Jump to content

Soooo....is Trump formally impeached or not?


Vegas
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Was Bill Clinton impeached? Yes, He was.  It only takes a majority vote in the House to get impeached.   The penalty stage is up to the Senate. 

Evidently not. To make it official the articles need to be submitted to the senate. Pelosi seems to be having second thoughts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vegas said:

Evidently not. To make it official the articles need to be submitted to the senate. Pelosi seems to be having second thoughts. 

Pelosi doesnt have thoughts, she is a wretched ,evil,lying bottom feeder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Nope.  It's a done deal.  Trump is officially impeached.  Y'll just need to cope now.  

 

Noah Feldman, the Harvard Law Professor Nadler called to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on why Trump needed to be impeached, disagrees with you.

 

Who do you think people are going to agree with, you or a law expert even the demonrats in the House trust?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Vegas said:

Articles of impeachment haven't been submitted, but the vote was in favor of impeachment.  So whats up? 

"Pelosi’s problem: Dems' own witness says Trump not truly impeached unless articles go to Senate"

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosis-problem-dems-own-witness-says-trump-not-truly-impeached-unless-articles-go-to-senate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

Noah Feldman, the Harvard Law Professor Nadler called to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on why Trump needed to be impeached, disagrees with you.

 

Who do you think people are going to agree with, you or a law expert even the demonrats in the House trust?

 

Even people who voted against the impeachment concede that Trump is impeached. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Even people who voted against the impeachment concede that Trump is impeached. 

 

Doesn't mean they are correct...they have simply stated their opinion.  Unless they are also respected constitutional scholars, people are going to believe the "expert" over the politician.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not impeached
 

If a Grand Jury "votes" to indict, and the DA doesn't file the charges with the court, there is no indictment.

Likewise, until the House files their charges with the Senate, there is no impeachment.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

After they voted to not impeach him.  Seriously, Its a done deal.  You can not unimpeach someone.  

 

He is not saying anything about "unimpeach".  He is saying that impeachment is a process, not a vote and until the articles of impeachment are presented by the managers to the Senate, the official (in this case Trump) is not impeached.  Remember, everyone (including members of the House) were voting "to impeach", not "on impeachment".  It may seem like semantics, to "to impeach" authorizes something in the future.  After the articles are presented and the Senate notified, the Senate starts the trial process by notifying all parties involved, setting the rules for the trial and setting the trial date.

 

As has been said repeatedly, even here, an impeachment is the political equivalent to a criminal indictment.  The process between the House vote and the start of the trial process works the same way in both cases.  The indictment is made and a defendant enters a plea with the court.  If the criminal prosecutor takes the indictment and shreds it, nothing is formal...there is no court record and the nothing goes on the record of the "accused".

 

While it is theoretically possible an impeached official could tell the Senate, "Yep, I'm guilty", it has never happened, and since it is a political process it never will.  It could be argued the resignation of Nixon was the equivalent to that but the House never got to the point of a vote.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

He is not saying anything about "unimpeach".  He is saying that impeachment is a process, not a vote and until the articles of impeachment are presented by the managers to the Senate, the official (in this case Trump) is not impeached.  Remember, everyone (including members of the House) were voting "to impeach", not "on impeachment".  It may seem like semantics, to "to impeach" authorizes something in the future.  After the articles are presented and the Senate notified, the Senate starts the trial process by notifying all parties involved, setting the rules for the trial and setting the trial date.

 

As has been said repeatedly, even here, an impeachment is the political equivalent to a criminal indictment.  The process between the House vote and the start of the trial process works the same way in both cases.  The indictment is made and a defendant enters a plea with the court.  If the criminal prosecutor takes the indictment and shreds it, nothing is formal...there is no court record and the nothing goes on the record of the "accused".

 

While it is theoretically possible an impeached official could tell the Senate, "Yep, I'm guilty", it has never happened, and since it is a political process it never will.  It could be argued the resignation of Nixon was the equivalent to that but the House never got to the point of a vote.

 

Nice Try.  Nixon was never impeached because the house didn't vote.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Nice Try.  Nixon was never impeached because the house didn't vote.  

 

I said that, numbnuts.  Hang in there, your reading comprehension will improve when you get into the third grade...probably another 8 years, but you'll get there if you keep working.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

I said that, numbnuts.  Hang in there, your reading comprehension will improve when you get into the third grade...probably another 8 years, but you'll get there if you keep working.

 

im·peach·ment
/imˈpēCHmənt/
noun
 
  1. the action of calling into question the integrity or validity of something.
    "the prosecutor's detailed impeachment of the character witness"
    • BRITISH
      a charge of treason or another crime against the state.
      "the king cynically abandoned him, encouraging his impeachment"
    • US
      a charge of misconduct made against the holder of a public office.
      "the president is facing impeachment over the scandal"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TrumpBGoneSoon said:
im·peach·ment
/imˈpēCHmənt/
noun
 
  1. the action of calling into question the integrity or validity of something.
    "the prosecutor's detailed impeachment of the character witness"
    • BRITISH
      a charge of treason or another crime against the state.
      "the king cynically abandoned him, encouraging his impeachment"
    • US
      a charge of misconduct made against the holder of a public office.
      "the president is facing impeachment over the scandal"

 

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:
im·peach·ment
/imˈpēCHmənt/
noun
 
  1. the action of calling into question the integrity or validity of something.
    "the prosecutor's detailed impeachment of the character witness"
    • BRITISH
      a charge of treason or another crime against the state.
      "the king cynically abandoned him, encouraging his impeachment"
    • US
      a charge of misconduct made against the holder of a public office.
      "the president is facing impeachment over the scandal"

 

So...it still needs to be filed with the "court"...i.e. the Senate...before there is a charge.

 

So far, all the House has done is to accuse (say the believe) Trump of doing something wrong.  There is nothing formal until there is a charge...and there is no charge until something is filed.

 

At least, that is the position of the expert Nadler called to testify.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BatteryPowered said:

While it is theoretically possible an impeached official could tell the Senate, "Yep, I'm guilty", it has never happened, and since it is a political process it never will.  It could be argued the resignation of Nixon was the equivalent to that but the House never got to the point of a vote.

 

TBGS, 

You quoted this^^ and responded with this:

 

46 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Nice Try.  Nixon was never impeached because the house didn't vote.  

 

Do you have ANY IDEA how dumb that was?
If not, you really need to show that to someone who can explain it for you.

 

My take on it is you only listen to argue, not understand, and it's something you can work on
It is possible to become a good listener

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...