Breaking news: The 2nd Impeachment Trial of Donald J. Trump....

Trust me we all pay one way or the other. Nothing wrong with being a womaniser any more than a woman being promiscuous.

 

It was a perversion of the purpose of impeachment, and we are going to see that every time the House flips.

 

I tend to agree, though that's a different subject.
It seemed clear to me that the impeachment was never going produce a result when based on a vote spread between such divided parties.
So it was a propaganda exercise, designed IMO to put republican senators on the spot, support Trump and show your true colours or vote against him and risk the anger of his followers.

 

I beg to differ. They mean completely different things. All men are promiscuous.

 

Nope. Not everyone behaves like Trump.

 

And if that is the case, it shows a disregard for the Constitution they swear to uphold. They are willing to break it in order to serve themselves. That's fine if my fellow citizens are willing to follow that, but please lose the hypocrisy and get rid of the oath to uphold it, and the ceremony and pomp associated with it, and just say we are the leaders, we have no guiding principles, and we will do whatever we feel necessary.

 

It doesn't matter how they behave, if the opposition controls Congress, the impeachment process can be used to make political points. It's not about removal or even a chance for conviction; those aren't considerations, only does it offer a political advantage?

 

Did you read the article of impeachment?
Every allegation in it was allegation that Trump committed a crime.

 

Judges are periodically removed by conviction on impeachment. President's? None to date. There were two around the post Civil

 

I believe there have been 21 impeachments, with 8 convictions and 9 acquittals, plus 4 resignations and failures to complete. Only 1 involved a Cabinet member (Belknap, during Grant's administration). Four involved Presidents (counting twice for Trump). All of the Presidential impeachments involved crimes. None resulted in convictions. All of the rest were Federal Judges involved in various crimes ranging from being drunk while sitting on the bench to income tax evasion. If all impeachments are counted, they are reasonable spaced over the history of the Republic, with the exception of the last three Presidential impeachments. Whether the last three were "political" rather than "criminal" is debatable. While Impeachment is a political process, there is usually a crime involved, but it isn't mandatory. "High crimes and misdemeanors" has never been legally defined and it's definition is left to the Congressional al votes (in the House to indict/impeach; in the Senate to convict or not).

 

That record conforms with my view: it's about removal. Judges are there for life.

 

Agreed...but it doesn't have to be for a crime as defined by the criminal code.

 

Way to stereotype! And news to the Pope I'm sure.

 

You mean not doing anything wrong?

 

They would have to control it by 70% to do anything more than make themselves look stupid if they misused it.
The only reason it worked this time as a publicity stunt is because Trumps behaviour was shocking to many including Republican supporters.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant

 

The pope lol. (Mods please an you add a decent laughing emoji)
All (Nearly all) men are up for sex whenever its offered, but controlled by culturally expected behaviour.
Women are not generally the same.
They are different.

 

Dems Ring The Stupid Bell, Even Harder

House Democrats introduce bill to ban “Twice Impeached Presidents” from burial at Arlington National Cemetery

Twice acquitted.​

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office....

 

You mean EXACTLY what YOUR biggest *LOSER* was doing with respect to Hillary Clinton?

Were you one of those supporters chanting "lock her up"?

 

The ONLY perversion of the Impeachment process what done by the nefarious Q-GOP when they BETRAYED their Oath to uphold the Constitution...TWICE!

 

They would argue they were serving the public by making what Trump did public knowledge in a way that could not be countered by Fox news simply dismissing it.
Maybe they originally hoped Republican senators would be so appalled by what they saw that they would not be able to live with it even for the good of their party and would impeach Trump. That was how I saw it at first. But I then put it down to my lack of comprehension on how party divided America has become, to a point where right and wrong are no longer important to the public or their representatives.

 

In this country we don't punish folks for constitutionally protected free speech. The dumb assed House Dems lost to Trump, twice, because they tried to impeach him over things he thought and said that they wanted to criminalize.

When you are trying to criminalize thought and speech, you are screwing up big time if you are an American. We don't do that crap. We are for Freedom and Liberty.

​

 

I am fascinated as to whether you really believe the things Trump said constitutes free speech rather than incitement.
Do you think anything constitutes incitement?

 

Yes. In the United States we use the Brandenburg Test to distinguish between Constitutionally protected free speech and criminal incitement. It's not a new or unknown standard, this has been the law of the land for a half century.

All words are, are the symbol system we use to communicate thoughts, and this nation has a deep and unrelenting commitment to free speech because we so greatly value the source of all freedom, free thought.

​

 

So does anything go beyond acceptable free speech?