We now call that “an Eddie”. It comes with a tent.
Hey, remember when McConnell wouldn't allow a vote
- Thread starter DANC
- Start date
You're exasperating.
Let me dumb this down for you: you are just plain wrong and you sound stupid defending this argument.
Isn’t exasperation choking on your own vomit? I think you have Trump chunks in your trachea.
You are searching for a nit to pick and can only talk about an irrelevance. Both McConnell and Schumer mocked the senate process. Schumer’s message that the executive has discretion over what law to enforce is much worse. Yet the democrats, with an assist from not only all democrats and media, but some Republicans too, get a pass on this unprecedented attack on governmental order.
The nit you claim I'm picking is the only thing this thread was about. I didn't start it. It's DANC's nit, not mine.
I think the real point is Shumer got the articles of impeachment ruled unconstitutional on a partly line vote, avoiding getting any evidence from the complaints even read into the record. Pretty slick, but highly partisan.
The border is still secure.
@Joe_Hoopsier looks like we're over the target when Goat's only reply is "You're stupid".
Who’s the new kid on the bombs away button, is it @OpenWheels ?
I’ve got him scurrying for the bunkers, push the MOAB button kid!!!
And what exactly are his high crimes and misdemeanors and stated in the constitution? Oh yeah you don’t like how he handled the border. That’s called a policy difference not a crime. A crime is something you can be jailed for. Just in case you are so far along the cult road that you forgot I thought to remind you. Now please come back with some snappy response.
Really the Dems stuck another knife in good government?? You can’t be serious after 4 years of Trump violating laws at will and many from his orbit. Wing convicted. Come back to earth 1.
Well, we'll never know because the House wasn't allowed to present its case.
Which is exactly why Schumer killed it - he didn't want the information to be on every media outlet in an impeachment hearing.
Every time one of the Pubs was asked what the impeachable offenses were, they fumbled around and couldn’t give one. So since they couldn’t give one, what was going to be their argument other than a difference in policy. Also, under W the gang of 8 came up with an immigration reform bill which was voted down by you guessed it the Pubs. It is Congresses responsibility to fix this. They had another opportunity to get something done recently but again they killed it. Anyone who pays attention knows that the system is broken. But both sides have to be willing to compromise to get it addressed.
Here in Florida, most of the time I’d much rather have one of those immigrants working for me that natural born citizens who believe these jobs are beneath them. The immigrants put their head down and work their tails off. In addition, if not for them the building boom here would come to a complete halt, golf courses would close and we’d have no landscapers to take care of our property.
If you'd have paid attention to the House impeachment committee, you'd know what the offenses are.
But the media doesn't cover that. You'd have known the offenses if Schumer hadn't shredded the Constitution.
Last edited:
You can’t say what the offenses were either. That was a classic bad faith posting DANC dodge.
Please elaborate on what crimes he committed since you seem to be privy to information we regular citizens are not.
Again there’s that constitution thing that your guy repeatedly destroyed. But he’s about to get his due as he actually committed violations of the law that can be proven in court. Unless of course he has Seal Team 6 assassinate the jury as is his right since he’s immune from prosecution.
Congratulations, you are among the .4% that doesn’t understand what this is all about. We at the counsil for the advancement of entitled invertebrates, have unlocked new levels for you. You are part of a special class of Window lickers. You have arrived sunshine.
You’d benefit greatly from reading. Look at Biden’s acts re immigration after taking office and compare the numbers between administrations
Then let’s have a full blown deeeep dive into who is organizing the NGO’s to facilitate all of this “sudden” confidence that the illeagals suddenly have, that coincidentally match time lines of Bidens arrival…. Of them getting into the country to start with..
Coincidence? Immaculate conception????
You miss the point. There was never a vote on the impeachment charges. The reason for refusing to vote actually weakens Congressional constitutional authority. I don’t understand why the senate would do that when they could have easily heard the case and voted not to impeach. Actually, I do understand. The democrats don’t want the border disaster the subject of a trial. They’d rather undermine the law than have negative stuff heard.
The Secretary of Homeland Security refuses to apply and enforce immigration and border security law. Such refusal is not a criminal offense, but if deliberate refusal to do your statutory job isn’t impeachable, then the general accepted notion that impeachment need not be based on a crime goes out the window.
Legal experts counter GOP claims that Mayorkas broke the law
Republicans plan to take a historic vote Tuesday to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and have focused their central argument on claims he has broken immigration law. But a rev…
thehill.com
I’ve read several articles just like this including at straight up conservative sites.
Mayorkas did not commit a crime. Whether a public official like Mayorkas “broke” the law he swore to apply and uphold by deliberately refusing to uphold and apply is an interesting question. I don’t think we can survive under our constitution if the executive doesn’t have an enforceable duty to apply and enforce laws that they have a duty to apply and enforce. Mayorkas could argue he didn’t have the means to enforce the law. That position is a fair, but imo, unconvincing argument. But the senate chose to go the other route which in essence allows Mayorkas to say “I don’t give a shit about the law, I’m not gonna follow it.”Legal experts counter GOP claims that Mayorkas broke the law
Republicans plan to take a historic vote Tuesday to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and have focused their central argument on claims he has broken immigration law. But a rev…thehill.com
I’ve read several articles just like this including at straight up conservative sites.
Gay for Trump, dump smoker, coward. Can’t do math- but dumber than dirt? He’s old and 35 years from his intellectual prime it’s just duh now
It boils down that he can’t comply with the law because Congress hasn’t provided the resources to do it. That is the fair and accurate argument because they didn’t comply with the law during the previous administrations, including Trump’s, for the same reason.
Don’t agree. Biden promised significant policy changes during the Democratic primary debates and later in the campaign. Resources weren’t a consideration.
Resources are always a consideration. There are tons of legal requirements in government that aren’t being done because the second part of the equation is Congress passing the appropriations required to obtain resources necessary to comply.
I'm genuinely curious. I suspect the impeachment was bullshit, but I'm not going to take it for granted. Maybe there was something to it.
Yeah, if that's the best they could do, I would have voted to dismiss the articles, as well.
Well, t would have been interesting to have a trial over the question of resources . . .but noooooo.
That's not the purpose of a trial. That's what floor debate is for.
? Huh? Lack of resources and congressional action was Mayorkas’ excuse for not following the law for 3 1/2 years.
So Congress doesn't give him sufficient resources to enforce the law, and then they impeach him for not enforcing the law. Got it.
