1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Nov 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    LOL. I was mocking all of you who said we needed an investigation of Trump/Russia, even thought there was no evidence of collusion.

    I used to exclamation marks for fuck's sake, but some of you dummies can't take a joke, or pick up on sarcasm.
     
  2. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Oh, stop it dummy. We've had this dance before.

    Just admit you were wrong already.
     
  3. Smallpotatoes

    Smallpotatoes Well-Known Member

    I'm not wrong. You can't impeach someone after they have left office.
     
  4. Twirling Time

    Twirling Time Well-Known Member

    There is no “theoretically” about it. A former president is a private citizen. Any jurist will see an impeachment of a former president as a bill of attainder and will swat it over the Washington Monument.

    Dumbf—-k.
     
    Smallpotatoes likes this.
  5. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    You didn't read the link I posted, did you?

    Read this:
    However, there is some precedent for the idea. In the 1870s, Ulysses S. Grant’s Secretary of War, William Belknap, was impeached on charges of corruption and bribery. He resigned his cabinet post before the House could actually vote to impeach him, but the House went ahead and impeached him anyway. There was a lengthy debate in the Senate over whether it had the power to put Belknap on trial for the charges brought by the House, since Belknap had resigned. In the end the trial went forward, but Belknap fell short of the 2/3 majority needed for conviction even though the evidence of his corruption was clear; most of the Senators who voted against conviction did so because they believed the Senate lacked jurisdiction to try him now that he was out of office. But the fact that he was impeached and put on trial after resigning nevertheless could serve as a precedent for doing so to someone else again in the future.
     
  6. Smallpotatoes

    Smallpotatoes Well-Known Member

    See, I'm not wrong.
     
  7. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    LOL. You're worthless.
     
  8. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    How do you know there's no evidence? The investigation is still going on.

    Plus, with your crappy spelling and grammar, how are we supposed to know your exclamation points are a sarcasm signal?
     
    melock and Smallpotatoes like this.
  9. Smallpotatoes

    Smallpotatoes Well-Known Member

    You're the same person who says a guilty plea doesn't mean someone is guilty and can't tell the difference between an illegal immigrant and a refugee and I'm the stupid one?
     
    BadgerBeer, melock and Baron Scicluna like this.
  10. Smallpotatoes

    Smallpotatoes Well-Known Member

    I don't take kindly to this shit. Knock it off.
     
  11. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Did you read the link dumb-dumb?
     
  12. Smallpotatoes

    Smallpotatoes Well-Known Member

    I don't have to to know it's wrong.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page