Search results

... "ex-officials" is spelled wrong above. :tearsofjoy: We've been very fortunate ... in that no one of such debased, immoral character has ever attained the office before Trump. Hopefully never again ... Bi-partisan, actually. :tonguewink:

Nah ... not even close. :tearsofjoy:

Where exactly does one find that ? Seckret decoder ring required ? :tearsofjoy: The purpose of impeachment is actually twofold: 1. Removal from office and 2. Bar from holding future office. One of those becoming moot, does not necessarily automatically moot the other. And potentially...

Clearly, some do not ... :tearsofjoy:

Is that in the instruction manual ? Or part of a proclamation from the WeSaySo Corporation ? The United State's Senate found in 1876 - by a vote of 37 to 29 - that it had the power to try the impeachment of an ex-office holder, no longer holding office. Furthermore, they voted to convict 35...

Don't think so. ... "they" ... ? If "they" is the political Right, then yes - I'm well aware that it's a claim they make. :tearsofjoy: Really ? Is that from an official party publication that claims such ? Sure ... :rolleyes:

That is one of its purposes ... but it's not its only purpose. :tonguewink: In the case of Trumpers, that is highly questionable.

Not currently (and hopefully will never be again) Not yet anyways. :tearsofjoy:

One could start at the link below, where ol' "Loose Cannon" Louie was forced to eat copious amounts of crow, in silent humiliation: Lou Dobbs’ Vote Fraud Lies Debunked On His Program After Legal Threat By Vote Tech Firm I'm sure that there is plenty more where that came from if the above isn't...

If they hadn't been, the property damage - and the loss of life - would have probably been far, far worse.

That's an opinion ... which many likely disagree with. That's also an opinion ("Rarely criticized") ... which some might disagree with. But to their point, which is more important: an individual human life or property ? Doubtful that any Dem politician actually said that.

What is the reason for your question ?

Correct. Strong Concur. Correct - and a violation of the law he swore to uphold. Perhaps an early indication of the Political Right's unwillingness to lose. In a democracy - or constitutional republic if you prefer - when one party is unwilling to lose - and is willing to subvert the rule...

Correct ... while he was in office.

Nope. He was a public official and in office when he was impeached. Try again. :tearsofjoy: Not very ... unless you consider the Founding Fathers dumb for coming up with a way to hold both current and former public officials accountable. :tonguewink:

That's actually a very good point ... and should not be forgotten. :tonguewink:

I had a very similar reaction to that whole "peaceful and patriotic" schtick ... :tearsofjoy:

The germane point was the video of Trump's own words (not Roland Martin) Not that I expected everyone - least of all Trumpers - to see it. :tearsofjoy: ... probably not inciting an insurrection against the US government ? :tearsofjoy:

My focus (and possibly my takeaway) is a little different, but isn't necessarily in conflict with that statement: The rightwing has waged a proverbial war on the media for years, gaslighting them to the general public. So it stands to reason that public opinion of the media might be affected...

The Cheeto was too involved with the "complex procedure" of trying to help Rudy call Tuberville and get him to hold things up and not butt dial Senator Mike Lee instead ... :tearsofjoy: