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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Yes. However, neither you nor JMDZ ever post anything of value. You both appear to only be here for the circle jerk.
He gave you the answer to the question you asked. And now you are mad at him for ... answering your question?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
