Look at the Nixon Impeachment process and you will see clear support for Sneaky’s position. When Nixon refused Congressional subpoenas for the Oval Office tapes – a critical piece of evidence, the Supreme Court expedited the case and ruled 9-0 that the subpoena had to be obeyed.
This isn’t hard… The house will vote on articles of impeachment… If they vote in favor, the president is impeached… period… full stop… the trail in the senate is on whether to remove the president… That is when the chief justice presides over the trial… SCOTUS has not input on impeachment, only the trial…
Agreed, but they have no input into whether the president is impeached…
The impeachment process includes the Senate “trial” and will be presided over by the Chief Justice. This isn’t hard.
Was Bill Clinton impeached?
Why do you think Pelosi held the vote on the inquiry.
Of course. Was Rehnquist involved?
You seem to think that hanging the Congressional label is sufficient to justify the process.
The equivalent of posting a public health grade B sticker on a restaurant.
Thanks for confirming that this is just part of campaign 2020…nothing personal.
The wrong person was chosen. It must be corrected. For the good of The Collective.
Oh please the last two years and change have been you, and I mean that as both the general you and the specific you, hitting a series of fallback positions. There’s now way he did this. . .okay he did that but he didn’t do this worse thing. . .okay he did that too but not this. And on and on.
And that’s not counting the hilarious amount of times you’ve defended him only to have him come out and admit he did it like the next day.
Ooh, or his rambling speech about “the nuclear” during the one debate which you assured me was him talking about futuristic hypersonic delivery systems for warheads and not just cringey babble? That’s my fave.
1 Like
Racism
Russia
Ring Ring
Rimpeachment
To be fair, if he did coke it wasn’t crack, that’s for the poorer folk.
CRACK!
Man when you can afford the good stuff, what’s the point? At least Dubya bought the good stuff.
It’s like Clinton going after ugly chicks. He’s the President, can’t you swing for the fences as President?
1 Like
I must live in your head. But on the bright side, it’s like living in fantasy land. 
Still ignoring the facts?
I provided you with facts. Facts that continue to be corroborated by more and more witnesses. What you have offered is very little opinion and an avoidance of the stated facts.
No, you presented an opinion as to what facts mean. I agree that they are facts; I disagree as to what they mean. As I said, you have your view and I have mine. No amount of browbeating by you is going to change that.
I wonder if this can be considered one of those fake news troll threads deserving of banishment to Trivial Pursuits…
8 Likes
Did I offend someone?
Amazing they have to be told not to do this.
The executive further advised production staffers to “NOT fulfill any video or graphic requests” related to the whistleblower’s identity.
Such guidance has been extended to Fox’s prime time talk shows, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. Hosts like Sean Hannity have been told not to name the person they believe to be whistleblower on the air.
Some of the hosts have alluded to this guidance while on Fox. “Justice” host Jeanine Pirro said last Friday that the network’s hosts “apparently can’t say” the person’s name. And Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo said last week that they were “not naming” the person on Fox.
1 Like
