Impeaching President Trump

[Ripp]

Originally Posted by feniin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

TBH he shouldn't have been inaugurated in the first place. He was breaking the Emoluments clause from day one.

You can add that to the list of scams I posted. What does that make it, 99 reasons now? Hard to keep track. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We did but if you look up statistics it had no actual effect on homicide rates or crime whatsoever. If you look up campus carry and schools that have allowed campus carry, there was recently an article released that absolutely no increase in violent crimes or homicide has occurred since campus carry and in some cases, decreased.

Bernie did a bit on Rogan about guns after the whole El Paso shooting. His statement was he was against assault weapons and wanted to implement broader mental health checks. I don't feel just because you suffered depression, PTSD or anxiety at some point in your life, you shouldn't be able to defend yourself if needed. Moreover, if you start teaching people the consequence is death for committing heinous crimes, they are less likely to incur. You also need to stop people from believing humanity is shit. The people that commit these mass shootings always have one thing in common from every spectrum. Left or Right. They hold no value for human life. They think a certain race is a miserable piece of shit. They think all humans are miserable pieces of shit. This is probably the case for all mass shooters. Other than that people who disregard the law and commit crimes need to face the will of law abiding citizens and the law.

I think that's well-decided. We can remove rights from the mentally ill, so there's not a lot of reason left to not remove them from other problem groups.

*gas lights you*

[feniin]

Originally Posted by Ripp [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can add that to the list of scams I posted. What does that make it, 99 reasons now? Hard to keep track. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8

The language of the Emoluments Clause is both sweeping and unqualified. See 49 Comp. Gen. 819, 821 (1970) (the "drafters [of the Clause] intended the prohibition to have the broadest possible scope and applicability"). It prohibits those holding offices of profit or trust under the United States from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever" from "any . . . foreign State

[Ripp]

Originally Posted by feniin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8

The language of the Emoluments Clause is both sweeping and unqualified. See 49 Comp. Gen. 819, 821 (1970) (the "drafters [of the Clause] intended the prohibition to have the broadest possible scope and applicability"). It prohibits those holding offices of profit or trust under the United States from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever" from "any . . . foreign State

Right.

Perhaps you can explain to all of us what happened to Quid Pro Quo, bribery and all the other false accusations first.

I'm sure Harvard will loan your expertise out to us unlearned peons for a few hours. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by Ripp [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm sure Harvard will excise your loans out to us unlearned peons. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[feniin]

Originally Posted by Ripp [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Right.

Perhaps you can explain to all of us what happened to Quid Pro Quo, bribery and all the other false accusations first.

I'm sure Harvard will loan your expertise out to us unlearned peons for a few hours. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They went for the most basic charges that can't be disproved or disputed. Abuse of Power of Office will include the QPQ demand. Maybe if you would have paid any attention to any of the inquiry and testimony you would have noticed that's what they were aiming for.

Not going to defend the violation of the Emoluments clause? The constitution doesn't seem to matter to you unless it's 2A.

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by feniin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you think an AR-15 that should be locked in a safe when not in use is going to protect your home?

No but I carry a Smith & Wesson .38 SPL on my appendix and an Arsenal AK SBR in my trunk. You'd also be surprised at the ways they come up with guns safes. I've got a few RFID safes that are disguised as art or night stands. Put your keys on your night stand, have a lower compartment that opens via RFID on your keys and voila you can pull out whatever SBR, Folding shotgun, pistol you want.

[feniin]

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No but I carry a Smith & Wesson .38 SPL on my appendix and an Arsenal AK SBR in my trunk. You'd also be surprised at the ways they come up with guns safes. I've got a few RFID safes that are disguised as art or night stands. Put your keys on your night stand, have a lower compartment that opens via RFID on your keys and voila you can pull out whatever SBR, Folding shotgun, pistol you want.

Why do you need weaponry? Do you live in a war zone?

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by feniin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They went for the most basic charges that can't be disproved or disputed. Abuse of Power of Office will include the QPQ demand. Maybe if you would have paid any attention to any of the inquiry and testimony you would have noticed that's what they were aiming for.

Not going to defend the violation of the Emoluments clause? The constitution doesn't seem to matter to you unless it's 2A.

Sorry but "The judges were particularly swayed by Mooppan’s assertion that the congressional Democrats did not represent the entire legislative branch, and as individuals they could not show that they had been harmed by the ongoing nature of the president’s business relationships with foreign countries"

Nope and also care about every amendment. We just have a lot different interpretations of how those are played out. You believe in somehow gaining rights by restricting rights, I don't really believe that to be true.

[Ripp]

Originally Posted by feniin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They went for the most basic charges that can't be disproved or disputed. Abuse of Power of Office will include the QPQ demand. Maybe if you would have paid any attention to any of the inquiry and testimony you would have noticed that's what they were aiming for.

Not going to defend the violation of the Emoluments clause? The constitution doesn't seem to matter to you unless it's 2A.

I have been paying attention, to the leadership before Trump as well. If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that Obama did the same things and more than Trump is doing.

See, the thing is, they have nothing. NOTHING. There is NO Quid Pro Quo. There is NO bribery. There is NOTHING. They keep moving the goal posts to keep fanatics like yourself wringing your hands and drooling in your lap.

It's pathetic. And sad. You allow yourself to be propagandized over and over and over again and you have no clue that it's being done.

I know you think you're winning now but when you lose the House and the White House you'll feel defeated. Another four years of REEEEEEE. Good times.