Foxx

but wouldn't this then assume that there are legal consequences to a conviction such as a fine and or imprisonment? in a political impeachment, there is only removal from office. good debate. as you say, would like to hear from other perspectives.

agreed again. my reply was also my interpretation of what i believe the Constitution to say. as well as listening to what certain constitutional scholars have had to say in the preceding months. the Constitution also doesn't stipulate exactly how the House is to conduct an inquiry other than to say that it is, '...the House...' that will conduct it, not, 'the speaker'. there are hard and fast rules for criminal trials. as was stated often by the WHC during the Senate phase of the trial, the House Managers would have been thrown out, even laughed out of a criminal trial attempting some of the crap they did. all of which, again lends me to believe that there are no hard and fast rules for a political trial.

with a dash of Lyme disease.

best wishes to you and yours, indy.

Upstate Farms.

London, Mexico, China....

as usual, nothing special, just some ice milk.

i still believe the Democrat party's day are numbered.

while i mainly agree, i don't believe that there are any 'standards' in a political trial. the guidelines are what the Senate says they are. there is no guarantee to face your accuser, though i think you would be hard pressed to get any sitting Senate to reject that notion. i do agree that there should to be a crime as the statue reads, "bribery, treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors" . "high crimes" in it's context there would seem to indicate you need an actual crime because bribery, treason and misdemeanors are all criminal offenses.

to my way of thinking, there is only one fix that would correct the problem. the problem is that it would require a constitutional convention to get it implemented. i think the only way you could remove partisanship from a impeachment inquiry like that that the Libs initiated, would be to require much the same that is required to remove a President. let's make it so that in order to even begin an inquiry, you need to have 2/3rd's of the House. that would put an end the baloney.

love Maria for holding his feet to the fire. they better do something. https://twitter.com/BOOMER4K/status/1223990008606052352

what the Lib hath wrought. https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1224066320465002502

he isn't?

i dunno. to me, if they wanted to save money, they would pass out free Depends to the homeless. then they could just ship their drawers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xwUuSM06xQ

https://twitter.com/Kimbraov1/status/1223798468747108352 wait, what...... this isn't a Babylon Bee article you say?

https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1223984150568456194

the fault of this mindset lies with the propaganda presses. if Trump were to have been elected as a Democrat, the media would be singing his praises to the high heavens. which would then promote, in the mind of the weak, that Trump is the greatest president ever. the sheep don't want to think for themselves, they never have. they want their outrage manufactured by an outside entity.

my comment went over your head and apparently, below your knees. you're an idiot.

cue the predictable lib tears in, 3... 2...

i'm sorry but... have the Democrats actually accepted that they lost the '16 election yet?

right, because CNN is factual news.

i won't give a specific score but i'll say the '9ers by 8. what're we talking here, a Stetson?

https://twitter.com/IsChinar/status/1223323444537937921

interesting. https://twitter.com/JuliansRum/status/1223858357519425536

a thought occurred to me this morning reading the interwebs... Hillary out campaigning to bring Bernie down because she knows he is the only real threat to Biden. it is reported that Biden is rumored to want a female running mate. Hillary is maneuvering to be that running mate. whereby, she will then invoke the 25th amendment and ascend to her ultimate want. far fetched?