Quote from: AndyJackson on May 22, 2018, 03:02:49 PM
But......... in the great fantasy in my mind........... the deep state goes overboard and takes a mis-aimed pot shot at somebody in Trump's family..........

Trump loses his mind and just whips out -

-Prosecution of every last democrat / obama hack that he has the goods on

-McCain and RINO pals too

-Blows out the JFK truth

-Goes full bore on Awans, Seth Rich, Sex Slush Fund, Clinton Foundation, Weiner Laptop, F & F, Benghazi, Iran Cash

-Drops the bomb on the false flag business and Arkanside industry

+ 20 other things just like this


A guy can dream .........

I'm dreaming of McCain's DEATH.


Although I'll bet it is PAINFUL to linger, DIE - John - DIE.

Quote from: LegalAmerican on May 25, 2018, 07:57:54 PM
TO GLITCH;  still new at this.  Obama was under FBI investigation, (SELLING/BUYING SENATOR SEAT) when VOTER FRAUD, was used to get in Obama.  SPAIN counted the votes by a co., held partly by SOROS. FRAUD.   OBAMA ON CORRUPT LIST SINCE 2006, & EVER YEAR AFTER THAT.  FAST & FURIOUS, BENGHAZI, & MORE.  GLITCH,,,YOU ARE NOT INFORMED.  Obama like CLINTOONS,,,ALSO HAS A KILL LIST.

Actually, it was Governor Rod Blagojevich who was under investigation for selling Obama's Senate seat, and he was impeached, charged, tried, and convicted of federal corruption charges.

With regard to voter fraud, you are talking about Chicago after all.  One of the most corrupt cities in the country.  Of course there was massive voter fraud.  There will always be massive voter fraud when it comes to electing Democrats.  It is the only way they can win and keep their stranglehold on their shit-hole cities.

Fast & Furious was AG Holder's fiasco.  AG Sessions should be providing all the documentation to Congress about Fast & Furious that AG Holder refused to do, but he isn't.  Why is AG Sessions protecting AG Holder and AG Lynch?

Benghazi was Hillary's screw-up, and again AG Sessions does absolutely nothing with regard to the multiple investigations into Hillary.

Sounds to me like your complaint should be with AG Sessions, not me.  It is AG Sessions who is protecting Obama, Hillary, Holder, and Lynch, not I.

I am actually very well informed, better than you it would appear.  Which is how I know that you cannot impeach someone who is no longer in public office.

Quote from: |Glitch| on May 25, 2018, 08:51:38 PM
Actually, it was Governor Rod Blagojevich who was under investigation for selling Obama's Senate seat, and he was impeached, charged, tried, and convicted of federal corruption charges.

With regard to voter fraud, you are talking about Chicago after all.  One of the most corrupt cities in the country.  Of course there was massive voter fraud.  There will always be massive voter fraud when it comes to electing Democrats.  It is the only way they can win and keep their stranglehold on their shit-hole cities.

Fast & Furious was AG Holder's fiasco.  AG Sessions should be providing all the documentation to Congress about Fast & Furious that AG Holder refused to do, but he isn't.  Why is AG Sessions protecting AG Holder and AG Lynch?

Benghazi was Hillary's screw-up, and again AG Sessions does absolutely nothing with regard to the multiple investigations into Hillary.

Sounds to me like your complaint should be with AG Sessions, not me.  It is AG Sessions who is protecting Obama, Hillary, Holder, and Lynch, not I.

I am actually very well informed.  Which is how I know that you cannot impeach someone who is no longer in public office.

Wrong!

Quote from: zewazir on May 25, 2018, 07:26:11 PM
You missed the part "...that is no longer in office."

I showed you precedent.

QuoteNo, they do not have a responsibility, nor duty to impeach a president who is no longer in office.

They took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

QuoteAgain, the ONLY purpose of impeachment under our Constitution is to remove an elected official from federal office.

I suggest you read the actual article.

QuoteIt is spelled out VERY clearly, even to the point of mentioning that the DOJ has the duty of actually prosecuting any crime after the impeachment/conviction process has removed the accused from office.

Impeachment in the United States is an enumerated power of the legislature that allows formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed.

Thank on that for a moment.

QuoteObama no longer holds office. So impeachment is an empty gesture even if it could be done. Impeachment would be an absolutely ASININE way of going after him for the crimes he committed while in office. Let Session wake up from his hibernation and use the DOJ to prosecute.

It would also serve no practical purpose to go after him for any non-criminal abuses of presidential authority. Especially since conviction by the senate simply would never happen. Leave the bread-and-circuses crap to the progs.

How about we leave that decision to Congress?

Quote(BTW: Clinton was NOT barred from ever practicing law as an outcome of his impeachment. He was not convicted by the Senate.  He WAS, however, barred from practicing law for a period of five years because a CRIMINAL court found him guilty of perjury - AFTER he left office.)

Wrong, SCOTUS stripped him of practicing law, ever again. All because of his Impeachment.

Know what? This whole discussion is moot.  Obama isn't going to be impeached, no matter what some legal theorists claim.  Additionally, the chances of Obama being criminally charged in ANY type of legal formality is remote in the extreme.

Point of fact, though: Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court Bar, rather than face censure by the court for his perjury. It was the fact that he faced perjury charges once he left the presidency, NOT the impeachment, that led to that situation. (How could ANY court punish someone for something which they were NOT convicted?  Clinton was IMPEACHED, not convicted!) . BUT, post presidency he faced criminal charges for perjury and obstruction of justice, and it was to avoid facing those charges he resigned from the SC Bar.

Also, his last day in office he entered into an agreement with the state of Arkansas to accept a five-year suspension of his license to practice law in that state. Again, the agreement was to avoid criminal charges for perjury once he was no longer president. Those charges were actually on the books of the Arkansas DAs office, waiting for Bush's inauguration. They were, of course, never formally brought due to the agreement.

Ultimately, though, Clinton was NOT disbarred, not even from SCOTUS, and could, conceivably, reapply to practice law if he wanted to. He would undoubtedly be turned down if he reapplied to the Supreme Court Bar, but he is not banned from trying.

Quote from: zewazir on May 25, 2018, 10:01:27 PM
Know what? This whole discussion is moot.  Obama isn't going to be impeached, no matter what some legal theorists claim.  Additionally, the chances of Obama being criminally charged in ANY type of legal formality is remote in the extreme.

Point of fact, though: Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court Bar, rather than face censure by the court for his perjury. It was the fact that he faced perjury charges once he left the presidency, NOT the impeachment, that led to that situation. (How could ANY court punish someone for something which they were NOT convicted?  Clinton was IMPEACHED, not convicted!) . BUT, post presidency he faced criminal charges for perjury and obstruction of justice, and it was to avoid facing those charges he resigned from the SC Bar.

Also, his last day in office he entered into an agreement with the state of Arkansas to accept a five-year suspension of his license to practice law in that state. Again, the agreement was to avoid criminal charges for perjury once he was no longer president. Those charges were actually on the books of the Arkansas DAs office, waiting for Bush's inauguration. They were, of course, never formally brought due to the agreement.

Ultimately, though, Clinton was NOT disbarred, not even from SCOTUS, and could, conceivably, reapply to practice law if he wanted to. He would undoubtedly be turned down if he reapplied to the Supreme Court Bar, but he is not banned from trying.

`

There's a good reason you get challenged on this forum, you have a bad habit of speaking as the final word of authority on any given subject, as if daring challenge as a form of defense in hopes of suppressing debate to claim some form of a win, and it comes off as arrogant.
You've been here long enough to know that when posting, it better be factual, so choose your words wisely or they will be challenged, as I did here.
I'm not going to badger you over semantics, but I suggest you lose that attitude or expect to be challenged on your every post.
It's OK to be wrong, but when you post as authority, your inaccuracies reflect poorly on this forum.

Quote from: Solar on May 26, 2018, 06:35:15 AM
`

There's a good reason you get challenged on this forum, you have a bad habit of speaking as the final word of authority on any given subject, as if daring challenge as a form of defense in hopes of suppressing debate to claim some form of a win, and it comes off as arrogant.
You've been here long enough to know that when posting, it better be factual, so choose your words wisely or they will be challenged, as I did here.
I'm not going to badger you over semantics, but I suggest you lose that attitude or expect to be challenged on your every post.
It's OK to be wrong, but when you post as authority, your inaccuracies reflect poorly on this forum.

And you don't?

Gee, thank you that it's "OK to be wrong" - But I am the one coming across as arrogant?  Uh huh.

You ASSUME that I am the one in the wrong, even absolutely declaring it as so. But the only way to prove me wrong is if Obama ends up being impeached.  (I won't be holding my breath.)

Meanwhile, on which points have I been "inaccurate" in this discussion?

FACT: the Constitution describes the impeachment process.
FACT: the House of Representatives is assigned the authority to impeach.
FACT: Impeachment is the process of officially declaring charges against a sitting elected official.
FACT: The Senate is assigned the authority to try any impeachment the House brings to them.
FACT: The Senate can only convict on a 2/3 majority vote.
FACT: the Constitution LIMITS the consequence of conviction to removal from office, and a ban from holding future office.
FACT: The Constitution ALSO declares that any additional criminal proceeding are relegated to the regular courts system. (This is an important inclusion, since otherwise removal from office would be the end of the whole thing, no matter the crime for which an elected official was impeached and convicted.)

FACT: Obama is no longer in office. (For which many of us thanks the Lord!!)
FACT: Any conviction resulting from impeachment can only remove Obama an office which HE NO LONGER HOLDS.
FACT: The only person to be impeached when no longer in office (due to resignation) occurred under circumstances in which the articles of impeachment had already been declared before  the resignation.

Logical conclusion: Impeachment against Obama is a moot process since it would only serve to remove him from an office he no longer holds; and that only if he were convicted in the Senate, which we all know would never happen.

As for Clinton's impeachment:
FACT: Clinton was impeached BUT NOT CONVICTED.
FACT: No one can be penalized for a criminal or civil charge of which they have not been convicted.
FACT: Clinton RESIGNED from the SC Bar - he was not banned by the SC.
FACT: Clinton agreed to accept a 5-year suspension of his right to practice law in Arkansas, he was NOT disbarred.
FACT: Both of these were the result of facing perjury charges AFTER he left office.
FACT: Clinton ADMITTED to the perjury; while still in office, but AFTER the Senate vote failed to convict him of the charges brought against him by the impeachment.

Logical conclusion: Leaving the SC Bar, and accepting a 5-year suspension of license to practice were NOT the result of his impeachment, because he was NOT CONVICTED after his impeachment.

Those are the FACTS.  Not guesses. Not "arrogant" declarations. but facts which are easily verifiable using any variety of sources.

Quote from: zewazir on May 26, 2018, 11:38:27 AM
And you don't?

Gee, thank you that it's "OK to be wrong" - But I am the one coming across as arrogant?  Uh huh.

You ASSUME that I am the one in the wrong, even absolutely declaring it as so. But the only way to prove me wrong is if Obama ends up being impeached.  (I won't be holding my breath.)

Meanwhile, on which points have I been "inaccurate" in this discussion?

FACT: the Constitution describes the impeachment process.
FACT: the House of Representatives is assigned the authority to impeach.
FACT: Impeachment is the process of officially declaring charges against a sitting elected official.
FACT: The Senate is assigned the authority to try any impeachment the House brings to them.
FACT: The Senate can only convict on a 2/3 majority vote.
FACT: the Constitution LIMITS the consequence of conviction to removal from office, and a ban from holding future office.
FACT: The Constitution ALSO declares that any additional criminal proceeding are relegated to the regular courts system. (This is an important inclusion, since otherwise removal from office would be the end of the whole thing, no matter the crime for which an elected official was impeached and convicted.)

FACT: Obama is no longer in office. (For which many of us thanks the Lord!!)
FACT: Any conviction resulting from impeachment can only remove Obama an office which HE NO LONGER HOLDS.
FACT: The only person to be impeached when no longer in office (due to resignation) occurred under circumstances in which the articles of impeachment had already been declared before  the resignation.

Logical conclusion: Impeachment against Obama is a moot process since it would only serve to remove him from an office he no longer holds; and that only if he were convicted in the Senate, which we all know would never happen.

As for Clinton's impeachment:
FACT: Clinton was impeached BUT NOT CONVICTED.
FACT: No one can be penalized for a criminal or civil charge of which they have not been convicted.
FACT: Clinton RESIGNED from the SC Bar - he was not banned by the SC.
FACT: Clinton agreed to accept a 5-year suspension of his right to practice law in Arkansas, he was NOT disbarred.
FACT: Both of these were the result of facing perjury charges AFTER he left office.
FACT: Clinton ADMITTED to the perjury; while still in office, but AFTER the Senate vote failed to convict him of the charges brought against him by the impeachment.

Logical conclusion: Leaving the SC Bar, and accepting a 5-year suspension of license to practice were NOT the result of his impeachment, because he was NOT CONVICTED after his impeachment.

Those are the FACTS.  Not guesses. Not "arrogant" declarations. but facts which are easily verifiable using any variety of sources.

These are the hoops you have to jump through in order to educate the civically illiterate.  If we still had something as basic as high school civics this incredibly ignorant thread wouldn't exist.

Quote from: zewazir on May 26, 2018, 11:38:27 AM
And you don't?

Gee, thank you that it's "OK to be wrong" - But I am the one coming across as arrogant?  Uh huh.

I have no doubt I'm perceived as such, but I always back up my claims with actual facts.

QuoteYou ASSUME that I am the one in the wrong, even absolutely declaring it as so. But the only way to prove me wrong is if Obama ends up being impeached.  (I won't be holding my breath.)

You also claimed he could not be Impeached, which was wrong, yet you continue to state as fact to the contrary, which is why you were called out.
It may seem trivial to you, but our audience is here looking for the truth, and your posting otherwise is beyond misleading, it's outright lying.

Case in point, your own words, and you continue to post ignoring the facts. Impeachment is not necessarily about removing the individual from office, as we've seen with Bill Clinton.

Quote from: zewazir on May 24, 2018, 05:20:03 PM
HOWEVER, since the ONLY POSSIBLE RESULT of impeachment under our Constitution (The Brits have their own system, but it isn't ours, is it?) is removal from office, then there is no purpose, nor any validity, in the impeachment of a former president who is no longer in office.

Therefore, any claim that Obama can still be impeached is, quite simply WRONG.

One more time...

On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears. 

This failed to stop the House.  Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with "criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain."

The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/War_Secretarys_Impeachment_Trial.htm

QuoteFACT: the Constitution describes the impeachment process.
FACT: the House of Representatives is assigned the authority to impeach.
FACT: Impeachment is the process of officially declaring charges against a sitting elected official.
FACT: The Senate is assigned the authority to try any impeachment the House brings to them.
FACT: The Senate can only convict on a 2/3 majority vote.
FACT: the Constitution LIMITS the consequence of conviction to removal from office, and a ban from holding future office.
FACT: The Constitution ALSO declares that any additional criminal proceeding are relegated to the regular courts system. (This is an important inclusion, since otherwise removal from office would be the end of the whole thing, no matter the crime for which an elected official was impeached and convicted.)

FACT: Obama is no longer in office. (For which many of us thanks the Lord!!)
FACT: Any conviction resulting from impeachment can only remove Obama an office which HE NO LONGER HOLDS.
FACT: The only person to be impeached when no longer in office (due to resignation) occurred under circumstances in which the articles of impeachment had already been declared before  the resignation.

Logical conclusion: Impeachment against Obama is a moot process since it would only serve to remove him from an office he no longer holds; and that only if he were convicted in the Senate, which we all know would never happen.

As for Clinton's impeachment:
FACT: Clinton was impeached BUT NOT CONVICTED.
FACT: No one can be penalized for a criminal or civil charge of which they have not been convicted.
FACT: Clinton RESIGNED from the SC Bar - he was not banned by the SC.
FACT: Clinton agreed to accept a 5-year suspension of his right to practice law in Arkansas, he was NOT disbarred.
FACT: Both of these were the result of facing perjury charges AFTER he left office.
FACT: Clinton ADMITTED to the perjury; while still in office, but AFTER the Senate vote failed to convict him of the charges brought against him by the impeachment.

No one is arguing against the facts. The argument is your "Logical conclusion", that the process would be moot. How is it moot if he is banned from ever again holding office?
You are not entitled to your own facts, and that is how you present them.

QuoteLogical conclusion: Leaving the SC Bar, and accepting a 5-year suspension of license to practice were NOT the result of his impeachment, because he was NOT CONVICTED after his impeachment.

Those are the FACTS.  Not guesses. Not "arrogant" declarations. but facts which are easily verifiable using any variety of sources.

Lawyers for former President Bill Clinton Friday will try to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court not to disbar their client, despite false statements he made about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Nearly a year after leaving office, Clinton is still hounded by his sex scandal with Lewinsky and the statements he made about that relationship while defending himself in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

Now, Clinton faces possible disbarment from the highest court in the land. He was forced to surrender his law license and accept disbarment from Arkansas courts in January as part of a deal brokered through the Independent Counsel investigating the Jones-Lewinsky case.

The Supreme Court decided to seek Clinton's disbarment from the high court on Oct. 1 and gave Clinton's legal defense forty days to argue why he shouldn't be disbarred. The forty-day period ends Friday.

On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for "intentionally false" testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him $90,000, and referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas.

The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton's Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr's successor). On October 1, 2001, Clinton's U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/clinton-faces-disbarment-supreme-court

Quote from: Solar on May 26, 2018, 01:54:53 PM
I have no doubt I'm perceived as such, but I always back up my claims with actual facts.
You also claimed he could not be Impeached, which was wrong, yet you continue to state as fact to the contrary, which is why you were called out.
It may seem trivial to you, but our audience is here looking for the truth, and your posting otherwise is beyond misleading, it's outright lying.

Case in point, your own words, and you continue to post ignoring the facts. Impeachment is not necessarily about removing the individual from office, as we've seen with Bill Clinton.
One more time...

On March 2, 1876, just minutes before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on articles of impeachment, Belknap raced to the White House, handed Grant his resignation, and burst into tears. 

This failed to stop the House.  Later that day, members voted unanimously to send the Senate five articles of impeachment, charging Belknap with "criminally disregarding his duty as Secretary of War and basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain."

The Senate convened its trial in early April, with Belknap present, after agreeing that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/War_Secretarys_Impeachment_Trial.htm


No one is arguing against the facts. The argument is your "Logical conclusion", that the process would be moot. How is it moot if he is banned from ever again holding office?
You are not entitled to your own facts, and that is how you present them.

Lawyers for former President Bill Clinton Friday will try to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court not to disbar their client, despite false statements he made about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Nearly a year after leaving office, Clinton is still hounded by his sex scandal with Lewinsky and the statements he made about that relationship while defending himself in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

Now, Clinton faces possible disbarment from the highest court in the land. He was forced to surrender his law license and accept disbarment from Arkansas courts in January as part of a deal brokered through the Independent Counsel investigating the Jones-Lewinsky case.

The Supreme Court decided to seek Clinton's disbarment from the high court on Oct. 1 and gave Clinton's legal defense forty days to argue why he shouldn't be disbarred. The forty-day period ends Friday.

On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for "intentionally false" testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him $90,000, and referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas.

The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton's Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr's successor). On October 1, 2001, Clinton's U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/clinton-faces-disbarment-supreme-court

Fuck you and the piece of shit horse you ride. There was a reason I gave this site a break several months ago - because you are nothing less than an arrogant ass with delusions of perfect godhood.

You are wrong.  Period.  By your own source, the only individual to be impeached after resigning his office was impeached because they WERE ALREADY AT THE POINT OF VOTING when belknap handed in his resignation. So, they voted anyway, probably to tell Belknap it was too little, too late.  How is that "precedence" for impeaching someone whose term in office EXPIRED 16 months ago?  Not resigned in anticipation of being kicked out - but EXPIRED. You hang on your own misguided interpretation of history while calling others liars?

Not to mention, your entire source about Clinton backs up everything I said.  He resigned from the SC Bar, he accepted suspension of his license for 5 years, all because he was under criminal charges for perjury with regard to his relationship with Lewinsky. Those are criminal charges OUTSIDE of the impeachment process for which Clinton WAS NOT CONVICTED. Those penalties were NOT part of his impeachment, regardless of how you try to spin the facts like the liberal media to fit your view.

Don't bother to send me to time out, asshole.  Your shit isn't worth bothering with.

Quote from: zewazir on May 26, 2018, 02:19:29 PM
Fuck you and the piece of shit horse you ride. There was a reason I gave this site a break several months ago - because you are nothing less than an arrogant ass with delusions of perfect godhood.

You are wrong.  Period.  By your own source, the only individual to be impeached after resigning his office was impeached because they WERE ALREADY AT THE POINT OF VOTING when belknap handed in his resignation. So, they voted anyway, probably to tell Belknap it was too little, too late.  How is that "precedence" for impeaching someone whose term in office EXPIRED 16 months ago?  Not resigned in anticipation of being kicked out - but EXPIRED. You hang on your own misguided interpretation of history while calling others liars?

Not to mention, your entire source about Clinton backs up everything I said.  He resigned from the SC Bar, he accepted suspension of his license for 5 years, all because he was under criminal charges for perjury with regard to his relationship with Lewinsky. Those are criminal charges OUTSIDE of the impeachment process for which Clinton WAS NOT CONVICTED. Those penalties were NOT part of his impeachment, regardless of how you try to spin the facts like the liberal media to fit your view.

Don't bother to send me to time out, asshole.  Your shit isn't worth bothering with.

Why didn't the impeachment stop after he resigned?  Why did they vote anyway?

Quote from: Solar on May 26, 2018, 06:35:15 AM
`

There's a good reason you get challenged on this forum, you have a bad habit of speaking as the final word of authority on any given subject, as if daring challenge as a form of defense in hopes of suppressing debate to claim some form of a win, and it comes off as arrogant.
You've been here long enough to know that when posting, it better be factual, so choose your words wisely or they will be challenged, as I did here.
I'm not going to badger you over semantics, but I suggest you lose that attitude or expect to be challenged on your every post.
It's OK to be wrong, but when you post as authority, your inaccuracies reflect poorly on this forum.

I believe he is an islamist.   Hence support of hussein, attitude, we are the infidel.

Quote from: LegalAmerican on May 26, 2018, 08:01:37 PM

I believe he is an islamist.   Hence support of hussein, attitude, we are the infidel.

You have it completely wrong, as usual.  It is because you and Solar are civically illiterate and don't know any better.  You might want to consider learning some basic grade school civics.  Like actually reading the US Constitution.

Quote from: zewazir on May 26, 2018, 02:19:29 PM
Fuck you and the piece of shit horse you ride. There was a reason I gave this site a break several months ago - because you are nothing less than an arrogant ass with delusions of perfect godhood.

You are wrong.  Period.  By your own source, the only individual to be impeached after resigning his office was impeached because they WERE ALREADY AT THE POINT OF VOTING when belknap handed in his resignation. So, they voted anyway, probably to tell Belknap it was too little, too late.  How is that "precedence" for impeaching someone whose term in office EXPIRED 16 months ago?  Not resigned in anticipation of being kicked out - but EXPIRED. You hang on your own misguided interpretation of history while calling others liars?

Not to mention, your entire source about Clinton backs up everything I said.  He resigned from the SC Bar, he accepted suspension of his license for 5 years, all because he was under criminal charges for perjury with regard to his relationship with Lewinsky. Those are criminal charges OUTSIDE of the impeachment process for which Clinton WAS NOT CONVICTED. Those penalties were NOT part of his impeachment, regardless of how you try to spin the facts like the liberal media to fit your view.

Don't bother to send me to time out, asshole.  Your shit isn't worth bothering with.

Well there it is again, you lose a debate and have a meltdown like some lib kid. But I always find it interesting, how you claimed a moral high ground in the past because you're a follower of Jesus or Christianity, then I get these kinds of foul mouthed, ungrounded responses one expects to see from an immature preteen, or someone with some serious personal problems.
I see no reason to address the rest of your nonsense, since you and I both know you haven't the ability to prove your BS, which is why the meltdown in the first place, you knew you bit off more than you were capable of handling, but your impetuous arrogance led ego, just couldn't let it go, so you kept digging and when you realized you didn't bring along enough rope to get out of the hole you were digging, you lashed out.

I get it, you're still grappling with that whole puberty thing and it's a bitch, but hang in there cupcake, you'll soon be out of Moms basement after 30+ years of weening.
Makes me wonder if that was you in the news recently?

Hey, I'm only taunting you for one reason, and one reason only, it's to get you to reflect on the moment. It was only a debate on issues that haven't even come to fruition, so it truth it's irrelevant yet you allowed your emotions to get the better of you and in the process, instantly won the debate through forfeit.
I only point this out so you can work on your short fuse, because if a simple debate over something that may never even come to fruition can set you off like this, you could find yourself up for murder over a road rage incident and your life would be over, because we both know this isn't the first time you've acted like a spoiled kid.
Dude, seek help for that anger issue, it may even be physical and curable.

Quote from: taxed on May 26, 2018, 06:07:59 PM
Why didn't the impeachment stop after he resigned?  Why did they vote anyway?

Watch out, he'll hold his breath if we're not careful.