Trump isn’t impeached yet

Apr 2018
14,081
3,718
oregon
The reality of impeachment IS that Donald John Trump is still impeached no matter what your reality says. As to your last, highly doubtful.
:cool:
I believe he was impeached the moment the dems voted for it. I also realize being impeached is only the equivalent of being accused of something. It's a toothless political maneuver that accomplishes nothing unless it's followed up with a conviction by the Senate. The only real question is whether or not you're educated enough to realize that.
 
May 2019
10,268
12,424
midwest
I believe he was impeached the moment the dems voted for it. I also realize being impeached is only the equivalent of being accused of something. It's a toothless political maneuver that accomplishes nothing unless it's followed up with a conviction by the Senate. The only real question is whether or not you're educated enough to realize that.



:cool:
 

Chief

Former Staff
Nov 2009
34,637
24,422
SoCal
Here is the question that nobody could answer:

If the constitution said that the house had the sole power to hang traitors (with no appeal process or involvement from the senate) and a domestic spy was captured the house voted on articles of hanging but the speaker of the house held off on sending the articles of hanging to the house hangman. Is the spy already “hung” as soon as the vote took place?
Your metaphoric example doesn't work. Mitch McConnel is not a member of the house.
 
  • Love
Reactions: the bull59
May 2007
6,163
3,274
your place
Your metaphoric example doesn't work. Mitch McConnel is not a member of the house.

That is irrelevant when you are simply looking at the meaning of verbiage contained in the constitution. The point of the example is to show that simply voting does not complete the act or change the status from not yet hung to hung. The constitution gives the house the sole power to impeach. In my example, the house had the sole power to hang. It all happens within the house’s authority. They have the power to deliver the articles of impeachment just like in my example they have the sole power to deliver the articles of hanging. In terms of sentence structure, It doesn’t matter who they deliver them to. Only that they completed the act.

If the house has the power to impeach, then in terms of the constitutional removal process, the house is powerless once the president is impeached. Do you think that the house has exerted all the power their constitutional power in terms of the impeachment process? If the house has already technically impeached the president from a constitutional perspective, then they are at this moment “powerless”. Do you think that Nancy Pelosi is now completely powerless in terms of the overall process?
 

Chief

Former Staff
Nov 2009
34,637
24,422
SoCal
That is irrelevant when you are simply looking at the meaning of verbiage contained in the constitution. The point of the example is to show that simply voting does not complete the act or change the status from not yet hung to hung. The constitution gives the house the sole power to impeach. In my example, the house had the sole power to hang. It all happens within the house’s authority. They have the power to deliver the articles of impeachment just like in my example they have the sole power to deliver the articles of hanging. In terms of sentence structure, It doesn’t matter who they deliver them to. Only that they completed the act.

If the house has the power to impeach, then in terms of the constitutional removal process, the house is powerless once the president is impeached. Do you think that the house has exerted all the power their constitutional power in terms of the impeachment process? If the house has already technically impeached the president from a constitutional perspective, then they are at this moment “powerless”. Do you think that Nancy Pelosi is now completely powerless in terms of the overall process?
No, because in your example you are combining the functions of the house and the senate.

The sentence of hanging in your example would be what the senate would do, if they voted to convict the indictment, which is what the house would do. And no matter whether the senate convicted and hung the person, or acquitted and released the person in question, the fact would remain that the house indicted that person. And in real life the fact will remain that Trump was impeached.
 
  • Love
Reactions: the bull59
May 2007
6,163
3,274
your place
No, because in your example you are combining the functions of the house and the senate.

The sentence of hanging in your example would be what the senate would do, if they voted to convict the indictment, which is what the house would do. And no matter whether the senate convicted and hung the person, or acquitted and released the person in question, the fact would remain that the house indicted that person. And in real life the fact will remain that Trump was impeached.

You are completely wrong. In my example, the senate does not come into it at all. In my example the house has the “sole” “power” to hang just like in reality they have the “sole power” to impeach. The senate has no constitutional authority whatsoever in terms of impeachment. An “indictment” would only come into play if there was going to be further proceedings and deliberation. If the house had the “sole power” to “hang”, then that would be it. They can vote on articles of hanging but if the speaker holds off in delivering those articles to the hangman who is waiting to drop the lever, the person is not hung until the house completes the process.
 

Chief

Former Staff
Nov 2009
34,637
24,422
SoCal
You are completely wrong. In my example, the senate does not come into it at all. In my example the house has the “sole” “power” to hang just like in reality they have the “sole power” to impeach. The senate has no constitutional authority whatsoever in terms of impeachment. An “indictment” would only come into play if there was going to be further proceedings and deliberation. If the house had the “sole power” to “hang”, then that would be it. They can vote on articles of hanging but if the speaker holds off in delivering those articles to the hangman who is waiting to drop the lever, the person is not hung until the house completes the process.
So in your example if the house had the sole power to hang, then the senate would have the sole power to indict, and the house would have to wait for the senate to indict, and deliver that indictment to the house. Then the house could try/hang the person in question. And if the house acquitted the person instead, he would still have been indicted by the senate.

I understand that you want to take reality and warp it into your metaphor to make your metaphor work... but I'm not going to play along because your metaphor does not reflect reality.
 

CtC

Mar 2019
14,427
5,206
California
You are completely wrong. In my example, the senate does not come into it at all. In my example the house has the “sole” “power” to hang just like in reality they have the “sole power” to impeach. The senate has no constitutional authority whatsoever in terms of impeachment. An “indictment” would only come into play if there was going to be further proceedings and deliberation. If the house had the “sole power” to “hang”, then that would be it. They can vote on articles of hanging but if the speaker holds off in delivering those articles to the hangman who is waiting to drop the lever, the person is not hung until the house completes the process.
They have been working on those "Articles" for 3 years. Found nothing. So the Dem House did what is equivalent to a lynching. Obstruction of CONGRESS? That is his RIGHT. Abuse of Power? Another term for "We don't have anything ,but let's do it anyhow". Proof that Democrat politicos are traitors. And they suck.
 
May 2007
6,163
3,274
your place
So in your example if the house had the sole power to hang, then the senate would have the sole power to indict, and the house would have to wait for the senate to indict, and deliver that indictment to the house. Then the house could try/hang the person in question. And if the house acquitted the person instead, he would still have been indicted by the senate.

I understand that you want to take reality and warp it into your metaphor to make your metaphor work... but I'm not going to play along because your metaphor does not reflect reality.

You are playing games. In my example the house has the sole power to hang and the senate has no involvement whatsoever. Just like the senate has no involvement in the impeachment process. It is a simple concept so I have to question your sincerity in acting as if you don’t grasp such a simple thing. The process would be the same as the impeachment process but instead of voting on articles of impeachment the house would be voting on articles of hanging. The “spy” would have a rope around his neck when the vote was taken and if the house voted on an article of hanging, the speaker would hand it to the hangman who would instantly pull the lever. However, if the speaker decided to pause before delivering the article of hanging to the hangman, then during that pause, no one is “hung” yet.