In impeachment news:
NY Rag: Can't legally stop Trump, let's impeach him anyway!
Not going to quote that ***. Even Rooks have standards here.
Random Politics & Religion #23 (Fake News)
Random Politics & Religion #23 (Fake News)
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
In impeachment news:
NY Rag: Can't legally stop Trump, let's impeach him anyway!
Not going to quote that ***. Even Rooks have standards here.
NY Rag: Can't legally stop Trump, let's impeach him anyway!
Not going to quote that ***. Even Rooks have standards here.
It seems like the media has no clue how impeachment works. I would inform them that mere outrage cannot remove a president in office, but it would break their little (black) hearts.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
but it would break their little (black) hearts.
[+]
Lol
[+]
Well that explains why my thermostat refuses to work until my wife makes it a sammich.
[+]
Sylph.Cherche said: »
I don't get how you can felate a xenophobic sexist shitbag, but hey, you do you buddy.
You'll have to type a lot slower and use smaller words if you want to insult a republican!
[+]
I think xenophobic means you don't like that TV Xena warrior princess !
[+]
Normally when I understand something I say totally like you know whatever !
YouTube Video Placeholder
Unchecked Intelligence Sharing: A Calamity Of Epic Proportions
By sharing classified information for seemingly personal gain, President Trump has undermined the entirety of the intelligence community’s mission.
Tracy Walder, Former CIA officer and FBI special agent turned educator. But its in the HuffPo so you can brush it off.
By sharing classified information for seemingly personal gain, President Trump has undermined the entirety of the intelligence community’s mission.
Tracy Walder, Former CIA officer and FBI special agent turned educator. But its in the HuffPo so you can brush it off.
fonewear said: »
Unchecked intelligence thank God we don't have that on FFXIAH !
[+]
I think I heard Trump earlier say "At this point what differnce does it make" then did a wink emoticon @hillary
[+]
fonewear said: »
Normally when I understand something I say totally like you know whatever !
YouTube Video Placeholder
[+]
Garuda.Chanti said: »
<Leaker> Hi Mom, I'm about to do something immoral and possibly illegal. I want you to look at it first so you can be an accessory to the crime, [badjoke]and not just any accessory, a pearl necklace[/badjoke].
[+]
Bombshell: Initial Thoughts on the Washington Post’s Game-Changing Story
Quote:
Violating the oath of office does not require violating a criminal statute. If the President decided to write the nuclear codes on a sticky note on his desk and then took a photo of it and tweeted it, he would not technically have violated any criminal law–just as he hasn’t here. He has the constitutional authority to dictate that the safeguarding of nuclear materials shall be done through sticky notes in plain sight and tweeted, even the authority to declassify the codes outright. Yet, we would all understand this degree of negligence to be a gross violation of his oath of office.
Congress has alleged oath violations—albeit violations tied to criminal allegations or breaches of statutory obligations—all three times it has passed or considered seriously articles of impeachment against presidents: against Andrew Johnson (“unmindful of the high duties of his oath of office”), Richard Nixon (“contrary to his oath”), and Bill Clinton (“in violation of his constitutional oath”). Further, two of the three articles of impeachment against Nixon alleged no direct violation of the law. Instead, they concerned Nixon’s abuse of his power as President, which, like the President putting the nuclear codes on Twitter, is an offense that can only be committed by the President and has thus never been explicitly prohibited in criminal law.
Congress has alleged oath violations—albeit violations tied to criminal allegations or breaches of statutory obligations—all three times it has passed or considered seriously articles of impeachment against presidents: against Andrew Johnson (“unmindful of the high duties of his oath of office”), Richard Nixon (“contrary to his oath”), and Bill Clinton (“in violation of his constitutional oath”). Further, two of the three articles of impeachment against Nixon alleged no direct violation of the law. Instead, they concerned Nixon’s abuse of his power as President, which, like the President putting the nuclear codes on Twitter, is an offense that can only be committed by the President and has thus never been explicitly prohibited in criminal law.
Bahamut.Kara said: »
Bombshell: Initial Thoughts on the Washington Post’s Game-Changing Story
Quote:
Violating the oath of office does not require violating a criminal statute. If the President decided to write the nuclear codes on a sticky note on his desk and then took a photo of it and tweeted it, he would not technically have violated any criminal law–just as he hasn’t here. He has the constitutional authority to dictate that the safeguarding of nuclear materials shall be done through sticky notes in plain sight and tweeted, even the authority to declassify the codes outright. Yet, we would all understand this degree of negligence to be a gross violation of his oath of office.
Congress has alleged oath violations—albeit violations tied to criminal allegations or breaches of statutory obligations—all three times it has passed or considered seriously articles of impeachment against presidents: against Andrew Johnson (“unmindful of the high duties of his oath of office”), Richard Nixon (“contrary to his oath”), and Bill Clinton (“in violation of his constitutional oath”). Further, two of the three articles of impeachment against Nixon alleged no direct violation of the law. Instead, they concerned Nixon’s abuse of his power as President, which, like the President putting the nuclear codes on Twitter, is an offense that can only be committed by the President and has thus never been explicitly prohibited in criminal law.
Congress has alleged oath violations—albeit violations tied to criminal allegations or breaches of statutory obligations—all three times it has passed or considered seriously articles of impeachment against presidents: against Andrew Johnson (“unmindful of the high duties of his oath of office”), Richard Nixon (“contrary to his oath”), and Bill Clinton (“in violation of his constitutional oath”). Further, two of the three articles of impeachment against Nixon alleged no direct violation of the law. Instead, they concerned Nixon’s abuse of his power as President, which, like the President putting the nuclear codes on Twitter, is an offense that can only be committed by the President and has thus never been explicitly prohibited in criminal law.
What was the classified information that Trump unclassified to the Russians? Even the WP couldn't say what it was, even though their "sources" stated that Trump shared intelligence secrets but didn't say what.
Even what the WP did say, doesn't pass the smell test.
[+]
Bahamut.Kara said: »
Violating the oath of office does not require violating a criminal statute
I'd wager that it would in order to get a conviction in the senate though.... none of the presidents in your examples were successfully impeached.
In the bill clinton example it was a straight up and down party vote even though he was as guilty as Richard Ramirez.
So there are three hurdles. One - The Republican Controlled House, Two The Republican Controlled Senate and three Donald Trump
If you think you're going to be able to lean on trump like nixon and he'll just slink back to the sewer... I'll have whatever you're having.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Garuda.Chanti said: »
<Leaker> Hi Mom, I'm about to do something immoral and possibly illegal. I want you to look at it first so you can be an accessory to the crime, [badjoke]and not just any accessory, a pearl necklace[/badjoke].
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.