Trump's Second Impeachment Trial

[time4fun]

you sure are a racist person bhalzimo. it's funny how most people that call out people for being racist arae very much racist themselves

Yeah. It really is.

[Ashliana]

Your hypocrisy from post to post is astounding. LOL.

Edit: Because I know you hate facts, and since you're making the argument...

https://www.federalregister.gov/pres...ecutive-orders

Odd - seems Trump used fewer EOs than the three previous.. and Biden is up to hmmm.. 29? https://www.federalregister.gov/pres...joe-biden/2021 so far.. so in one month over 10% of Trumps 4 years already.

So using your logic.. Biden has no fucking clue what he's doing. Got it.

Your argument makes no sense. I didn't argue "executive orders are bad," I said "If Trump had passed laws, instead of executive orders, they couldn't be undone by Biden's executive orders." And your link, beeteedubs, shows that Trump passed almost as many executive orders.. in 4 years.. as Obama did in 8. .. Does it need to be explained to you that that means his rate per year was almost double?

You're a retard. But we knew that.

[time4fun]

I'm not going to argue one way or another whether the trial is constitutional but relying on Congress to determine constitutionality of something, especially in such a politically charged area, is problematic. This is the same Congress that has passed many, many unconstitutional laws in the past, including flat out racist laws.

The Senate is given sole control over the trial portion because the power to impeach is specifically a Congressional oversight power. No one else should have control over that- least of all the Executive given that impeachment exists specifically to provide a check on that branch.

And as a reminder here- ***Senate Republicans*** were the ones who refused to try Trump before he left office. Democrats wanted to try him immediately.

Now they're turning around and making a completely inaccurate and wild argument that because it wasn't done before he left office, he can't be tried at all. To say that it's a transparent attempt to duck out of having to do their Constitutional duty is being generous.

The statute that discusses impeachment in the Constitution itself makes it very clear that their argument is based on literally nothing. The Constitution wasn't created to give the Executive a free pass in a President's last few months of office. And the fact that the impeachment process includes the decision to bar them from future office, completely invalidates any notion that you can't try someone who isn't currently in office.

To be VERY clear- Congressional Republicans have offered up our democracy and the rule of law for their own political ambitions.

They don't deserve to be in office.

[Shaps]

Your argument makes no sense. I didn't argue "executive orders are bad," I said "If Trump had passed laws, instead of executive orders, they couldn't be undone by Biden's executive orders." And your link, beeteedubs, shows that Trump passed almost as many executive orders.. in 4 years.. as Obama did in 8. .. Does it need to be explained to you that that means his rate per year was almost double?

You're a retard. But we knew that.

Your idiocy knows no bounds - so not going to waste my time because you can't think out a concept more than one step.

As for calling me a retard? Why do you hate the handicapped? Why would you use such a disparaging comment? I can't believe you would use a term that causes hurt, division, and dehumanization.

We knew you were a racist already, but now you marginalize the mentally challenged also? Damn you're an ugly individual. Tsk Tsk.

[time4fun]

Was really surprised when the Trump lawyer suggested that this wasn't an impeachment matter, but a criminal one. Maybe he doesn't think the Department of Justice isn't already exploring charges. Democrats are still in the right to gave the president disbarred from holding federal office again.

I mean let's just be honest here- the "defense" was a farse.

And it makes it clear that Senate Republicans are treating this as a total farse.

And as a side note-I don't think I've ever witnessed anything in my life more pathetic than watching a group of people defend a man who put their very lives- and the lives of their staffers- at risk for his own childish political benefit. He was encouraging those rioters while they were running around trying to kill members of Congress. He brought them to DC, riled them up with lies, told them that that day was their last day to take their country back, and- knowing many of them were armed- told them all to head straight for the Capitol.

And these absolutely pitiful excuses for members of Congress- and human beings- don't have the self-respect to stand up and call him out on it.


It really is just the most wretched thing imaginable. And it makes me sick to my stomach to watch.

[Ashliana]

Your idiocy knows no bounds - so not going to waste my time because you can't think out a concept more than one step.

So we're just not addressing your false implication about my argument? So that was just a monumental reading comprehension failure on your part? Gotcha.

As for calling me a retard? Why do you hate the handicapped? Why would you use such a disparaging comment? I can't believe you would use a term that causes hurt, division, and dehumanization.

We knew you were a racist already, but now you marginalize the mentally challenged also? Damn you're an ugly individual. Tsk Tsk.

Most of the insults that relate to intelligence are derived from mental health terms of the past (idiot, moron, imbecile, etc). Retarded is no different. You're retarded. There we go.

[Shaps]

So we're just not addressing your false implication about my argument? So that was just a monumental reading coomprehension failure on your part? Gotcha.



Most of the insults that relate to intelligence are derived from mental health terms of the past (idiot, moron, imbecile, etc). Retarded is no different. You're retarded. There we go.

/yawn - You keep trying, it was cute. It's entered sad territory. I feel for you.

[Stolis]

The Senate is given sole control over the trial portion because the power to impeach is specifically a Congressional oversight power. No one else should have control over that- least of all the Executive given that impeachment exists specifically to provide a check on that branch.

And as a reminder here- ***Senate Republicans*** were the ones who refused to try Trump before he left office. Democrats wanted to try him immediately.

Now they're turning around and making a completely inaccurate and wild argument that because it wasn't done before he left office, he can't be tried at all. To say that it's a transparent attempt to duck out of having to do their Constitutional duty is being generous.

The statute that discusses impeachment in the Constitution itself makes it very clear that their argument is based on literally nothing. The Constitution wasn't created to give the Executive a free pass in a President's last few months of office. And the fact that the impeachment process includes the decision to bar them from future office, completely invalidates any notion that you can't try someone who isn't currently in office.

To be VERY clear- Congressional Republicans have offered up our democracy and the rule of law for their own political ambitions.

They don't deserve to be in office.

You do remember that the articles of impeachment weren't transmitted to the Senate until after Biden took office right? The impeachment vote happened when? So what was the delay from when the vote was finished to the day the Senate received the articles?

[Ashliana]

So we're just not addressing your false implication about my argument? So that was just a monumental reading comprehension failure on your part? Gotcha.

/yawn - You keep trying, it was cute. It's entered sad territory. I feel for you.

Mm.. Yep, that's a concession. Oh well. Better luck next time!

[time4fun]

You do remember that the articles of impeachment weren't transmitted to the Senate until after Biden took office right? The impeachment vote happened when? So what was the delay from when the vote was finished to the day the Senate received the articles?

Yes because the Senate was in recess.

McConnell was asked to start an emergency session of the Senate to hold Trump accountable while he was still in office. McConnell flat out refused just minutes after the House vote, and the Senate didn't go back into session until after Trump was gone.

The Senate wasn't there to receive the articles of impeachment.


It's really important to understand the full context of these situations, not just the headlines of articles.