Jump to content

“What is required for removal of the president?" Napolitano wrote in an op-ed.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Fit2Serve said:

: I cut you every day on this Forum, along with all of your Cult sisters, just to stand back and watch you bleed-out. 


you  never touch me or anyone here.   You are a fraud and a loser.



Just look at  what happened  yesterday with the helicopter  thing.    I led you right into the slaughter house, already  knowing the  answer when I posted  the  bait.   Others  picked up your idiocy as well.



You don't even have the courage to admit you were wrong and stupid.    Well here is your chance to  man  up.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, EltonJohnson said:



Did you catch his helicopter stuff  yesterday ?

it was a riot

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Virginia Dems seeking law to make criticism of govt officials a criminal offense, freedom of speech gone, right to face an accuser eliminated and legal defense no longer allowed, hoodoo, voodoo and all kinda weird crap get the full scoop.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, EltonJohnson said:


you  never touch me or anyone here.   You are a fraud and a loser.



Just look at  what happened  yesterday with the helicopter  thing.    I led you right into the slaughter house, already  knowing the  answer when I posted  the  bait.   Others  picked up your idiocy as well.



You don't even have the courage to admit you were wrong and stupid.    Well here is your chance to  man  up.


I was wrong? About what? Which helicopter DILDO flies around in?

That matters? LOL. This is what you are fighting with?

Does Marine One need wings to land?


Why would anyone care about your "aviation knowledge?

Or which guns you masturbate with?

Or how many tiny little Conservative cocks you suck, each week?

None of your wonderful skills are relevant to the FACT that every time DILDOnald opens his ignorant yap, ABJECT IDIOCY pours out.

Idiocy like...."Doh! I never saw anything land without wings, before!""


FACT: This is a POLITICAL Forum, Child.  

It's not "Lookie, Mommy...cuz' I know stuff about aviation!"



I merely pointed-out how BUTTF UCKING stupid Trump really is.

I full admit the TRUTH...because shooting-down and annihilating Conservatives in a barrel....and pointing out the abject stupidity of the Conservative RIGHT on a daily basis can be done by a Signing Gorilla on Meth.

Has Trump ever seen a helicopter land? 

Because everyone in America has seen a helicopter land.

No wings necessary.  


EVERY argument about Trump's astonishing LACK of any viable knowledge always comes down to actual relevant knowledge and life-experience,  vs. Trump's ABJECT IGNORANCE.

This example if Trump's abject ignorance is EXACTLY why the LEFT has kicked the RIGHT's scrawny little azz, on EVERY issue, and EVERY question that has EVER faced America...for 243 years. 

And it's EXACTLY why the Progressive Mind will ALWAYS destroy the Conservative mind. 


You're up, Sonny. 

And until you can explain how the President of Some States is STUPID enough to say "I never saw anything land without wings, before.." YOU GOT NOTHING.

Has he ever seen a parachutist land? A cat? A loudmouthed, suddenly unconscious widdle Conservative boy face-plant himself onto the asphalt after all his teeth get knocked-out for running his yap?

I can assure you, from life-experience.

They all land just fine, and set down COMPLETELY without wings.


P.S. Don't BORE me now with a dissertation on how a helicopter can auto-rotate, in an emergency, to land and slow the impact of a crash.

Been there.

Done that.


FACT: We don't know if you or Trump is the weakest little bitch crybaby in America.....it's a toss-up. 

But on this Forum? 

You don't have a chance of survival.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Fit2Serve said:

I was wrong?



Yeah.   Very.



28 minutes ago, Fit2Serve said:

? About what? Which helicopter DILDO flies around in?


You're so damn stupid  you don't even know how stupid  you are.


then you  write  word salad to cover   up  your failures.   

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Scout said:

“What is required for removal of the president?" Napolitano wrote in an op-ed.

"A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors,

of which in Trump’s case the evidence is ample and uncontradicted.”


GARBAGE.  Napolitano has proven himself to be a HACK.   And a tool of the Deep State and left.   Wonder what they have on him?


Here, a better source than Napolitano ...






Robert Barnes: The Unconstitutional Impeachment of President Trump

by Robert Barnes


Neither of the impeachment charges against President Donald Trump is indictable. As such, neither is impeachable. The Constitution compels the Senate to acquit President Trump as a matter of law.

There are three critical reasons for the principle that impeachable offenses be indictable offenses.

First, the plain text of the Constitution requires it; second, the protection of the people’s right to select the president cannot make the president serve at the pleasure of Congress; and third, the due process rights of the president prevent nebulous, vague undefined “offenses” being the basis of punitive impeachment.

Indeed, this argument is far from new: the only Supreme Court Justices ever to argue on the Senate floor on impeachment agreed; the only active Judges to ever argue on the Senate floor on impeachment agreed; and Founding Fathers who debated impeachment on the Senate floor back to 1805 agreed.

The Text of the Constitution Limits Impeachable Offenses to Indictable Offenses

The Constitution only authorizes impeachment for three reasons: treason, bribery, and “other High Crimes and Misdemeanors” akin to treason or bribery. As the current impeachment charges do not even allege treason, bribery or comparable “other high crimes,” this impeachment of President Trump offends the Constitution.

This understanding of the Constitution is not new.

As Alan Dershowitz recently noted, past former Supreme Court Justices made the same argument on the Senate floor in past impeachments.

As you can read in the journals of past infamous impeachment trials, Founding Fathers, respected jurists, and legal scholars each argued near the very founding of our country: “[n}othing is impeachable that is not also indictable.” (Source: Hinds’ Precedents, Volume 3, Chapter 72, “The Impeachment and Trial of Samuel Chase,” published by the U.S. Government Publishing Office, found at this site: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3/html/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3-21.htm)

Equally, as Dershowitz commented, former Justice Benjamin R. Curtis concurred in the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson. (The opening argument of former Supreme Court Justice Curtis can be found here: https://famous-trials.com/johnson/482-curtisopening).

Harvard law professor Nikolas Bowie has recognized the significance of this precedent, in his response to Laurence Tribe in Harvard Law Review. ( https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/vol132_Bowie.pdf).

Indeed, every judge or justice to take the floor of the Senate and argue about impeachment — for president or judges — has agreed since 1805: impeachment requires a crime.

First, in 1805, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase argued that “impeachment might be invoked only for indictable offenses.” As the journal of the proceeding itself admits, “counsel for Mr. Justice Chase argued elaborately that the power of impeachment applied only to indictable offenses.”

The counsel for Justice Chase included Judge Joseph Hopkinson, himself the astute and learned son of the famous signer of the Declaration of Independence, Francis Hopkinson.

Another fellow member of the Constitutional Convention also joined the defense of Justice Chase: Luther Martin, rightly identified as one of the “Founding Fathers” himself.  Martin, Chase and Hopkinson all concurred that it would be shocking if any official could be “impeached and deprived of his office when he has done nothing which the laws of his country prohibited.”

Yet that is precisely what has occurred to President Trump.

A near half-century later, former Chief  Justice Curtis successfully argued the same on behalf of the first president ever impeached, Andrew Johnson: “when the Constitution speaks of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors it refers to, and includes only, high criminal offenses against the United States, made so by some law of the United States existing when the acts complained of were done.”

Why else would impeachment be referenced in the power to pardon, if not based on criminally offensive conduct? Were it otherwise, we could have impeachment “by no crime” and a trial “by no court,” subjecting the people’s elected president to the capricious whim of Congress on the vaguest of charges, a parliamentary form of power the Constitution directly discarded. Our forebears considered it a “wild idea” that impeachment could occur where the impeached “has violated no law of the country.”

Since 1805, jurists and counselors recognized how the entire constitutional structure requires limiting impeachments to indictable offenses. References to the pardon power, to conviction, to subsequent post-impeachment criminal prosecutorial power – all reveal the Constitution’s intent to limit impeachment to a peculiar form of criminal conduct.

Each state constitution mirrored this principle as well, as “impeachment has been considered by all of them as a criminal prosecution for the punishment of defined offenses against the laws.”

The President Serves at the Will of the People, Not Congress

As James Madison himself objected at the time of the crafting of the Constitution, allowing impeachment for “vague” terms like “maladministration” (which was adopted precisely to target so-called “abuses of power”), would be making the President serving at the “pleasure of the Senate.” (Report of the Committee of Eleven, published by Yale Law School, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_908.asp).

The argument was revisited in both the Chase trial in 1805 and the Johnson trial in 1868: loosening the definition of impeachment to cover conduct not criminalized by existing law inescapably endangered the separation of powers.

Due Process Principles Prohibit Impeachment For Vague, Undefined Charges

Due process requires limiting impeachments to indictable offenses. Were it otherwise, the House could merely “create the offense, and make any act criminal and impeachable at their will and pleasure,” offending the Constitution’s ex post facto and bill of attainder limits on congressional power.

Just as a grand jury has no “general power to make anything indictable which they might disapprove,” so it is that the House has no general power to make anything impeachable which they might disapprove. How can the House be allowed a power denied all government “to create crimes and inflict the most serious penalties on actions never before suspected to be criminal” merely through “exercise of their power of impeachment”?

Judge Joseph Hopkinson called that the “code of the Roman tyrant,” not the Constitution of the free United States of America. As Judge Hopkinson ably argued, an undetermined definition of impeachable offenses placed a sword over the unconscious head, and put quicksand where safe land appeared to be.

A president is not above the law, but he is not below the law either.


The wise words of our predecessors can still be heard in the echoes of the Senate Chamber. Future Senator Robert Harper defined these limitations on impeachment as an “anchor of personal rights and political privileges” that protects all against “the storms of party rage, personal animosity and popular caprice.” Justice Curtis warned illicit impeachments would “return to plague its inventors.”

Acquittal as a matter of law should be the Senate answer to this House hoax.


The above is an excellent fact and logic filled article which I'm almost certain Scout will ignore or dismiss out of hand.  The last reason given in the article is especially powerful.   Because as I've noted previously (with sourced articles to back me up), what the House and democRATS have done is pass a Bill Of Attainder, which is clearly prohibited by the Constitution.    In my opinion, this whole matter should be taken before the Supreme Court so they can toss it out as an unconstitutional act ... so that Trump's record isn't even blemished by the word "impeached".  The reaction of the LF's leftists would be PRICELESS.   :lol:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, neue regel said:

I like and respect the judge. He also said Obama and Bush should have been impeached as well. Was he right then?


I was unaware of his wish to have them impeached and am unaware of the circumstances.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BatteryPowered said:


He is wrong.  Regardless of what anyone "thinks" the "evidence" says, what is required for removal of the President is 67 votes in the Senate.  It could be completely bogus "charges" in the articles of impeachment (and these come remarkably close to that) and virtually nothing could be presented to support the charges during the trial.  The Senate could still vote to remove.  Conversely, the articles could be rock solid and overwhelming, irrefutable video evidence could be presented during the trial...the Senate could still vote not guilty.  It is completely up to those 100 people and there is absolutely no avenue for appeal.


Remember, even though many of the legal concepts followed in a criminal trial are also followed in an impeachment trial, this is NOT a criminal process...it is a political process.



There is nothing bogus about the charges against Trump.

HIs criminality fit in perfectly with his lifelong pattern of corrupt behavior.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chongo said:


The evidence is that Trumps defense for the false spy reports and other strange accusations that democrats made payment to acquire happened to also find  a lot of corruption and money skimming along with evidence of the false foreign spy report problems. Democrats are  busy creating their own destructive problems that the world does not need or want. The president made a phone call and the USA taxpayer needs less money wasted on stupid policy's because we need to at least try to keep  social security and other programs operational.  Democrats are creating an American legal defense situation and then making claims that the defense is somehow no longer legal in America and that Americans have no right to vote, have no right to a life, have no right to be self employed etc.


Hoodoo,  voodoo and all kina weird crap.


100% hogwash.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EltonJohnson said:

His rally in NJ next week  is  expected to have 100,000 people,  in JANUARY 


A lie by about a factor of ten!  hahaha3.gif As we come to expect from EJ.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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.

  • Create New...