Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[REDSTATEWARD]

Bank missed the part where just by going through with impeaching, not even convicting Trump the Democrats now need to face a Harris impeachment, if not others down the line.

Cooler heads will likely prevail - but rest assured there will be discussion - and a need/ask for public explanation by the VP, minimally.

Just what, precisely, do you think Harris would be impeached for?

Research her actions with the Minnesota Freedom Fund.
Interesting argument. 

[Yankguy1]

What's "interesting" is that you (or Lindsey Graham) is now asserting that impeachment is acceptable for actions that took place prior to being President or Vice-President.  This is an assertion that you (in the form of an "LOL"), and certainly Lindsey Graham, would have laughed at with regard to a certain most recent President.

[bankshot1]

Red seems to think voicing suppport for a bail fund is an interesting idea for grounds for impeachment.

Outside of the pure idiocy of that interesting idea and that it literally tramples on a shit-ton of personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, Red seems to think those who need bail are guilty and helping them with a bail fund, is impeachable.

Red is Elba's  go to guy for constitutional issues.

LMAO

[REDSTATEWARD]

What's "interesting" is that you (or Lindsey Graham) is now asserting that impeachment is acceptable for actions that took place prior to being President or Vice-President.  This is an assertion that you (in the form of an "LOL"), and certainly Lindsey Graham, would have laughed at with regard to a certain most recent President.

Oh, you miss the point of the Graham statement.
He was pointing out that if the dems could impeach a President after he left office then what would stop the GOP from impeaching a sitting Vice President for incitement while she was a candidate?

It is a pure hypothetical as Graham argued against calling witnesses in Trump Trial.


“ If you want to start calling witnesses, and you want to drag this thing out, it would be fair to have Kamala Harris’ tape play where she bailed people out of jail.
What more could you do to incite future violence, than to pay the bail of the people who broke up the shops and beat up the cops​,”How’s that not inciting future violence?
Be careful what you wish for, my Democratic colleagues, be careful what you wish for.”

[Yankguy1]

Trump was impeached for activity engaged in while he was President. Graham, a clear scholar like you, was suggesting that doing so made it open season to impeach Harris for behavior engaged in when she wasn’t Vice President. Rock on with that “analysis”. There’s a place for you on this forum.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Trump was impeached for activity engaged in while he was President. Graham, a clear scholar like you, was suggesting that doing so made it open season to impeach Harris for behavior engaged in when she wasn’t Vice President. Rock on with that “analysis”. There’s a place for you on this forum.

You need to discuss that with Graham.
As I said it was a hypothetical.
But since an impeachment proceeding is a a political  process then Graham’s opinion is certainly debatable and a ploy the party in power in the House can use even if it can’t convict.
See Nancy Pelosi(twice).

[Yankguy1]

So you would have been fine with Trump being impeached for what took place with Trump University? Gotcha.

[REDSTATEWARD]

So you would have been fine with Trump being impeached for what took place with Trump University? Gotcha.

Oh the Russian  connection had much more sex appeal than that.

[bankshot1]

So you would have been fine with Trump being impeached for what took place with Trump University? Gotcha.

Red (and presumably Graham) seems to forget thst Trump on the stump told his crowd to literally beat-up Trump protestors and he would pay their legal charges.

thats seem very inciting stuff to me.

But I'm not the constitutional scholar that Red is.

And I suspect we've not heard the last of Trump and Russia, once the tax returns and the Deutsche Bank loan docs get turned over.

[Yankguy1]

So you would have been fine with Trump being impeached for what took place with Trump University? Gotcha.

Oh the Russian  connection had much more sex appeal than that.

He didn’t get impeached for that.  I thought you took pride in paying attention.

[bankshot1]

Yank ask our constitutional expert why he thinks impeaching Kamala re the Minny Bail Fund is in his words :interesting". As he has researched the issue , what is his legal theory that makes it interesting and why is it grounds for impeachment?

thanks I'll hang-up and listen.

[REDSTATEWARD]

So you would have been fine with Trump being impeached for what took place with Trump University? Gotcha.

Oh the Russian  connection had much more sex appeal than that.

He didn’t get impeached for that.  I thought you took pride in paying attention.

How could he? The dems spent millions and found no basis for impeachment.  Saved them from being 0-3.

[Yankguy1]

Yank ask our constitutional expert why he thinks impeaching Kamala re the Minny Bail Fund is in his words :interesting". As he has researched the issue , what is his legal theory that makes it interesting and why is it grounds for impeachment?

thanks I'll hang-up and listen.

I would never presume to guess to what our Learned Hand is thinking.  Red knows.  He knows.

[bankshot1]

Yank ask our constitutional expert why he thinks impeaching Kamala re the Minny Bail Fund is in his words :interesting". As he has researched the issue , what is his legal theory that makes it interesting and why is it grounds for impeachment?

thanks I'll hang-up and listen.

I would never presume to guess to what our Learned Hand is thinking.  Red knows.  He knows.

Its not often that Red opines so freely on issues of the day. Generally his withering rebuttals and critiques are limited to "LOL" and "Huh" sending Elbanese amateur legal buffs as well as barristers of reknown digging deep into law reviews to divine his divine meassages.

What Red lacks in depth he more than makes up in partisan cock-suckery and ignorance. 

[FlyingVProd]

On the issue of reducing crime and making a better world...

We need to reach the children when they are young so that we can teach them and guide them in the right direction so that they stay out of trouble and do good things, we need more doctors and fewer prisoners.

We especially need to help the foster children, and the children who do not have fathers to guide them.

And we need to have more apprenticeship programs so that the foster children and the children without fathers can be mentored and guided by professionals in the field of their choice. For instance, there can be internships at the movie studios for the foster children and for the children without fathers, or they can do an internship at JPL or NASA, or whatever their interests and dreams are.

We can also make sure that the foster children and the children without fathers have a chance to go to college.

There is a lot that we can do to help the children grow up to be successful instead of being criminals, and we need to have more colleges, and fewer prisons.

Salute,

Tony V.