- Joined
- Feb 19, 2014
- Messages
- 16,027
- Reaction score
- 3
Are you gonna source your assertion, dawg?
Again. The U.S. Constitution.
Are you gonna source your assertion, dawg?
Are you gonna source your assertion, dawg?
So you're not worth engaging anymore.Again. The U.S. Constitution.
It's not no Republicans allowed it's no one from either party not on the committee allowed inside. But keep trying to play victimThe only clowns here are the Dems conducting these secret meetings with no republicans allowed.
Give me a fucking break...![]()
I'm trying to get him to admit this basic fact, and have stated that I'd he can show me a source that verifies his assertion, I'll admit to being incorrect.He's wrong. Two presidents have been impeached. Removal from office is a separate process that occurs after impeachment.
So you're not worth engaging anymore.
Good to know discussing this with you is a waste of time.
He must not have seen this (or purposely ignored it) :
ETA, do you agree that given what is known so far, it really really looks bad?
He's wrong. Two presidents have been impeached. Removal from office is a separate process that occurs after impeachment.
No Republicans allowed? You just posted a video of a Republican asking the ambassador questions. You can't be this dumb.The only clowns here are the Dems conducting these secret meetings with no republicans allowed.
Give me a fucking break...![]()
They could have had this be bipartisan. Why wasn't that the case?

Why aren't they being admitted?I don't know 'cause all we've gotten is so-called reports from the Democrats side.
You have to admit that refusing the Republicans access to live testimony and the ability to ask the witness questions themselves....seems shady as fuck.
So forgive me if I'm taking these "This is it"-style reports with a grain of salt.
Why don't you explain it?I don't know.
Why don't we ask the Democrats?
jesus f'n christ, job....
What other source can I give you on impeachment but the Constitution?
You want a CNN article?
No. The House voting for impeachment is the first part of the impeachment process. The House votes for impeachment, a POTUS is not impeached without being convicted and removed.
It's like saying charges bring brought by the grand jury are a conviction.
The media says Clinton was impeached. The House voted to impeach him, but he was not actually impeached and removed from office. Again, as defined by the Constitution, not POTUS has been impeached.
That's nice and all but he won't even talk about how he destroyed his testimony.
It's absolutely a fact that two presidents have been impeached.
Why don't you explain it?