Mitt Romney: Trump Impeachment Trial Important For 'Unity,' 'Accountability'

"Unconstitutional"..." Correct
"The Earth is Flat"..... False
"Elvis Faked his own Death".... False
"Bigfoot Exists".... False b
"1+1=3"...... If you think so, that's all that matters.

 

55-45 Constitutional

 

Trump's Impeachment Trial is Not UNCONSITUTIONAL.
^And, Everybody KNOWS That.

You are WRONG. Period.

If you want to believe that "1+1=3"...
^Which is 1000x More Logical that believing the Trial is "Unconstitutional", then have at it.

Posting self-own after self-own "debating" something that is WRONG (Like the Trial being "Unconstitutional"), is actually a great way to up your post count.

So be my guest.

Exactly.

 

Exactly - what kind of precedent does this set for the future ? .. as soon as I ask these folks "where is the bar" what constitutes "Terrorism or Treason or Sedition" these days -

for example "Terrorism" was defined by one poster as-Destruction of Gov't Property by a group of protesters. My comment was that this bar is way too low - as this is true of most protests.

And if urging a group of people to take action to try and change the system - send a message to Congress - and this group happens to go out and damage some Gov't property - something not urged by this person .. this person is still guilty of Terrorism - Sedition -and Treason.

Is something wrong with this picture or is it just me ?

The Dem's just can't seem to get enough of Trump - it is like they are addicted to him and they can't let go - as if we do not have better things to do with our time - like perhaps try and figure out how it is that with Trump at the Helm - and the demographic time bomb in play (Red's anti abort, anti gay , puritanical platform is not appealing to younger voters) how on earth did Red get so close to winning this election ?

Trump is just a symptom of a much bigger problem - kind of like when in one Province in Italy they elected a Porn Star.

 

Mitt Romney: Trump Impeachment Trial Important For 'my revenge'

 

If ignored, the precedent it would set is to make the impeachment clause meaningless. May as well strike it from the constitution

 

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of [Satan]. (Obama)
You don't understand freedom of speech. {period}

The Constitution forbids the kingly "we" and the "United States" in Clinton's official state department statecraft from rejecting or deploring such speech; this is a violation of oath of office: "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Impeach Clinton and Obama NOW for cowardice in the face of the enemy and violation of oath of office!

 

The current group of Republicans in both the House and the Senate are a National Embarrassment... To be not bright enough to realize the historical precedents and logic in allowing the Senate Trial to continue after a valid impeachment just strikes me as proving none of them have the common sense to be of any value to the needs of this country.

That party is teetering on the edge of insignificance and it's truly warranted...

For all his thousands and thousands of lies, the one time he tiptoed towards the truth was when T**** uttered this line:

"They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again,”

Amen, brother... Let's keep getting to those levels of voting....

 

Lolwut?

How do you propose "impeaching" an Ex-President?

Trump.was Impeached (by The House) while he was STILL The President.

Your post is Completely Misguided (and in terms of what is allowed under The Constitution, your post is an Epic FAIL).

Well said, and Exactly.

 

If what is ignored - and how does this make the impeachment clause meaningless ?

 

Look up the definition of the word "impeach"; I impeach Obama and Clinton; try it on for size.

 

I only have a vote for two Republicans in the House and Senate, so I'm only responsible for my tiny slice of national embarrassment. Any time a Republican gets elected to President it's mostly issues, Democrats going too far that cause their own to defect, because "Democrats" out number us. 444 days of glory in Iran took out Carter, a lack of mask and twiting like a fool took down Trump.

The issues still exist no matter what the Party.

What makes Romney an idiot too, and I voted for him over a Democrat, there can be no unity on some of the issues. It has nothing to do with Party, only issues that would make me even now prefer Trump to Obama, Clinton, and Biden. Trump did most of the issues (with bad mouth and stupid mouth, and idiot uncovered mouth); Biden will NOT unify me.

 

Really? Everyone knows that? The Senate can have the trial, there is no branch to stop it. Then what? He is already removed, but:

"Article II, section 4 provides that officers impeached and convicted 'shall be removed from office'; Article I, section 3, clause 7 provides further that 'judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.'” IMPEACHMENT | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
So yeah, that part. And that PART could also apply to others not previously removed from office.

 

The senate is not who determines constitutionality, the Supreme Court does.

 

Until all those judges they don't like are convicted by the Senate and replaced with the party line. Say for instance a party controls both houses and the presidency and some of them commit high crimes..., they are all voted out, so new House and Senate..., but the others can run again, and threaten the Republic again, so the question is, can they be impeached in the House (while out of office) and Convicted to prevent that alone, for disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States?

 

The trial. It becomes meaningless because it doesn't provide a deterrent for future office holders

 

Incorrect. The constitution is clear on matters of impeachment

 

Totally off topic, but I saw this article (unworthy of its own thread) and immediately thought of you.... One of our favorite people of 2020, but I recall you developed a particular fondness for this one...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/giuliani-election-witness-went-viral-151049646.html..

The funniest part is any lunatic female can win in Red districts anymore, so you just never know...

I'm calling this nickname early - Menial Tasks Mellissa...

 

What an awesome article.

Thx for bring it to my attention.

And, once again, back on topic to Mitt:

Mitt is obviously correct about the Trial being necssary.

And, as Everybody (who actually understands The Constitution) Understands:

The Trial is 100% Constitutional. Period.

 

The senate does not determine constitutionality period. The Supreme Court makes that call. Your logic claims they can write and pass a law that makes slavery legal(outside of punishment for a crime) and it would be constitutional.

 

Impeachment. Not legislation.

Sole power. Those words have meaning.

 

Both are powers granted to them through the constitution. Only the Supreme Court decides constitutionality.

 

Incorrect. The sole power of an impeachment trial lies with the Senate. It couldn't be any clearer.

 

Well, then T**** has a potential remedy after the conviction vote occurs....

I know where I'd put my money on a SCOTUS decision on this topic though...

 

"We are going to impeach the mother ****er!!!"

They weren't kidding...