User Controls

Jan 6 Committee Starts Now

  1. Anyway, Trump is about to be indicted :)
  2. Originally posted by fuckerofmothersandsuckeroffathers Anyway, Trump is about to be indicted :)

    An indictment doesn't mean shit. It's just an accusation. Just like an impeachment doesn't mean shit without a conviction.
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  3. Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ An indictment doesn't mean shit. It's just an accusation. Just like an impeachment doesn't mean shit without a conviction.

    An impeachment is an impeachment regardless of the Senate's conviction. It is the House that has the sole power to impeach.
  4. Speedy Parker Black Hole [my absentmindedly lachrymatory gazania]
    Originally posted by fuckerofmothersandsuckeroffathers An impeachment is an impeachment regardless of the Senate's conviction. It is the House that has the sole power to impeach.

    Impeached means charged not convicted dumbass
  5. Originally posted by fuckerofmothersandsuckeroffathers An impeachment is an impeachment regardless of the Senate's conviction. It is the House that has the sole power to impeach.

    You're confusing articles of impeachment with impeachment.
  6. Originally posted by Speedy Parker Impeached means charged not convicted dumbass

    Ah, so Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton were never impeached. Got it.

    That means Bill Clinton is innocent and never cheated on Hilary, right? Right??
  7. Originally posted by fuckerofmothersandsuckeroffathers Ah, so Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton were never impeached. Got it.

    That means Bill Clinton is innocent and never cheated on Hilary, right? Right??

    No president has ever been impeached. Jackson was acquitted. Clinton was also acquitted. Stop getting your research from CNN.
  8. Originally posted by fuckerofmothersandsuckeroffathers An impeachment is an impeachment regardless of the Senate's conviction. It is the House that has the sole power to impeach.

    so every president is guilty until proven innocent ?
  9. Speedy Parker Black Hole [my absentmindedly lachrymatory gazania]
    Originally posted by fuckerofmothersandsuckeroffathers Ah, so Andrew Jackson and Bill Clinton were never impeached. Got it.

    That means Bill Clinton is innocent and never cheated on Hilary, right? Right??

    Read it real slow and get back to us. Or just go with this. No US president has ever been convicted by the Senate on articles of impeachment from the house.

    The house is the DA and grand jury. If the house presents articles of impeachment that is like a DA filing charges and presenting evidence to a grand jury. If the house passes the articles of impeachment that is like a grand jury finding sufficient cause for an indictment and it goes to the senate for avtrial. If they don't it is just like a no bill.

    If the senate does not vote to remove the impeached (indicated not convicted) president from office that is likevthebjury returning a verdict of not guilty.

    So nobody said there was no impeachment just that they were failed impeachment being as the evidence was insufficient to support the charges. Just like whenever your mom used to falsely accuse you of being clever
  10. Speedy Parker Black Hole [my absentmindedly lachrymatory gazania]
    BTW Clinton was not charg3d with infidelity he was charged 2ith perjury.
  11. Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ No president has ever been impeached. Jackson was acquitted. Clinton was also acquitted. Stop getting your research from CNN.




    Originally posted by vindicktive vinny so every president is guilty until proven innocent ?

    Impeachment is separate from the charges, and thus is not predicated upon conviction of those charges.

    Impeachment is not removal from office.



    Here is how impeachment is described in the dictionary:

    1.
    (especially in the US) a charge of misconduct made against the holder of a public office.
    "He has threatened to call for the impeachment of the president."
    2.
    the action of calling into question the integrity or validity of something.
    "the prosecutor's detailed impeachment of the character witness"


    US impeachment is more like a formal statement of dislike based on objective evidence.
  12. Originally posted by fuckerofmothersandsuckeroffathers Impeachment is separate from the charges, and thus is not predicated upon conviction of those charges.

    Impeachment is not removal from office.



    Here is how impeachment is described in the dictionary:

    1.
    (especially in the US) a charge of misconduct made against the holder of a public office.
    "He has threatened to call for the impeachment of the president."
    2.
    the action of calling into question the integrity or validity of something.
    "the prosecutor's detailed impeachment of the character witness"

    Then what's the difference between articles of impeachment and an impeachment conviction?
  13. Originally posted by Speedy Parker Read it real slow and get back to us. Or just go with this. No US president has ever been convicted by the Senate on articles of impeachment from the house.

    The house is the DA and grand jury. If the house presents articles of impeachment that is like a DA filing charges and presenting evidence to a grand jury. If the house passes the articles of impeachment that is like a grand jury finding sufficient cause for an indictment and it goes to the senate for avtrial. If they don't it is just like a no bill.

    If the senate does not vote to remove the impeached (indicated not convicted) president from office that is likevthebjury returning a verdict of not guilty.

    So nobody said there was no impeachment just that they were failed impeachment being as the evidence was insufficient to support the charges. Just like whenever your mom used to falsely accuse you of being clever

    goalposts
  14. Originally posted by fuckerofmothersandsuckeroffathers US impeachment is more like a formal statement of dislike based on hearsay.

    corrected
  15. Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Then what's the difference between articles of impeachment and an impeachment conviction?

    There's no such thing as an impeachment conviction. There are charges brought about in the impeachment process (as detailed in the articles of impeachment) and the Senate can choose to convict on those charges or not. If the president is removed from office, it is a punishment for the charges, not a punishment for the impeachment. At least not legally.
  16. Originally posted by vindicktive vinny corrected

    Unsubstantiated claim based on general distrust of authority.
  17. Originally posted by fuckerofmothersandsuckeroffathers There's no such thing as an impeachment conviction. There are charges brought about in the impeachment process (as detailed in the articles of impeachment) and the Senate can choose to convict on those charges or not. If the president is removed from office, it is a punishment for the charges, not a punishment for the impeachment. At least not legally.

    What you're saying is there is no difference between conviction and acquittal.
  18. Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ What you're saying is there is no difference between conviction and acquittal.

    Acquittal or conviction of the charges is not predicated upon impeachment.
  19. Originally posted by fuckerofmothersandsuckeroffathers Unsubstantiated claim based on general distrust of authority.

    no
  20. Originally posted by fuckerofmothersandsuckeroffathers Acquittal or conviction of the charges is not predicated upon impeachment.

    What you're saying is there is no difference between conviction and acquittal.
Jump to Top