Search results

To hold him accountable for his previous actions while he was in office of course. Do you really not know how any of this works ? :joycat:

That's correct ... both as to my doing it and it being a fact. But I didn't then just go all stoopid and call impeaching a former governmental official a clown move. :joycat:

Yeah ... I'm sure he will ... "New phone ... who dis ?" :joycat:

And former Colorado judge Neil Gorsuch would like a word ... :clapping-happy: :joycat:

Speaking of "clown moves" ... ... "former governmental official" is misspelled above. Glad to be of service, please let me know if you need further additional assistance. :joycat:

Speaking of domestic terrorists (and wannabes) might want to watch your step and tread very carefully ... ;) Section 875 Is Having Its Moment

He had no "powers" as President ... he was already out of office by the time the 2nd impeachment trial took place. He was (and still is) a private citizen. May it forever remain so ! :joycat:

Nope - that isn't correct at all. Trump was voted as guilty by a majority (57 to 43) ... but because the standard to convict on impeachment is 2/3rds he was acquitted. There is a difference between a verdict of acquittal and not guilty ... although the result is largely the same for a...

Looks like poor ol' Shippy has run aground ... :joycat:

Not. The. Prosecution's. Job. To. Make. The. Defense's. Case. Let me know how many times you need me to repeat it. :joycat: Maybe. Or maybe not. :joycat:

Hilarious .... No ... that isn't what they did. He was already out of office ... :joycat:

Like I said before: he was already out of office by the time the 2nd impeachment trial started. There wasn't going to be any "continue as president" ... Maybe run for another term in the future ... but no "continue" ... :joycat:

LOL ... no. He was already out of office when the 2nd impeachment trial started. Therefore they could not vote for either things you claim they did. If you are going to comment on this, please learn the actual facts (and not "alternative" ones) ... and how it all works before doing so...

It isn't the prosecution's job to make the defense's case for them. :joycat:

Pesky fact: Political decision by a political body. :joycat: Had no bearing whatsoever on the appeals court ruling that he could be sued and held liable by those harmed by his actions in furtherance of the Jan 6th insurrection. ;)

:joycat: Yup. That was a decision of a political matter ... by a political body. A fact some folks seem to miss ... along with: Courts are triers of facts and apply the law.

Those words do not mean what you think they mean. A candidate being unqualified to appear on a ballot isn't disenfranchising anyone. Any voter otherwise qualified, is still permitted to vote for any candidate ... who is qualified to be on the ballot. The premise you're putting forward is...

It seems there is a difference of opinion about that. Correct. And Al Capone wasn't convicted of murder ... even though he most likely ordered them if not personally committing them. They got him on tax evasion. Which was good enough ... good enough to remove him from society and keep him...

That link doesn't provide the exculpatory evidence you apparently think it does ... :joycat:

The bolded part above is misspelled - it was, in fact, an elected state constitutional officer ... acting in accordance with an oath they swore to uphold the US Constitution. Whatever would they remove him for ? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes ... El Donaldo wins another one ...