Biden to be impeached?

[ColinEssex]

Never heard anything so divisive and hateful in a Presidential speech EVER! That's why the current divider in chief should be impeached.

But impeaching a president makes no difference. They continue to the end of their term. Then run again some years later. It just seems a pointless exercise.
Col

 

[Mike Krailo]

Colin, you're referring to attempting to impeach. If successful, and there is agreement, then they will be forced from office. In Trumps case, they were not really successful because it was all bogus to begin with. You cannot just impeach because you don't like your political opponent. It's rather difficult to do but it can be done if there is agreement enough.

 

[ColinEssex]

My apologies. It says in Wikipedia that Trump was impeached for the first time and later for a second time. This gives the impression that he was impeached but nothing happened, which made me think why bother if it means nothing.
It's nice to know that Mr Trump is squeaky clean and has done no wrongdoing, so we can all look forward to a trouble free second term as next time its the turn of republicans to have a President.
Col

 

[Isaac]

My apologies. It says in Wikipedia that Trump was impeached for the first time and later for a second time. This gives the impression that he was impeached but nothing happened, which made me think why bother if it means nothing.
It's nice to know that Mr Trump is squeaky clean and has done no wrongdoing, so we can all look forward to a trouble free second term as next time its the turn of republicans to have a President.
Col

He was impeached in house but not convicted in senate.
Only the two parts both happening makes the difference

the house is generally a more chaotic and frivolous body; the Senate is more serious and it's harder to perform antics successfully

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Isaac beat me to it.

Col, in the USA, impeachment is a specific term in political context that is the equivalent of the legal term "indictment" - meaning a formal hearing has decided that there is something to be more closely investigated. But the second half of EITHER impeachment or indictment is "conviction" - and for Mr. Trump, that is the part that DIDN'T happen. Yes, he got impeached twice. Yes, they failed to convict both times.

 

[ColinEssex]

Isaac beat me to it.

Col, in the USA, impeachment is a specific term in political context that is the equivalent of the legal term "indictment" - meaning a formal hearing has decided that there is something to be more closely investigated. But the second half of EITHER impeachment or indictment is "conviction" - and for Mr. Trump, that is the part that DIDN'T happen. Yes, he got impeached twice. Yes, they failed to convict both times.

Weird
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

Apparently Collin doesn't understand the difference between being accused of a crime and being convicted. I suppose if someone from Collin's past came out of the woodwork and accused him of r*** 20 years ago, Col might understand the difference. Would Col be guilty if accused of a crime? I'm sure he would be. Off with his head Evidence be damned. The accusation is sufficient.

Usually we need actual evidence of a crime in order to convict someone but the Democrats have lost their mind and the fact that our Constitution states explicitly that you are innocent until proven guilty means nothing to them if the accused happens to be someone they disagree with. However, people on their "team" are always innocent even with physical evidence such as a laptop with emails detailing the crime. Talk about hypricrocy.

Maybe we should take a vote. Who thinks Collin is guilty I'm sure if we could get the law to investigate him we'd find something, anything

 

[ColinEssex]

There's only one 'L' in Colin. If it's difficult for you, then look at my username to help you, the clue is there.
Plus of course, you totally miss what I'm trying to say, one day when you haven't got me on ignore, I'll explain it, I'm not wasting my time if you can't read it.
Col

 

[moke123]

the fact that our Constitution states explicitly that you are innocent until proven guilty

No, it doesn't.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

Innocent until proven guilty is implied in several places in the US Constitution.

Where Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty Found in the Constitution?

Innocent Until Proven Guilty is a well-known term that establishes a precedent in criminal law cases. However, is it found in the US Constitution?

constitutionus.com

 

[moke123]

Innocent until proven guilty is implied in several places in the US Constitution.

Where Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty Found in the Constitution?

Innocent Until Proven Guilty is a well-known term that establishes a precedent in criminal law cases. However, is it found in the US Constitution?

constitutionus.com

It's a judicial construct. It is not explicitly stated in the constitution as stated.
See Coffin v U.S. 156 U.S. 432 (1895)

Weren't you guys arguing that the right to an abortion is not in the constitution therefore there is no right to one?

 

[NauticalGent]

Impeached = Accused, not Convicted. Big difference

 

[Pat Hartman]

@moke123 You are technically correct like some of your fact checks. The phrase is a shorthand way of saying what the V, VI, and X1V say in longer terms. I'm especially fond of the way the Democrats are currently flouting with virtually no push back from those feckless pieces of dog do that call themselves Republican.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial unless you are accused of trespassing and are a supporter of DJT, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation unless your name is Donald J. Trump; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

 

[moke123]

The phrase is a shorthand way of saying what the V, VI, and X1V say in longer terms.

Nope, its based on the due process clause, which is not defined in the constitution either. Its a result of judicial construct which could change with one bad decision.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

It's a judicial construct. It is not explicitly stated in the constitution as stated.
See Coffin v U.S. 156 U.S. 432 (1895)

Weren't you guys arguing that the right to an abortion is not in the constitution therefore there is no right to one?

SCOTUS recently ruled that the constitution doesn't give the right to abortion. Depending on how far the pregnancy is, the unborn could actually survive. Would that not be considered murder in that case?

 

[moke123]

SCOTUS recently ruled that the constitution doesn't give the right to abortion. Depending on how far the pregnancy is, the unborn could actually survive. Would that not be considered murder in that case?

A good example how one bad decision can change a penumbral right.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Not sure what was marginal about Roe v Wade. It was a bad ruling. It was attempting to make law instead of ruling based on the Constitution. If the Dems hadn't weakened it so much that post birth "abortion" was available in some states, it would probably still be standing. But once the crazies got involved on one side, the crazies on the other responded. Religion aside, abortion restrictions after viability is rational. At some point the fetus becomes a person and deserves protection. Many states have laws calling the death of a fetus during an attack on the mother murder. Not sure how that reconciles with post delivery "abortion".

 

[ColinEssex]

Impeached = Accused, not Convicted.

Thanks for the straight reply NG. That's the best explanation for impeached.
You see, impeached is not a word used in the UK as far as I know. So it must be one of those weird American words like sidewalk or faucet or calling a garden a yard. Also, some of the posters here view the orange idiot through Rose tinted glasses so they are deaf to any criticism of the idiot, did you know he wants to put a nuclear power plant on the moon? Its on YouTube. To support a crazy fool like that people must have a screw loose.
Col

 

[AngelSpeaks]

A good example how one bad decision can change a penumbral right.

No, that decision put the issue of abortion onto the states. Perhaps if some far right activists didn't push for abortions up to 40 weeks, this wouldn't have happened. It happened because the left tried to challenge a red states law that restricted it to 15 weeks. The activists challenged the wrong attorneys and got SCOTUS to review Roe vs Wade.

 

[NauticalGent]

did you know he wants to put a nuclear power plant on the moon? Its on YouTube. To support a crazy fool like that people must have a screw loose.

New one on me and if accurate, I totally agree...