11 Feb 2020, 18:53#44
So where are the stupid buggers on this site.....What a stupid question...everywhere and all of us....but some are more stupid than others..
To be honest:
No Einsteins, that's for sure , successful business men maybe one, political and objective analysts probably nil, rugby probably 1%, cricket 0%, creative ability 1.5%., humour 40% (Rooi does automatically without trying). Beeno 30% (just acts naturally) Shark 5% (sick humour does not score)...25% is also by accident...we come here for laughs to be truthful...if you THINK THIS IS SERIOUS THEN YOU ARE THE BIGGEST FOOL OF ALL.
Easiest question ever posed.
11 Feb 2020, 19:39#47
It may be semantics but my point was this. Beeno is always ridiculed but very often it is his own doing. Arguing that the acquittal has wiped out the impeachment is just not a valid argument. I find it strange that his adversaries have not yet jumped on his back accusing him of being stupid enough to argue that the acquittal has virtually removed the “stain” of impeachment.
If you go into the record and look at the names of presidents who have been impeached, you will find Trump’s name in there, right alongside each and both of the other two presidents who were impeached. None of them were removed.
I would suggest that the only way that the impeachment could become null and void would be if there was to be some sort of vote in the House to set aside the decision to impeach Trump. If not, then the impeachment will stand as will the acquittal.
The irony is that the Dems can, right away, start with procedures to impeach him again on the same charges, if they were foolish enough to go there. Impeachment is one of the few, if not the only, example where the rule of double jeopardy does not apply in the USA.
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
11 Feb 2020, 21:34#48
It's not semantics, it's just two stupid people (Moffie and Baboon-ou) who are too ignorant to know that Bozo was in fact only the third US president to be impeached and the stain of that impeachment will forever taint his already bungling and incompetent presidency.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
11 Feb 2020, 22:19#52
No as per normal your history knowledge is as per normal deficient - there as a number of other presidents impeached - amongst others Johnson in 1868, Impeachment taint disappear when the president concerned is found not guilty in the Senate trial.
In the expected Republican controlled House after the November election since the House process was flawed and not handled properly on a legal basis, the House will most likely decide to expunge the impeachment from all records of the House,
In any event the only President (Nixon) who might have been found guilty if there was a Senate trial resigned before the trial and can therefore be regraded as guilty of the charges laid by the House,
In any event a person not found guilty of any crime is not a criminal. In the case of impeachment the House becomes the prosecutor. In the Trump case the charges contained in the Articles of Impeachment was a farce and so bad that it had to be rejected on purely legal grounds.
12 Feb 2020, 00:24#53
“ and the stain of that impeachment will forever taint his already bungling and incompetent presidency.”
Or....... the stain of that impeachment will forever taint the already bungling and incompetent DemoKKKrats for the way they clearly demonstrated how not to approach an impeachment nor how to effectively use a House majority.
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
12 Feb 2020, 14:37#55
"Was the President impeached after the House vote. NO!!! "
Ummm . . . yes, he was.
Baboon-ou is living proof that stupid people shouldn't talk about subjects they clearly know nothing about.
13 Feb 2020, 10:58#63
“ Posted by: Rooinek (9743 posts)
Feb 13, 2020, 09:04
I must say, for two ignorant and poorly educated half-wits who don't know what the word "impeachment" means, Moffie and Baboon-ou sure use the word a heck of a lot!”
Doesn’t change the fact that this is the most absurd impeachment in history till now. The only ones embarrassed by it, and losers, are the “impeachers ” and thé biggest winner is the impeached, wearing the impeachment like a crown.
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
13 Feb 2020, 11:20#64
As far as I'm concerned, the only really absurd thing about this impeachment was the Republican senators refusing to hear new evidence while at the same time saying there wasn't enough evidence to remove Bozo from office.
As for the consequences of the impeachment hearings and Bozso's acquittal (or should I say the successful Republican cover-up), I did predict months ago that if the Democrats didn't make this impeachment stick then Bozo's position would be strengthened and he'd win the 2020 election in a landslide . . . so no need to lecture me on how this has all panned out.
13 Feb 2020, 11:37#65
“ Posted by: Rooinek (9744 posts)
Feb 13, 2020, 11:20
As far as I'm concerned, the only really absurd thing about this impeachment was the Republican senators refusing to hear new evidence while at the same time saying there wasn't enough evidence to remove Bozo from office.”
You are not finding the House proceedings even a tiny bit peculiar? You don’t find the absence of one of the most basic principles of American law, the right to face your accuser, even remotely odd? You don’t find the refusal to call your own witnesses odd? You don’t find the denial of the freedom of questioning the witnesses of the prosecution odd? You don’t find the shielding of the so-called whistleblower odd? You don’t find the refusal to calling the IG who received the “whistleblower’s” complaint odd? Do you want me to carry on, or is that enough to keep you busy for now?
13 Feb 2020, 13:28#67
“ I'm hoping that at some point you'll address the hypocrisy of the Republicans refusing new evidence while using a lack of evidence as the reason for their votes . . .”
What new evidence? Hearsay from a journo who says that he has seen a manuscript of a yet to be published book, or the testimony of someone who they refused to force to testify in the House because it was not pressing enough to do then, but it became pressing in the Senate? Why didn’t they go to court to get Bolton’s testimony? Maybe because it would have given them one less article to impeach on?
In addition, why were they not prepared for the so-called whistle blower to be heard and cross-examined?
Have you listened to Jay Sekulow’s submission to the Senate om witnesses? Have you heard what was going to happen if they call witnesses? Have you heard him, or any of Trump’s council, objecting once against calling witnesses? They were licking their lips for witnesses to be called.
The Senate actually spared Schiff, Nadler, er al, a hell of a lot more embarrassment when they refused to call witnesses. Can you imagine how Schiff’s would have been popping under Sekulow‘s cross examination?
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
13 Feb 2020, 14:03#71
"What new evidence?"
John Bolton's evidence. Lev Parnas' evidence.
"Why didn’t they go to court to get Bolton’s testimony?"
Schumer, Schiff, Nadler and others have answered this question so many times in case you were too busy getting indignant instead of actually listening. If you seriously don't know why they chose not to go the same route with Bolton as they did with Don McGahn then you're not a very bright or informed person and I don't know why I'm wasting my time discussing this with you . . . not that we're actually discussing anything, with you it's always dodge the actual question or issue and have a long whine about all the naughty things everyone else has done as if that somehow justifies the Republicans disgraceful, servile and cowardly behaviour.
13 Feb 2020, 14:12#72
Lev Parnas has no first hand knowledge and he was discredited from the outset. Another “witness” that Trump’s council were licking their lips to cross examine. They can explain till the cows come home, it was still their choice not to force Bolton to testify. Nobody else’s.
The Dems keep on contradicting themselves. They contradicted themselves on the motivations for this impeachment. They contradicted themselves on witnesses in the Senate. They contradicted themselves on obstruction. They constantly contradict themselves on border security. They contradict themselves on immigration. Their whole election campaign, so far, is based on one contradiction after the other.
They are BSing each other and themselves day after day and Trump and the Republicans are laughing all the way.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
13 Feb 2020, 18:04#77
As Dershowitz so clearly explained.....doing something which may benefit you, in the course of doing something which is required of you, can never be a crime.....case closed.