What Republicans should do to end the impeachment farce

originally posted by: tanstaafl
It also doesn't say you have the right to breathe. I wonder how yoiu have survived all these years without breathing?

Wow, great argument, makes total sense, now you're comparing individual rights with the proscribed duties for one of the branches of government.

Again, anyone who cannot grasp the very simple concept that Impeachment is an extra-ordinary remedy - especially with respect to the removal of the President - by the very nature of what it is intended to accomplish - over-turn the results of a Presidential election, nullifying the votes of the people who voted for said President - well, lets just say they should probably be kept away from sharp objects..

I guess the Founders fall under that category since they never used that terminology.

Said the Inquisition to Galileo.

Comparing yourself to Galileo? Wow, aren't we full of ourselves. They guy at least understood what he was doing and was educated on the subject, you, not so much.

Repetition is apparently necessary in some stubborn cases, but apparently, yours is simply a case of TDS, and nothing has been found that can penetrate that wall of delusion.

Oh, another burn. 'TDS'. Top notch insult there. You keep repeating yourself, maybe the Republicans will finally here you and adopt your uneducated strategy.

Yeah, the tired old 'liar liar pants on fire' retort, when nothing else avails.

Learned that one from you. I also learned about moronic hyperbole and that if I'm not educated on the subject I'm like a brilliant, persecuted scientist similar to Galileo.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
"Again, anyone who cannot grasp the very simple concept that Impeachment is an extra-ordinary remedy -snip- well, lets just say they should probably be kept away from sharp objects."

I guess the Founders fall under that category since they never used that terminology.

Interestingly, I can't find any quotes directly from the Founders, but I'm also not inclined to spend much time searching. I'm sure there are plenty of references in all of the debates (Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers, Elliots Debates, etc).

But, here, I spent 5 minutes compiling a list of modern references for your edification (and of course you will again just flat ignore it, so I'm not sure why I bother). So, I presume you'll now say the same thing about Schiff, Pelosi and the rest?

From Hastings v. United States, 802 F. Supp. 490 (D.D.C. 1992):

"Judge Alcee Hastings, a federal district court judge, was removed from office by the United States Senate after he was convicted on articles of impeachment on October 20, 1989. Impeachment is an extraordinary remedy. As an essential element of our constitutional system of checks and balances, impeachment must be invoked and carried out with solemn respect and scrupulous attention to fairness. Fairness and due process must be the watchword whenever a branch of the United States government conducts a trial, whether it be in a criminal case, a civil case or a case of impeachment."

Another from GovInfo.gov:
"Impeachment is an extraordinary remedy born in the parliamentary procedure of England, and the principles which govern it have long been enveloped in clouds of uncertainty."

And what about those engaged in the actual process right now:

Here is what Schiff had to say:

""I have been very reluctant to go down the path of impeachment, for the reason that I think the founders contemplated a country that has elections every four years, that this would be an extraordinary remedy. A remedy of last resort, not first resort," Schiff told Tapper on Sunday."

And here is what WaPo had to say about it:

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took the extraordinary step Tuesday of initiating impeachment proceedings against President Trump, accusing him of violating the Constitution in seeking help from a foreign leader to damage a political opponent."

And another WaPo article discussing it:

"The more that impeachment proceedings appear to be rushing to judgment or driven by partisanship, the less credibility they ultimately have. The Clinton and Nixon examples offer crucial lessons about the importance of slowing down and ensuring that the public is confident that the gravity of the alleged conduct warrants the extraordinary and (remember how fond you are of democracies) fundamentally undemocratic remedy of Congress removing the president from office."

"Said the Inquisition to Galileo."

Comparing yourself to Galileo?

[SNIPPED]

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Interestingly, I can't find any quotes directly from the Founders, but I'm also not inclined to spend much time searching. I'm sure there are plenty of references in all of the debates (Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers, Elliots Debates, etc).

Translation: 'I so desperately want to be right but I know if I look I'll be wrong'.

Only a TDS suffering buffoon would make that claim, when it was obvious I was simply calling out how ridiculous your 'everybody knows' claim was.

By comparing yourself to Galileo.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Interestingly, I can't find any quotes directly from the Founders, but I'm also not inclined to spend much time searching. I'm sure there are plenty of references in all of the debates (Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers, Elliots Debates, etc)."

Translation: 'I so desperately want to be right but I know if I look I'll be wrong'.

And you didn't disappoint, totally ignoring all of the quotes, one even from Schiff himself, saying the exact same thing.

"Only a TDS suffering buffoon would make that claim, when it was obvious I was simply calling out how ridiculous your 'everybody knows' claim was."

By comparing yourself to Galileo.

Rtoflmao!

originally posted by: tanstaafl
And you didn't disappoint, totally ignoring all of the quotes, one even from Schiff himself, saying the exact same thing.

I said 'the Founders', you know, the guys who actually wrote the Constitution. Those would be the ones you tried to find a quote from but couldn't.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: tanstaafl
And you didn't disappoint, totally ignoring all of the quotes, one even from Schiff himself, saying the exact same thing.

I said 'the Founders', you know, the guys who actually wrote the Constitution. Those would be the ones you tried to find a quote from but couldn't.

The terminology “ordinary and extraordinary powers” of Congress are not found in Article I, either.

2nd line

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The terminology “ordinary and extraordinary powers” of Congress are not found in Article I, either.

2nd line

Yup. Only once does that word appear and it isn't in relation to impeachment or any other function of Congress.

This is what happens when you pretend you know what you're talking about and invent scenarios so you can be right.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The terminology “ordinary and extraordinary powers” of Congress are not found in Article I, either.

2nd line

Yup. Only once does that word appear and it isn't in relation to impeachment or any other function of Congress.

This is what happens when you pretend you know what you're talking about and invent scenarios so you can be right.

It helps to be a fast typist too.

2nd line again.

Adam schiff orders Republicans not to say the name Eric ciaramella during the hearings.

mobile.twitter.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
Adam schiff orders Republicans not to say the name Eric ciaramella during the hearings.

mobile.twitter.com...

Ultimate source, The Gateway Pundit.

Even your source, though questionable, makes it clear that revealing any information about the whistleblower would be subject to an ethics violation. That’s not difficult to understand as each member of Congress takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws.

/shrug

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
"And you didn't disappoint, totally ignoring all of the quotes, one even from Schiff himself, saying the exact same thing."

I said 'the Founders', you know, the guys who actually wrote the Constitution. Those would be the ones you tried to find a quote from but couldn't.

Not in 5 minutes, no... likely I'll need to re-read the Federalisty/Anti-Federalist/ElliotsDebates to find them, and you are not worth it.

You did, however, totally ignore a lot of quotes from others, many scholarly, and some from your gods (Schiff/Pelosi/WaPo), totally as expected.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Even your source, though questionable, makes it clear that revealing any information about the whistleblower would be subject to an ethics violation. That’s not difficult to understand as each member of Congress takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws.

There is no law against revealing their name, unless you are the ICIG.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Not in 5 minutes, no...

Not in five thousand years either.

You did, however, totally ignore a lot of quotes from others, many scholarly, and some from your gods (Schiff/Pelosi/WaPo), totally as expected.

Why wouldn't I? I specifically said 'the Founders'. This isn't that hard for you to understand, is it?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
"Not in 5 minutes, no..."

Not in five thousand years either.

You know, what is really funny is if I did take the time and find some quotes, just like the dems pivoted from Russia to Ukraine, you'd just pivot to something else.

Why? Because you don't care about the truth. Proof?

"You did, however, totally ignore a lot of quotes from others, many scholarly, and some from your gods (Schiff/Pelosi/WaPo), totally as expected."

No, go on, put your head back in the sand, wouldn't wanna hurt yourself.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
You know, what is really funny is if I did take the time and find some quotes, just like the dems pivoted from Russia to Ukraine, you'd just pivot to something else.

Nope, I'll admit I'm wrong, I can do that, unlike you.

"You did, however, totally ignore a lot of quotes from others, many scholarly, and some from your gods (Schiff/Pelosi/WaPo), totally as expected."

'My gods', lol. I don't see Cthulhu or Nyarlathotep on there but whatevs. Either way, better than your gods of bull**** and ignorance.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: carewemust
Adam schiff orders Republicans not to say the name Eric ciaramella during the hearings.

mobile.twitter.com...

Ultimate source, The Gateway Pundit.

Even your source, though questionable, makes it clear that revealing any information about the whistleblower would be subject to an ethics violation. That’s not difficult to understand as each member of Congress takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws.

/shrug

Ethics violation? Then I guess Congressman Dan Bishop's (R-NC) life is now ruined by this horrific punishment.

Bishop Identifies Whistleblower: www.breitbart.com...


Bishop will have to get in line behind Adam Schiff, who exposed Eric Ciaramella as the Whistleblower last week.

Schiff Exposes Whistleblower: www.dailywire.com...

Even without exposing Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella, his attorney, and Adam Schiff, as frauds who orchestrated this impeachment coup, Republicans will be ready to dismantle the Democrat sham in tomorrow's open hearings.

Republican Counterpoints: www.thegatewaypundit.com... public-hearings/

No Political Trolling.....either in words or images. Please read new thread.



You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.
'Nuff said.....


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
"You know, what is really funny is if I did take the time and find some quotes, just like the dems pivoted from Russia to Ukraine, you'd just pivot to something else."

Nope, I'll admit I'm wrong, I can do that, unlike you.

Nope? So, you not even understand what 'pivot' means in this context?

Go look it up and come back and admit you were wrong about this too.

I'll also wager you can't even remember what started this little side-argument. Hint: it wasn't about quotes of the Founding Fathers. It was about simple logic, reason, and common sense, all of which you are obviously sorely lacking in.

"You did, however, totally ignore a lot of quotes from others, many scholarly, and some from your gods (Schiff/Pelosi/WaPo), totally as expected."

'My gods', lol.

Oh, maybe I guessed wrong? So, your gods are CNN & MSNBC, Got it.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Looking through your post for those quotes....hmmmm, don't see any. Keep looking, son, maybe you'll find them in 2000 and never.

Try putting in an 'extraordinary' effort, it might help. Nah, who are we kidding.