Trump isn’t impeached yet

Jul 2019
4,112
4,103
Atlanta
OK, then Feldman is an idiot? Wasn’t he was one of the Democrat’s constitutional experts saying Trump committed an impeachable offense? Is he a good source of a crap source?





“...impeachment happens, according to Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor, only when the House transmits the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

So “technically speaking,” he said, “the president still hasn’t been impeached...”
Impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment. Trump has been impeached.
 
  • Love
Reactions: the bull59
May 2019
10,268
12,419
midwest
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.
You've must have forgotten the GOP plans IF HRC had been elected on Nov. 8, 2016. Note the date.
:cool:


November 2, 2016

November 4, 2016

November 6, 2016
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kerberos
May 2007
6,163
3,274
your place
Impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment. Trump has been impeached.

Grand jury proceedings are not public and the grand jury “delivers” indictments.

To say impeachment and indictment are “equivalent” is putting it in layman’s terms. When interpreting the verbiage of the constitution to get specific meaning, using generalized reasoning is irrelevant.

However, if you want to stick to your argument, then let me know when the house “delivers an impeachment”.
 
Last edited:

Chief

Former Staff
Nov 2009
34,637
24,422
SoCal
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.
Like I said, you are making a metaphor that does not reflect reality.

Anyway, in your fantasy world if the house has the sole power to hang, what do they need the hangman for? They are the ones with that power in your example so they do it themselves.

And still... It is a bad example since it does not reflect reality.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 
  • Love
Reactions: the bull59
May 2007
6,163
3,274
your place
Like I said, you are making a metaphor that does not reflect reality.

Anyway, in your fantasy world if the house has the sole power to hang, what do they need the hangman for? They are the ones with that power in your example so they do it themselves.

And still... It is a bad example since it does not reflect reality.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

Thank you for explaining that you are not grasping the use of a hypothetical to grammatically clarify a phrase from the constitution. The reason for changing the verb “impeach” to “hang” is because It demonstrates that unless the action of the verb is completed, it does not change the status of the one who is potentially going to be hung or impeached because of a vote. The speaker of the house has to act on the vote before the action described by the verb is completed.

As far as the “hangman” it could be a member of the house or a staffer employed by the house. It is irrelevant because the purpose is to focus on the grammatical meaning of a specific verb in a specific phrase that is contained in the constitution.

The constitution describes the overall removal process. It uses the word “remove”. Then in the same paragraph, it says the house has the “sole power” to “impeach”. Once they have completed the act of “impeachment”, then according to the constitution they are powerless in terms of the constitutional removal process because once the president is impeached then the senate has the “sole power” to “try”.

In terms of the impeachment process, Is the house currently “powerless”?
 

Chief

Former Staff
Nov 2009
34,637
24,422
SoCal
Thank you for explaining that you are not grasping the use of a hypothetical to grammatically clarify a phrase from the constitution. The reason for changing the verb “impeach” to “hang” is because It demonstrates that unless the action of the verb is completed, it does not change the status of the one who is potentially going to be hung or impeached because of a vote. The speaker of the house has to act on the vote before the action described by the verb is completed.

As far as the “hangman” it could be a member of the house or a staffer employed by the house. It is irrelevant because the purpose is to focus on the grammatical meaning of a specific verb in a specific phrase that is contained in the constitution.

The constitution describes the overall removal process. It uses the word “remove”. Then in the same paragraph, it says the house has the “sole power” to “impeach”. Once they have completed the act of “impeachment”, then according to the constitution they are powerless in terms of the constitutional removal process because once the president is impeached then the senate has the “sole power” to “try”.

In terms of the impeachment process, Is the house currently “powerless”?
Let me spell it out for you more simply.
In your metaphor you are trying to use the word impeach as if it included convicting and removing... and it does not.

Assigning this hang metaphor to the senate would make more sense. The house would vote that they believe there is sufficient evidence that the cowboy stole the horse (impeach). Then based on that the senate would decide whether to convict him of it (trial: convict or acquit), and whether to hang him (remove).

I am not sure why you think they would be powerless... each part of the government in this process plays its role.
 
May 2007
6,163
3,274
your place
Let me spell it out for you more simply.
In your metaphor you are trying to use the word impeach as if it included convicting and removing... and it does not.

Assigning this hang metaphor to the senate would make more sense. The house would vote that they believe there is sufficient evidence that the cowboy stole the horse (impeach). Then based on that the senate would decide whether to convict him of it (trial: convict or acquit), and whether to hang him (remove).

I am not sure why you think they would be powerless... each part of the government in this process plays its role.

You are playing games.

I explained it and there is nothing that complicated about what I said so go back and re-read it



The articles are being delivered now so his status will now change to “impeached”