Poll of the Day > So why are Democrats wasting time and money impeaching Trump again?

(+) Yeah! (+)

fuck this stupid image not posting right

---

OhhhJa posted...

I don't think that many cops coordinated by themselves to do that

so who told them to? you suggested trump did a few days ago lol

---

oh hey ohja isn't in purg anymore

now he can save his snackers account for like next week or something when he inevitably goes back

---

1. As a deterrent to future presidents.
2. to prevent Trump from running again.
3. Because it is what they are supposed to do.

Pretty simple, really.

---

because they don't want to investigate hunter biden. have to spend their time somehow
---

Zeus posted...

No, it's the opposite. It's actually worse for both parties that way. There's nothing to gain and it makes the US government look that much worse.

I promise you, the US Government does not have to worry about looking worse than it already does.

---

Joe_Biden posted...

oh hey ohja isn't in purg anymore

now he can save his snackers account for like next week or something when he inevitably goes back

I don't have any alts. I know when you have 8 alts, its probably natural to think everyone else has no life too

Gaawa_chan posted...

1. As a deterrent to future presidents.
2. to prevent Trump from running again.
3. Because it is what they are supposed to do.

Pretty simple, really.

Except it's likely unconstitutional. But I know that little document is only adhered to when its convenient. Trump is now effectively a private citizen

OhhhJa posted...

Except it's likely unconstitutional. But I know that little document is only adhered to when its convenient. Trump is now effectively a private citizen

You think it's unconstitutional to prosecute a president for crimes during presidency after he's out of office? So you believe the president has full immunity no matter what the crime or political affiliation? Where in the Constitution does it say that? What section?

Just so you know, you're conflating unconstitutionality with there being no precedence.

---

yaknow what's actually unconstitutional... trying to impeach Biden before he even took office (some senator who I can't remember the name of so I'll go with Mary Taylor Moore.)

---

Lokarin posted...

yaknow what's actually unconstitutional... trying to impeach Biden before he even took office (some senator who I can't remember the name of so I'll go with Mary Taylor Moore.)

No she filed articles on his first day. Making a mockery of the impeachment process.

---

Jen0125 posted...

No she filed articles on his first day. Making a mockery of the impeachment process.

Did you see the video she put up talking about it. Jesus Christ it was painful to watch.

Cacciato posted...

Did you see the video she put up talking about it. Jesus Christ it was painful to watch.

No, she has absolutely nothing of value to say.

---

Jen0125 posted...

You think it's unconstitutional to prosecute a president for crimes during presidency after he's out of office? So you believe the president has full immunity no matter what the crime or political affiliation? Where in the Constitution does it say that? What section?

Just so you know, you're conflating unconstitutionality with there being no precedence.

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.

He's not the president. You can't impeach and remove a private citizen from an office he doesn't hold. Even a former federal judge said the same thing. It applies strictly to incumbent presidents

OhhhJa posted...

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.

He's not the president. You can't impeach and remove a private citizen from an office he doesn't hold. Even a former federal judge said the same thing. It applies strictly to incumbent presidents

There are other things attached to this impeachment. Like disallowing him to run for public office again. You lost. Trump is a criminal. Get over it.

---

Jen0125 posted...

There are other things attached to this impeachment. Like disallowing him to run for public office again. You lost. Trump is a criminal. Get over it.

This isn't an argument. An emotional response from you

OhhhJa posted...

This isn't an argument. An emotional response from you

No, it's not. I told you there is more the the impeachment trial than removal. You just arent interested in reality. That's been clear for quite some time.

---

Jen0125 posted...

No, it's not. I told you there is more the the impeachment trial than removal. You just arent interested in reality. That's been clear for quite some time.

You do realize it's still impeachment proceedings no matter what word salad you come up with to pretend its something special?

I hope I, a man, can love my husband with as much unconditional man-on-man love as OhhhJa has for Trump. It's inspiring

---

This meme also applies to clench and jen

It's like Kif without Zapp Brannigan.

---

The nutters on the board aren't even trying to argue he's innocent anymore lol

Just saying he should get away with it cause he called a timeout in a game of cops and robbers

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

The nutters on the board aren't even trying to argue he's innocent anymore lol

Just saying he should get away with it cause he called a timeout in a game of cops and robbers

This impeachment is based on nothing. It's people interpreting what he said as inciting violence

Leftists: "trump incited violence"

Kamala Harris and Joe Biden: *bails out people lighting businesses on fire*

Nancy Pelosi: "as long as there is unrest in our lives there should be unrest in the streets"

OhhhJa posted...

You do realize it's still impeachment proceedings no matter what word salad you come up with to pretend its something special?

Okay, so you're still ignoring the facts. Why do you bother posting about politics? Can't you go away again?

---

Jen0125 posted...

Okay, so you're still ignoring the facts. Why do you bother posting about politics? Can't you go away again?

Better start marking all my posts if you want that. Then I'll be back after a week or so

Also, still no argument from jen. Just emotional responses

OhhhJa posted...

Leftists: "trump incited violence"

Kamala Harris and Joe Biden: *bails out people lighting businesses on fire*

Nancy Pelosi: "as long as there is unrest in our lives there should be unrest in the streets"

Unfortunately for the MAGA clowns, society determines what is an appropriate riot or uprising and we have decided, as a majority, that what happened on the 6th was not to benefit society and was an insurrection by fascists. I'm not sorry that you don't agree or feel bad about it.

---

Oh no, humans have EMOTIONS how dare they?!

---

you'[re funny when you're salty

---

Jen0125 posted...

Oh no, humans have EMOTIONS how dare they?!

He'd know about emotions, since he was obviously devastated when Trump couldn't just throw out the results of an election he lost and become an unelected dictator anyway.
---

Phantom_Nook posted...

He'd know about emotions, since he was obviously devastated when Trump couldn't just throw out the results of an election he lost and become an unelected dictator anyway.

It's such a stupid argument. Everyone has emotions. If you don't, you need to seek out a therapist because you have some type of issue.

---

OhhhJa posted...

This impeachment is based on nothing. It's people interpreting what he said as inciting violence

yeah cause that's what he said lol

for a group he wants to keep mexicans out of america y'all sure are fucking awful at english

---

No he didn't. Nowhere in his speech does he call for violent rioting. He even explicitly stated "peacefully" at one point

Jen0125 posted...

It's such a stupid argument. Everyone has emotions. If you don't, you need to seek out a therapist because you have some type of issue.

Dang someone never took philosophy. The point is that you're supposed to check your emotions at the door if you engage in a debate. We wouldn't want any logical fallacies now would we?

Phantom_Nook posted...

He'd know about emotions, since he was obviously devastated when Trump couldn't just throw out the results of an election he lost and become an unelected dictator anyway.

Fascist dictator voted out of office and leaves voluntarily. You're a walking babylonbee article lol

OhhhJa posted...

Dang someone never took philosophy. The point is that you're supposed to check your emotions at the door if you engage in a debate. We wouldn't want any logical fallacies now would we?

Your only argument against people is they're emotional. No one here is being emotional. That ploy isn't working for anyone as you can see. Everyone is pushing back against it because it's just a deflection

---

Jen0125 posted...

Your only argument against people is they're emotional. No one here is being emotional. That ploy isn't working for anyone as you can see. Everyone is pushing back against it because it's just a deflection

Still have provided no argument. Why are you even talking lol

OhhhJa posted...

Still have provided no argument. Why are you even talking lol

You just don't like what people have to say I already told you this impeachment would have the effect of disallowing Trump from holding public office again. How is that not an argument to continue?

---

OhhhJa posted...

He even explicitly stated "peacefully" at one point

It's like a GameFAQs moderation dude. You don't get to post tits and then point to your other post where you didn't post tits.

---

Jen0125 posted...

You just don't like what people have to say I already told you this impeachment would have the effect of disallowing Trump from holding public office again. How is that not an argument to continue?

And I'm telling you that you can't impeach and remove a private citizen from a public office they do not hold. The federal government does not have any authority that isn't explicitly given to them by the constitution. 10th amendment bro

OhhhJa posted...

And I'm telling you that you can't impeach and remove a private citizen from a public office they do not hold. The federal government does not have any authority that isn't explicitly given to them by the constitution. 10th amendment bro

He's already been impeached while in office. Why should the proceedings not continue? You are not a constitutional expert or a judge overseeing a court case to set precedence. Don't speak with authority on something that has never happened before.

---

"Because youll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

I just read back through the entire transcript. I see zero calls for violence. But there is this. Can anyone quote an actual call for violence? Otherwise, you guys have no case and it would not hold up in court

OhhhJa posted...

"Because youll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

I just read back through the entire transcript. I see zero calls for violence. But there is this. Can anyone quote an actual call for violence? Otherwise, you guys have no case and it would not hold up in court

Again, you are not a judge. Lmao you have no basis to definitively state what would happen in court.

---

Mead posted...

If he isnt held accountable for the actions he took in the final weeks that he was in office, then what is systematically in place to deter all future presidents from attempting to overthrow our government at the end of their administration if they dont win re-election?

this, and to prevent him from ever holding an elected position again.

---

Distraction Impeachment

---

legal scholars are in a debate over if Trump can be impeached after he leaves office. There is no exact historical precedent to go off either.

Something tells me that if legal and constitutional scholars are in debate over it, none of US know the answer.

To me it seems silly to say that since Trump is no longer president, you can't impeach to bar him from running for office again, though like I said, people far smart than us don't consider it an open and shut case because there is no exact precedent of this situation happening.

argonautweakend posted...

legal scholars are in a debate over if Trump can be impeached after he leaves office. There is no exact historical precedent to go off either.

Something tells me that if legal and constitutional scholars are in debate over it, none of US know the answer.

To me it seems silly to say that since Trump is no longer president, you can't impeach to bar him from running for office again, though like I said, people far smart than us don't consider it an open and shut case because there is no exact precedent of this situation happening.

If it were to go to the Supreme Court, I'd bet a years salary they throw it out. Courts operate largely on precedent for one

OhhhJa posted...

If it were to go to the Supreme Court, I'd bet a years salary they throw it out. Courts operate largely on precedent for one

Supreme Court sets precedence. Holy shit. You have no clue what you're talking about. Do you work in the legal field? Courts SET precedence and operate on precedence. Do you think they just throw out new cases they haven't seen before citing it's new and there's no precedence to try it?

---

argonautweakend posted...

legal scholars are in a debate over if Trump can be impeached after he leaves office. There is no exact historical precedent to go off either.

There isnt a real debate happening about it. The right is arguing in bad faith that its some kind of technicality but if you cant ever hold a president accountable for things done at the end of their term when there isnt enough time for a formal impeachment, then you create a situation where any sitting president gets a free pass to break any norms and laws in their final weeks in office and face no accountability. We cant be a functioning nation with a loophole like that in place.


---

Yeah that sounded kind of silly.