stages, and conviction during the second stage requires "the concurrence of two thirds of the members present".[29] Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office; it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict. Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibilities of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where he or she was removed."
I love how you start your reply by saying he won't be impeached, then delineate between the difference between conviction and impeachment, and then don't think to re-write the first paragraph. He will be impeached, but the chances of conviction are slim to none.
You are an idiot.
The Senate isn't going to impeach him, and thus no conviction, and no removal from office. It will pass the House most likely but it will die in the Senate. That's what I'm saying.
the senate has no say in impeachment, they rule over conviction.
It's fine to admit you didn't know the difference. If you did, I wouldn't be laughing at you. But you're quadrupling down on this stupid nonsense. He will get impeached, but not convicted. It's technically possible he could get disqualified but not convicted as well. But I doubt that.
the senate has no say in impeachment, they rule over conviction.
LOL, the senate has the final say on conviction if they believe the inquiry from the house. I've BEEN SAYING THAT POINT.. My topic was about REMOVING TRUMP FROM OFFICE, but you're conveniently ignoring that main point of my stance and continuing about the impeachment inquiry in the House.. The HOUSE cannot impeach and remove him from office, period... They can pass the impeachment in the house but he isn't going to get removed from office. That is my point. This impeachment is for show and it will end with Trump still in office.
Of course, @bloom would upvote your senseless comment which doesn't even discredit my position.. but hey... he's been spam downvoting my content so I'm not surprised he'll vote for someone who confronts me even if the "confrontation" is insignificant.
I don't know who bloom is, but they seem pretty intelligent going by what they upvote. You're just a mindless conspiracy nutter who thinks they can buy tanks with bitcoin when the government blows up, which is just funny to laugh at.
Conspiracy nutter? How? I'm not the one trying to impeach Trump on hearsay and pushing up shotty witnesses who don't even want to testify. LMAO Why doesn't Joe Biden want to testify, jee being under oath is probably what he's concerned about.
Also, you can buy a tank with bitcoin, If you're actually american you would know you can buy tanks and fighter jets, and yes you CAN arm them with special licenses. This has long been the case before Bitcoin was even a thing, and if military arms dealers accept purchases in bitcoin then AWESOME... If not thats fine, I could just sell bitcoin for cash. So you don't really know much about America if you don't know what rights we have when it comes to armoured vehicles.
My god you're so fucking hilarious and the fact that you are actually explaining the process of BUYING FUCKING ARMED TANKS AND FIGHTER JETS like it's a normal and totally rational thing is mind blowing. Really, please keep posting, this is getting into lolcow territory.
Also it's pretty clear you didn't watch any of the hearings if you're calling it hearsay. Several witnesses were on the call that is in question and testified as such. Dumbass.
You're so ignorant, I bet you had no clue that at one point the company, Pepsi, was a military powerhouse for a short period of time with an entire navy fleet and it was completely legal!
I did know that, but thanks for posting a random off-topic thing to "own" me with. LMFAO.
Now I'll one-up you! I bet you didn't know that the man who falsely imprisoned former president Lula da Silva was both judge AND prosecutor during that case, and then was made justice minister by the man who stole the election as a result!
"own" you, I never said anything about owning you... NOTHING AT ALL... those are just your own delusions.
"My god you're so fucking hilarious and the fact that you are actually explaining the process of BUYING FUCKING ARMED TANKS AND FIGHTER JETS like it's a normal and totally rational thing is mind-blowing. Really, please keep posting, this is getting into lolcow territory."
You obviously don't know anything about our laws when it pertains to guns, explosive devices, and armoured vehicles. You leftists have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to owning weapons in the US. Also it is normal, I live in Florida there are events held here where privately owned fighter jets fly around.
Also, the F16, one of the best fighter jets in the world is available for sale in Florida. This is completely normal for us, and people in whatever state you live also probably have the right to own these weapons.
Statistically, there are roughly more than 1000 privately owned tanks in the US and some 800 privately owned Jets (including bombers and fighter jets). This also doesn't include the fact that you are free to even modify a Honda civic with bullet proof armour, bullet proof glass and run-flat tires, and on TOP OF THAT have it armed with a .50 Caliber on its sunroof and you can do that legally using the required papers and licenses, you can even attach explosive devices to the Honda Civic if you'd like but that comes with a fee for the weapon and each individual shell.
Also it's pretty clear you didn't watch any of the hearings if you're calling it hearsay. Several witnesses were on the call that is in question and testified as such. Dumbass.
I've been stuck on c-span for the entire thing, also President of Ukraine declared there was not a Quid Pro Quo... Democrats don't have anything except second-hand hearsay, and the one man that can give more legitimacy to the impeachment inquiry is Biden and he REFUSED to testify because he knows if he lies for his son under oath then that throws out his chances in 2020.
Knowing about something doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.
I know you can do this, but caring enough to write a detailed walkthrough is just cringe. You're a cringey moron.
Colonel vindman was on the call, therefore it cannot be second-hand. You're clearly lying and won't look up the details. Can't wait til you flip flop and then tell ME that he was on the call, though. Would be hilarious. Biden had nothing to do with the quid pro quo, by the way. That was all trump. Pretending I have to like biden or something is also bizarre, both him and his son are terrible people. Next.
Well I think its a great idea, why do you think our country has NEVER been directly invaded in the last 100 years, we've only had small skirmishes on our lands and seas by foreign troops (like Pearl Harbour attack), and we retaliated swiftly and strongly after the fact.
I know you can do this, but caring enough to write a detailed walkthrough is just cringe. You're a cringey moron.
Hey, I'm asserting some very clear points, that you have NO idea what you're talking about when it comes to weapons so don't even try to bring it up.
Colonel vindman was on the call, therefore it cannot be second-hand.
Vindman's testimony:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/full-transcript-of-testimony-of-lieutenant-colonel-alexander-s-vindman-white-house-ukraine-expert/6c7d991c-1916-47a2-a320-cfbbea54eb52/
Page 14:
Vindman - "I want the committee to know I am not the whistleblower who brought this issue to the CIA and the committee's attention. I do Not know who the whistleblower is, and I would not feel comfortable to speculate as to the identity of the Whistleblower."
He was listening into the call, and all he said was that he "THOUGHT" that what Trump said was wrong and that he was "concerned by the call", which led to him reporting it as it may affect US-Ukraine's partnership in the longrun, him reporting it was about protecting US interests in Ukraine. The interests that have been expanding before this impeachment ordeal ever took place. (PAGE 17+)
Enjoy this from Tim Pool!