Knightskye
Member

I guess the word "and" has no meaning any more.

An excellent point! What's more, Tricky Dick Nixon was kind enough to arrange for us to have a precedent confirming that. I was trying to get him to go read the thing. I know you read it.

You like to play games. Play this one: Where does the Constitution explicitly say people removed by impeachment can't hold any office afterward?

Well, you know, libertarians have a lot more respect for charity than liberals care to admit. But maybe some of us like to bolster the misconception. Or maybe I just don't like giving charity to asses. No, the Constitution doesn't specifically tell Congress to get the lead out and remove him before We, the People beat them to it. Yes, banning from public office is involved, though one would hope Democrats would be democratic enough to let the people decide that. And no, I don't feel like wasting my time on a sophist who refuses to acknowledge that the Constitution clearly reserves impeachment for current officers. Good morning.

I have a better idea. Tell me where the Constitutional provision is for removing a private citizen from public office.

I don't see where he implied anything of the sort. He rightly pointed out that the Chief Justice was not there, so clearly the sitting president is not on trial. And in a completely different sentence, he rightly pointed out that the Constitution only allows for impeachment of sitting civil officers, not private citizens. You are putting words in the man's mouth. This is no surprise. You've done the same to a great many of us. Admittedly he was president when he was impeached. But this trial is part of the impeachment process, and Trump is a private citizen. Perhaps you disagree with me that his current position as a private citizen makes any impeachment proceedings against him unconstitutional. Clearly it's a gray area. But it's such a clear and obvious gray area that it is bound to make one wonder why a smart person would ask such a stupid question. Gaslighting is a logical answer.

You can only do what you can. I'm sure serving the people is a new idea to a number of your colleagues. They're probably having trouble getting used to the idea. Please don't agree with me out loud. It would be impolitic.

From the OP: Surely you can understand how a person could take your question wrong, considering it was answered before it was asked.

I disagree. He has stood up for a great many things Trump rolled over on. He has endured physical assault and bullets. And he's still the only senator who gets cameras pointed at him and tells the truth while they're rolling. George Stephanopolous knows he has spine too. But he probably wouldn't admit it. He'd probably trash him just like you do. Enjoy being on Stephanopolous' side?

Unfortunately, the same senators who tabled the motion to dismiss will decide what they want to hear. That, combined with the fact that such evidence may explain why the crowd was there, but is irrelevant to whether Trump incited them to riot or not, makes that highly unlikely.

I think the OP was more interested in Australian free market economics. Be careful what you click on when the OP is on your screen. Or that post ^^ which quotes it.

Especially 8:36

Great videos.. I was about 10 when the fall that rocked the world happened, and my favorite bands when I was 10-13 years old were basically all the ones he talked about.. Guns n Roses, Metallica, Nirvana, Alice in Chains, Stone Temple Pilots, Smashing Pumpkins, etc.. Funny that he mentioned the first album that rocked the world was the Metallica Black album, that was the first CD I ever purchased. The unfortunate part was I was too young to go to all the live shows.. Tho my mom was cool enough to take my friend and I to an Offspring concert when we were about 12 or 13. My friend's dad lived in Iraq. One day in the mid-90s his dad came and took him back to Iraq. Never heard from him again. Hope he is ok.... I wanted to go see Guns n' Roses, Metallica and Ice-T when I was 10, parents didn't let me I was pissed. This is what happened: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-10-01-me-41-story.html

According to what Brian dug up, Merck competed and lost.

Very nice! Your constituents are certainly getting more than their money's worth!

Do you? And is Maxine Waters guilty of the same?

You mean besides putting a band aid on one of the gushing wounds of their reputation? They do that now and then.

Cornell is conducting this Tuskegee Experiment on a different color of guinea pigs. Time to sue.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Only modern liberals think that if federal power can be used, even illegally, it should always be used.

You wanted him to betray the Constitution for Trump. He has all the spine he needs to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. He has all along. How much spine does he have for violating the Constitution for Trump? About as much as Trump has for protecting the Constitution.

Because the government owns your ass.

Of course. The more astronomical the contract, the fatter and jucier the kickback.

I don't expect to hear much out of BLM for a while. Their sponsors want the blacks to seem to be happy as larks down on the plantation, because Master Joe loves them all so much. Of course, when they stop lining up for Master Joe's magic vaccine because everyone they know who took it is dead, they might get incited to start shooting each other again. I hate seeing people get played, but people are being talked out of listening to the likes of me.

I'd say his thirteen hour filibuster of 2013 was pretty assertive. But I don't see this as self-serving. I see this as one of the two or three of the hundred senators who actually does his job.

Sure. Why not? Happens all the time. You don't need a lawyer to answer that, just someone who paid attention to the two O.J. trials.

Well, the bad news for every sane person in the country is it didn't take a supermajority to table Rand Paul's motion to dismiss, so you'll get your trial. But it does take a supermajority to remove, so even if they could, they clearly won't. I hope it keeps them out of our hair all the rest of the session. That said, you didn't answer my question either. Turn up your hearing aid, get out your specs, whatever it takes. Where in the Constitution does it say the Senate can conduct an impeachment trial of a private citizen and remove him from office?

Didn't exactly win any awards for intelligent question of the year, did it? So, we're the Senate. What are we expected to vote on, here? Whether to remove him from office? Too late.

Throw all the spoiled brat hissy fits you want. All the other trumpcucks saw him roll up the Constitution and slap Impeachment II upside the head with it. They'll support him heart and soul. At least until their attention spans expire.