Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!
  1. Hi there... Can you please quickly check to make sure your email address is up to date here? Just in case we need to reach out to you or you lose your password. Muchero thanks!

US House's McCarthy opens long-shot impeachment probe of Biden

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by philnotfil, Sep 12, 2023.

  1. G8tas

    G8tas GC Hall of Fame

    4,676
    940
    453
    Sep 22, 2008
    Embarrassing isn't it? No one should be above the law
     
  2. GatorJMDZ

    GatorJMDZ gatorjack VIP Member

    25,349
    2,697
    1,868
    Apr 3, 2007
    You specifically asked me to educate you. I did, with an exact quote from the Senate's rules of procedure along with a link to those rules. Now you want to call me "pretty much nothing?" I suppose the reasonable question to ask is what does that make you if you need to ask me, a "pretty much nothing" person, to educate you? You haven't left a lot of room between "pretty much nothing" and "nothing" for you. Frankly, the intellectual and educational gulf is far wider than that narrow gap.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2023
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. UFLawyer

    UFLawyer GC Hall of Fame

    6,411
    418
    198
    Apr 3, 2007
    Florida
    a probe = investigation

    How can a probe be a “long shot?” Are you saying the Biden’s will continue to occlude the investigation….maybe ignore subpoenas?
     
  4. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    6,955
    848
    2,103
    Dec 6, 2015
    Well, as a lawyer, you’re familiar with Socratic, right? By questioning you in the fashion I was, I was probing for an answer to actually build a conversation from. Unfortunately, you’re not interested in a fruitful conversation, just mudslinging and stroking your own ego over how educated you claim to be.

    Unfortunately, while you may be familiar with Socratic, you’re clearly not familiar with sarcasm.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2023
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  5. mrhansduck

    mrhansduck GC Hall of Fame

    4,865
    1,002
    1,788
    Nov 23, 2021
    Why not go back to the Clinton impeachment though for that matter? Somehow Bush and Obama both managed to avoid being impeached after Clinton was impeached. There’s no reason it now needs to happen with every president just because it happened to Trump. But we will see what they come up with on Biden.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. danmanne65

    danmanne65 GC Hall of Fame

    4,013
    855
    268
    Jul 2, 2022
    DeLand
    Exactly this. I have never been a fan of Joe Biden. I voted for him as an anybody but trump vote. Trump is a historically horrible person and maybe the most corrupt since Andrew Jackson said to the victor goes the spoils.
     
  7. danmanne65

    danmanne65 GC Hall of Fame

    4,013
    855
    268
    Jul 2, 2022
    DeLand
    Do you ever post anything of value?
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  8. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    6,955
    848
    2,103
    Dec 6, 2015
    Yes. However, neither you nor JMDZ ever post anything of value. You both appear to only be here for the circle jerk.
     
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 1
  9. danmanne65

    danmanne65 GC Hall of Fame

    4,013
    855
    268
    Jul 2, 2022
    DeLand
    Ignore people before they frustrate you. lol
     
  10. philnotfil

    philnotfil GC Hall of Fame

    17,727
    1,789
    1,718
    Apr 8, 2007
    He gave you the answer to the question you asked. And now you are mad at him for ... answering your question?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  11. mrhansduck

    mrhansduck GC Hall of Fame

    4,865
    1,002
    1,788
    Nov 23, 2021
    I thought the Chief Justice of the Court presides over presidential impeachment trials in the Senate? I think I recall Roberts being there but also being pretty insignificant in the process.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. GatorJMDZ

    GatorJMDZ gatorjack VIP Member

    25,349
    2,697
    1,868
    Apr 3, 2007
    You are correct in terms of a sitting president, I was wrong. The Chief Justice presides over the impeachment trial of a SITTING president. That's why Roberts wasn't there for Trump II. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll go correct my post(s) as to that one exception to my original answer.

    Article III, Section VI, US Constitution.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2023
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  13. GatorJMDZ

    GatorJMDZ gatorjack VIP Member

    25,349
    2,697
    1,868
    Apr 3, 2007
    You righties and your circle jerks.

    You should be pleased with @mrhansduck correction of my answer. to your question. If Biden is the sitting president at the time of an impeachment trial, it will be Chief Justice Roberts making those rulings. What I posted before applies to every other impeachment. I apologize for the confusion my now corrected post caused.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2023
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  14. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    6,955
    848
    2,103
    Dec 6, 2015
    Who said i was mad? Just making an observation.
     
  15. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    6,955
    848
    2,103
    Dec 6, 2015
    Apology not accepted.
     
  16. UFLawyer

    UFLawyer GC Hall of Fame

    6,411
    418
    198
    Apr 3, 2007
    Florida
    Nothing in your post makes any sense.
     
  17. GatorJMDZ

    GatorJMDZ gatorjack VIP Member

    25,349
    2,697
    1,868
    Apr 3, 2007
    NOT surprising considering your character issues.
     
  18. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    6,955
    848
    2,103
    Dec 6, 2015
    Why should I take a lecture on character from someone like you?

    Also, sorry for treating you with plenty more grace than you would be treating me if I misstated the law.

    I would get some speech from you about staying in my lane and shutting up. You just make an apology and I’m supposed to accept it. Go to Hell.

    You insulted me saying I lacked knowledge of the law, then proceeded to misstate the law over the same issue where you claimed I lacked knowledge. Now, you look like a jackass, yet you keep digging.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2023
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. Gator715

    Gator715 GC Hall of Fame

    6,955
    848
    2,103
    Dec 6, 2015
    I was referencing Socratic Method.

    My request for him to educate me was sarcasm, which he either pretended wasn’t sarcasm or didn’t read it as sarcasm.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. GatorJMDZ

    GatorJMDZ gatorjack VIP Member

    25,349
    2,697
    1,868
    Apr 3, 2007
    Excuse me, slick. I did not misstate the law. The law I copied and pasted as well as linked you to are the rules that apply to all impeachment trials...except in ONE instance, the impeachment of a sitting president. The question you asked follows:

    You used "impeachment trials" in the plural in your question. You did not specify impeachment trials of sitting presidents. My answer was absolutely correct as it pertains to the impeachment trials of every impeachable official, except a sitting president. The rules I cited even applied to Trump's second impeachment because he was no longer a sitting president at the time of that trial and will apply to every other official's impeachment trial if MTG gets her way. I offered an apology as my answer didn't properly address the question you were likely attempting to ask, but failed...the evidentiary rules that would apply to an impeachment trial of Biden if he were the sitting president.

    I note the offer to come visit, but I decline.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2023
    • Dislike Dislike x 1