Foxx

she won the top hack award didn't she?

momma always said... everything you say before the word, 'but' is gibberish. life is like a box of chocolates....

classy. you douche bag.

a mini ice age is much more probable than the, 'settled science' folks argument.

i have already explained my position here. taken in it's context, 'bribery, treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors' seems to indicate that an actual crime is needed. as we know with what just happened, no actual crime was alleged in either article. the continued argument of comparing apples to oranges does not hold water of any sorts. in a criminal trial you are afforded the protections of double jeopardy. in a political trial, you have no such protections. nothing is stopping the House from holding (as they should but one never knows with Nancy Schiffty) a vote to re-initiate an inquiry to bring more articles should an investigation warrant it.

Weather warning: Earth could be hit by MINI ICE-AGE as Sun ‘hibernates’

that is pretty feakin' cool!

https://twitter.com/AKA_RealDirty/status/1224429563192782848

i don't think it rises to minority rule. rather it makes the bar high, to be not an item of novelty and one to not be used lightly. this is the standard in the Senate, does that mean that there is minority rule there? even with the Clinton impeachment, the vote of which was 258–176 in favor of beginning an inquiry it would have failed, under my suggestion. on a personal note, i don't think Clinton should have been impeached for what he was originally investigated for and he ultimately wasn't. he was impeached for the process crime of perjury, of which had there been no witch hunt he would not have committed. again, i don't know that my suggestion would be the answer. but what the Democrats have done should never be done again, i don't care which party is doing it. the founders expressed their greatest fear was a partisan impeachment and we just witnessed one.

being bored Bob, i did the work i asked you to do... i went back through the different iterations of congress under the current amount of Reps, which is 435. a bit to my surprise, there were 8 different congresses that held a 2/3rd's majority. House Majorities that surpass 2/3rd's majority (292 seats in a 435 seat House): 95th Congress ('77 to '79)- 292 D's to 143 R's 94th Congress ('75 to '77)- 291 D's to 144 R's 89th Congress ('65 to '67)- 295 D's to 140 R's 75th Congress ('37 to '39)- 334 D's to 88 R's and 9 Progressives and 5 Farmer-Labor 74th Congress ('35 to '37)- 322 D's to 103 R's and 7 Progressives and 3 Farmer-Labor 73th Congress ('33 to '35)- 313 D's to 117R's and 5 Farmer-Labor 67th Congress ('21 to '23)- 302 R's to 131 D's and 1Independent Republican and 1 Socialist 63th Congress ('13 to '15)- 291 D's to 134 R's and 9 Progressives and 1 Independent. of note is that here was only one House where the R's held the 2/3rd's majority. as i said above, i was a bit surprised that this was the case so i do apologize for my assertion that your premise was faulty. while i do know that there were certain historical events surrounding some of these majorities, the fact remains that there were these super majorities. so with the assertion that your premise is valid, i can move on to the rest of your assertion. again apologies, i have no problem admitting when i am wrong. on to the rest of your assertion. ..."The just under 2/3s In the House might want to impeach but in a super partisan environment, perhaps those Dems in the House will never vote to convict. Couldn't that allow a vast minority too much control by allowing them to block even charges of wrongdoing, the impeachment?" how is this different than the threshold to remove a president? if your argument held true, under the current rules it could still be a partisan endeavor. my premise is to raise the level to a level that prevents what we are seeing today, a partisan impeachment borne out of purely partisan politics. it works against and for both sides. it raises the bar for all. and just to be clear, i don't know if this is the ultimate solution that would correct what the Democrats have just made of the constitutional impeachment process it is just an idea. it may be that nothing needs to be done but with the mockery the Dems have made of the whole process, it might be wise to possibly look at some possible solutions.

of course you won't because if you did, you'd find that it completely destroys your premise. and yes, it is important when one is looking to understand how improbable your premise is. please explain how raising a bar that would practically eliminate partisanship on either side be unfair to any one party, you can't because it isn't. actually, don't bother. we're done. your circular logic is defeating. there is no discussing anything with you. you are not going to drag me down to your level just so you can beat me to death with your stupidity stick.

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1223003113327644678

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1224357921372409856

the only guide we have to go by is past history. using that as our guide, please go back through the past iterations of congress and tell me when was the last time there was a makeup of 2/3rd's of one party. i'll wait. but you won't, your lazy....

it's called, 'sitcom maths'.

i seriously doubt we will have a House, or Senate for that matter made up of 2/3rd's of one party (unless of course the Democrat Party actually ceases to exist), so your argument is null and void on it's premise.

that is not impeachable, more 25th amendment material.

https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1224155380319735814

morin' tibs. i was worried about you this past weekend. i knew the Senate's decision to send the kiddies back to the kiddie table was going to be rough on you. glad to see you didn't seppuku.

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1224038595750699009

ahh yes... but will they release the vote totals or just declare the winner, ala '16?

we know that they violated their own rules by not allowing the minority a day of witnesses. H.R. 660 never supplanted that rule.

i am of two minds with regard here. on the one hand, i initially thought that the entire House investigation was akin to a grand jury proceeding. on the other hand, i think it could be argued that what the House did in the bowels of Congress in the SCIF might have been construed as being the secretive grand jury proceedings, while the public portion of the House Intelligence proceedings could be construed as the actual trial proceedings. as the events played out, my impression moved to the later being the most likely. as an aside, to get off on a bit of a tangent... i have since come around to thinking that the entire impeachment process is not one where there are two different proceedings, one in the House and one in the Senate. i believe, again from my impressions on what constitutional scholars have said as well as what arguments were made during the trial in the Senate, that the Constitution charges the House with the fact finding and presentation of facts that are to be presented to the Senate for deliberations of said record. i don't know that the Senate was ever intended to be part of the fact finding portion. interesting questions all, to be sure.

did the House violate the Presidents constitutional rights by not affording him the opportunity to cross examine the public testimony of 13 witnesses in the Intelligence Committee hearings?

where does civil trial law fit into this. are we afforded constitutional rights in civil law?