User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 2:17:05 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd not mind seeing bug-eyed Adam Schiff's neck stretched.....That will give him something to really bug his eyes out at. 
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 2:25:45 PM EDT
[#2]
Can someone explain in layman’s terms so a dummy like me can understand, what did he say, and what did the president actually say?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 2:42:35 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you think you are living in a functioning Democratic Republic? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: It's irrelevant. If you have concluded that we are no longer living in a functioning Democratic Republic, I assume that you intend to: a) do something about it or b) do nothing about it. You can always deconstruct and make the case that it is hopelessly and completely dysfunctional, but that would be the technique of the Marxists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 2:44:03 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The constitution doesn't say they can impeach for any reason. The burden of proof is just as necessary with congress as it is with the President. Both must provide proof for their accusations. It isn't "all political". Elements of impeachment are also legal as well. That is why they haven't called a vote for it yet, the legal aspect is missing. Question is: who will find evidence for their accusations first? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yes. They can Impeach the President because they do not like his hair, but you cannot charge someone in a Court of Law with Treason, without it meeting the legal requirements for such a charge. They could even Impeach because they think his hair is "treasonous." It doesn't matter. There are no burden of proof requirements. It's all political. You should definitely worry about it and hold them all accountable. But don't hang your hat a bad legal definitions and misinterpretations of the US Constitution. That never helps. It isn't "all political". Elements of impeachment are also legal as well. That is why they haven't called a vote for it yet, the legal aspect is missing. Question is: who will find evidence for their accusations first? There is no "legal aspect" to it that would prevent them from voting to Impeach. Nor is there a Judge to whom anyone could appeal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 2:44:03 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Clearly some of you guys don't know how the Constitution defines treason, either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Obviously. The fact that this is even a question pisses me off. No one in Washington is held to the law...ever. That needs to change. The Democrats are at war with America, quite literally. Do you really want to trust the future of this nation to 'Conservative Republicans standing on the their values (which none of the "conservative" Republicans in Congress even have by the way)?' |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 2:47:14 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You tell me: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." It's a political process. There is no judge presiding over the House to ensure that they do it right. They vote, and that's that. We the People get to vote them out of office if they abuse the process. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Treason is clearly defined in the US Constitution. Either something IS or is NOT Treason. Twisting the definition to suit political desires is in direct opposition to the intent of the Framers. "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." It's a political process. There is no judge presiding over the House to ensure that they do it right. They vote, and that's that. We the People get to vote them out of office if they abuse the process. Once they're done with Trump, they'll come for the deplorables who put him office. Sure as Hell! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 2:49:37 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Accusations are meaningless in a political process. There is no "legal aspect" to it that would prevent them from voting to Impeach. Nor is there a Judge to whom anyone could appeal. I'm not a huge Trump fan, as you well know, but what the Democrats are doing is going to lead to destruction. Hopefully they will fail and destroy their own party, but if they succeed, then they will destroy America...and US! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 2:53:57 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Accusations are EVERYTHING in our current political process. I'm not a huge Trump fan, as you well know, but what the Democrats are doing is going to lead to destruction. Hopefully they will fail and destroy their own party, but if they succeed, then they will destroy America...and US! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Accusations are meaningless in a political process. There is no "legal aspect" to it that would prevent them from voting to Impeach. Nor is there a Judge to whom anyone could appeal. I'm not a huge Trump fan, as you well know, but what the Democrats are doing is going to lead to destruction. Hopefully they will fail and destroy their own party, but if they succeed, then they will destroy America...and US! This is about swaying public opinion. If the Democrats can convince their ignorant and/or complicit base, that Trump deserves to be Impeached, that's all that matters. They know that it won't survive the Senate, but the point of the Exercise is to use the House as a platform to bash the President for every day up until the Election. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 2:54:57 PM EDT
[#9]
I'm with #FirstPost
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 2:56:25 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think he's just throwing their words back at them. I expect the left coming to this asses defence will blow the treason claims out for everyone... I hope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 3:12:31 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Accusations are meaningless in a political process. There is no "legal aspect" to it that would prevent them from voting to Impeach. Nor is there a Judge to whom anyone could appeal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes. They can Impeach the President because they do not like his hair, but you cannot charge someone in a Court of Law with Treason, without it meeting the legal requirements for such a charge. They could even Impeach because they think his hair is "treasonous." It doesn't matter. There are no burden of proof requirements. It's all political. You should definitely worry about it and hold them all accountable. But don't hang your hat a bad legal definitions and misinterpretations of the US Constitution. That never helps. It isn't "all political". Elements of impeachment are also legal as well. That is why they haven't called a vote for it yet, the legal aspect is missing. Question is: who will find evidence for their accusations first? There is no "legal aspect" to it that would prevent them from voting to Impeach. Nor is there a Judge to whom anyone could appeal. The bar for impeachment is very high just like the bar for treason. If the President committed treason, then so did Adam Schiff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 3:18:49 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If President Trump had committed actual high crimes, congress would have impeached by now. The illegality would justify their vote. If they vote on impeachment based on a political quarrel, they violate the constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes. They can Impeach the President because they do not like his hair, but you cannot charge someone in a Court of Law with Treason, without it meeting the legal requirements for such a charge. They could even Impeach because they think his hair is "treasonous." It doesn't matter. There are no burden of proof requirements. It's all political. You should definitely worry about it and hold them all accountable. But don't hang your hat a bad legal definitions and misinterpretations of the US Constitution. That never helps. It isn't "all political". Elements of impeachment are also legal as well. That is why they haven't called a vote for it yet, the legal aspect is missing. Question is: who will find evidence for their accusations first? There is no "legal aspect" to it that would prevent them from voting to Impeach. Nor is there a Judge to whom anyone could appeal. And if they managed to convince the public that Impeaching Trump because of his HAIR, was justified... they would do it. The bar for impeachment is very high just like the bar for treason. If the President committed treason, then so did Adam Schiff. "Treason" is an actual crime, like Murder or Kidnapping. It has a legal definition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 3:38:34 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It justifies it to the public. Not to the Law or to a Court which oversees the process. It is purely political. And if they managed to convince the public that Impeaching Trump because of his HAIR, was justified... they would do it.There is no actual bar for Impeachment. Impeachment is a process, not a crime. If they wanted to hold a vote and Impeach the President TODAY, they could do so without submitting any evidence or even without levying any accusations. "Treason" is an actual crime, like Murder or Kidnapping. It has a legal definition. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes. They can Impeach the President because they do not like his hair, but you cannot charge someone in a Court of Law with Treason, without it meeting the legal requirements for such a charge. They could even Impeach because they think his hair is "treasonous." It doesn't matter. There are no burden of proof requirements. It's all political. You should definitely worry about it and hold them all accountable. But don't hang your hat a bad legal definitions and misinterpretations of the US Constitution. That never helps. It isn't "all political". Elements of impeachment are also legal as well. That is why they haven't called a vote for it yet, the legal aspect is missing. Question is: who will find evidence for their accusations first? There is no "legal aspect" to it that would prevent them from voting to Impeach. Nor is there a Judge to whom anyone could appeal. And if they managed to convince the public that Impeaching Trump because of his HAIR, was justified... they would do it. The bar for impeachment is very high just like the bar for treason. If the President committed treason, then so did Adam Schiff. "Treason" is an actual crime, like Murder or Kidnapping. It has a legal definition. In the court of public opinion, which is how the House determines whether to impeach, they must prove that the president committed an impeachable offense. The offense must be well understood to be a crime amongst a sizable sample of the public. Impeaching because of Trump's hair would violate the constitution. It would not be understood as a crime. Eta: The public consist of democrats, republicans, independents and even apolitical sheep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 3:45:40 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors is the bar for impeachment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes. They can Impeach the President because they do not like his hair, but you cannot charge someone in a Court of Law with Treason, without it meeting the legal requirements for such a charge. They could even Impeach because they think his hair is "treasonous." It doesn't matter. There are no burden of proof requirements. It's all political. You should definitely worry about it and hold them all accountable. But don't hang your hat a bad legal definitions and misinterpretations of the US Constitution. That never helps. It isn't "all political". Elements of impeachment are also legal as well. That is why they haven't called a vote for it yet, the legal aspect is missing. Question is: who will find evidence for their accusations first? There is no "legal aspect" to it that would prevent them from voting to Impeach. Nor is there a Judge to whom anyone could appeal. And if they managed to convince the public that Impeaching Trump because of his HAIR, was justified... they would do it. The bar for impeachment is very high just like the bar for treason. If the President committed treason, then so did Adam Schiff. "Treason" is an actual crime, like Murder or Kidnapping. It has a legal definition. In the court of public opinion, which is how the House determines whether to impeach, they must prove that the president committed an impeachable offense. The offense must be well understood to be a crime amongst a sizable sample of the public. Impeaching because of Trump's hair would violate the constitution. It would not be understood as a crime. "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." It does NOT say, shall ONLY be removed from office on impeachment for...and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 3:58:10 PM EDT
[#15]
I would be ok with a tar and feathering.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 4:09:52 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would be ok with a tar and feathering. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 4:23:11 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. You do not have to reach that level of a crime to Impeach. Again, you can Impeach Trump because of his Hair. So the "bar for Impeachment" is public opinion? Yes, that is correct.No. The Constitution says this: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." It does NOT say, shall ONLY be removed from office on impeachment for...and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes. They can Impeach the President because they do not like his hair, but you cannot charge someone in a Court of Law with Treason, without it meeting the legal requirements for such a charge. They could even Impeach because they think his hair is "treasonous." It doesn't matter. There are no burden of proof requirements. It's all political. You should definitely worry about it and hold them all accountable. But don't hang your hat a bad legal definitions and misinterpretations of the US Constitution. That never helps. It isn't "all political". Elements of impeachment are also legal as well. That is why they haven't called a vote for it yet, the legal aspect is missing. Question is: who will find evidence for their accusations first? There is no "legal aspect" to it that would prevent them from voting to Impeach. Nor is there a Judge to whom anyone could appeal. And if they managed to convince the public that Impeaching Trump because of his HAIR, was justified... they would do it. The bar for impeachment is very high just like the bar for treason. If the President committed treason, then so did Adam Schiff. "Treason" is an actual crime, like Murder or Kidnapping. It has a legal definition. In the court of public opinion, which is how the House determines whether to impeach, they must prove that the president committed an impeachable offense. The offense must be well understood to be a crime amongst a sizable sample of the public. Impeaching because of Trump's hair would violate the constitution. It would not be understood as a crime. "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." It does NOT say, shall ONLY be removed from office on impeachment for...and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. If democrats were to impeach the president for his hairdo and the Senate was forced to go to trial over such a nonsensical and absurd allegation, they would have abused the impeachment clause and violated the constitutional requirement of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. What if the Senate convicts the President and removes him? Would it, at that point, be considered a violation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 4:31:28 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Poorly functioning. You can always deconstruct and make the case that it is hopelessly and completely dysfunctional, but that would be the technique of the Marxists. To deny reality until the country no longer exists. We're almost there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 4:47:44 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It’s “hanged.” I don’t know why that bugs me, but, that’s just me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think he should be publicly hung by the neck. But that's just me. I don’t know why that bugs me, but, that’s just me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 5:40:45 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump Jr. should be put into a ring with Schiff. Two men enter, one man leaves. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 6:44:42 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if the Marxists say it and I say it it's the technique of the Marxists. But what is the technique of the Boomer? To deny reality until the country no longer exists. We're almost there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Poorly functioning. You can always deconstruct and make the case that it is hopelessly and completely dysfunctional, but that would be the technique of the Marxists. To deny reality until the country no longer exists. We're almost there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 6:48:15 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see what you are saying but you fail to see what I am saying. If democrats were to impeach the president for his hairdo and the Senate was forced to go to trial over such a nonsensical and absurd allegation, they would have abused the impeachment clause and violated the constitutional requirement of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. What if the Senate convicts the President and removes him? Would it, at that point, be considered a violation? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes. They can Impeach the President because they do not like his hair, but you cannot charge someone in a Court of Law with Treason, without it meeting the legal requirements for such a charge. They could even Impeach because they think his hair is "treasonous." It doesn't matter. There are no burden of proof requirements. It's all political. You should definitely worry about it and hold them all accountable. But don't hang your hat a bad legal definitions and misinterpretations of the US Constitution. That never helps. It isn't "all political". Elements of impeachment are also legal as well. That is why they haven't called a vote for it yet, the legal aspect is missing. Question is: who will find evidence for their accusations first? There is no "legal aspect" to it that would prevent them from voting to Impeach. Nor is there a Judge to whom anyone could appeal. And if they managed to convince the public that Impeaching Trump because of his HAIR, was justified... they would do it. The bar for impeachment is very high just like the bar for treason. If the President committed treason, then so did Adam Schiff. "Treason" is an actual crime, like Murder or Kidnapping. It has a legal definition. In the court of public opinion, which is how the House determines whether to impeach, they must prove that the president committed an impeachable offense. The offense must be well understood to be a crime amongst a sizable sample of the public. Impeaching because of Trump's hair would violate the constitution. It would not be understood as a crime. "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." It does NOT say, shall ONLY be removed from office on impeachment for...and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. If democrats were to impeach the president for his hairdo and the Senate was forced to go to trial over such a nonsensical and absurd allegation, they would have abused the impeachment clause and violated the constitutional requirement of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. What if the Senate convicts the President and removes him? Would it, at that point, be considered a violation? The Constitution states that you SHALL Impeach for those reasons. It does not state that you SHALL ONLY Impeach for those reasons. There is nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit Impeachment for arbitrary or silly reasons. And there is no court that would review, or reverse the Impeachment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 7:03:20 PM EDT
[#23]
Keel haul him against the tide and if he lives draw and quarter and place body parts all over DC as a warning to other criminals who use their powers to screw with our system of gov't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 7:05:30 PM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 8:43:11 PM EDT
[#25]
If there was a whistleblower on the dem side I'd almost guarantee you that every meeting they have is about conniving a way to impeach our duly elected president. DNC and hildawd both reached outside the country to get dirt on a campaign rival plus a few three letter agencies have been trying to overthrow our gov since Trump was elected. I'd be fine with starting with any one of them traitors.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 9:03:39 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump Jr. should be put into a ring with Schiff. Two men enter, one man leaves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 9:05:23 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good grief. The guy is full of shit yes, but DT needs to relax with his friggin emotional reactions to everything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2019 9:06:03 PM EDT
[#28]
The dudes a friggin creep and speaks volumes for the area that voted him in.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2019 4:23:40 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
trump is doing exactly what he intended. He knows it isn't treason, but now everyone is explaining how what Schiff did was probably criminal but not to the level of treason. By making an over-the-top accusation, he has forced everyone to say, well it isn't treason, but it IS very bad. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Clearly Trump does not know the constitutionally-limited definition of treason (or doesn't care). Not surprising. What Schiff did was wrong, but it does not even remotely amount to treason. By making an over-the-top accusation, he has forced everyone to say, well it isn't treason, but it IS very bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2019 4:28:38 AM EDT
[#30]
Freedom of speech includes lies.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
