Democrats dismiss charges against themselves Ignoring 200 years of precedent they table an impeachment motion against mayorkas instead of allowing a trial, effectively meaning the Senate can ignore the House when they impeach someone, something that's never been done before https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/live-blog/senators-begin-dhs-secretary-mayorkas-impeachment-trial-live-updates-rcna147038The House impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in February and, on Tuesday, formally referred the issue to the Senate for a trial.Democrats voted to rule both impeachment articles unconstitutional because they did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." They then adjourned the trial.The first impeachment article had accused Mayorkas of “willfully and systemically” refusing to comply with federal immigration laws. The second charged him with making false statements to Congress.In the end, Sen. Eric Schmitt’s, R-Mo., objection to allowing for debate and procedural votes ahead of the Democrats’ motions to dispense with the two articles of impeachment precluded Republicans from putting Democrats in a tough spot with substantive votes.Republicans had planned to force Democrats to take tough votes, like on the constitutionality of not holding a trial. But because Schmitt objected to a debate agreement, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, immediately moved to question the constitutionality of the articles of impeachment. And that meant Republican senators could only force votes on procedural questions like adjourning or going into closed session. Schmitt was pressed on his decision by reporters and responded by saying, “Impeachments aren’t debatable. So if you have an impeachment trial, we don’t debate that we listen, we hear evidence. All we were asking for is something that has happened every single time articles of impeachment have ever come over the United States Senate.”
>>1288126>And that meant Republican senators could only force votes on procedural questions like adjourning or going into closed session.>or going into closed session.So its really just Republicunts whining that they couldn't televise the trial and get out of context soundbites. If they were serious about the impeachment they'd continue in a closed session. Apparently it never was. Good to know
>>1288150Why are Democrats so hopelessly corrupt at every turn?Is it genetic?
>>1288151>Why are Democrats so hopelessly corrupt at every turn?The oddest part is that this dogshit talking point has lost you every election for the past several years but you still won't give it up. Does that not bother you at all?
>>1288126The rest of the country sees the republicans wasting time doing stupid partisan shit like this instead of keeping the government functioning or passing laws.
>>1288151They wouldn't be democrats if they weren't corrupt.
>>1288158Good point
>>1288152"Lost">Does that not bother you at all?Yeah it bothers me that nobody has stopped the cheaters yet. The bystander effect hits hard.
>>1288158yep!
>>1288152I'm not a Democrat so this doesn't apply to me at all
>>1288172>Yeah it bothers me that nobody has stopped the cheaters yet. This conspiracy hasn't panned out for you either. Do you not think its time to change your game plan?>>1288176>I'm not a Democrat so this doesn't apply to me at allIf you're not a Democrat in the U.S. then losing elections 100% applies to you. You lost in 2020 and under-performed in every single midterm since then with literally every metric on your side. The sooner you come to terms with the fact that your party is an embarrassment the quicker you can begin to formulate a plan to fix it.
>>1288177>This conspiracy hasn't panned out for you either.Yeah, but most conspiracies eventually come true, so I'm not worried.
>>1288179>I may believe in a thing with no evidence to support it and nationally mocked for years but just you wait, I'll have my day! Eventually!What a pathetically cucked way to live. I'm convinced you people literally have no sense of embarrassment.
>>1288180I don't really care about being mocked by people who will be dead in a few years. Because they'll be dead, and I'll be laughing.
>>1288180>retards call everything they dislike a conspiracy>conspiracy turns out to be true>retards ignore it>repeat ad infinitum https://www.cureus.com/articles/196275-increased-age-adjusted-cancer-mortality-after-the-third-mrna-lipid-nanoparticle-vaccine-dose-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-japan#!/
>>1288181>Just you wait! You'll all be dead! I'll have the last laugh! One day I'll stop being an embarrassment! Eventually!You've got real big "old man yells at clouds" energy.
>>1288183See >>1288182
>>1288182Ah, so you fit the archetype perfectly. You believe in a multitude of debunked conspiracy theories. Keep yelling at that cloud, old man. One day you'll show those kids!
>>1288182Wild to think people actually injected this stuff into their bloodstream lmao
>>1288188Yeah, billions of people. But just you wait, the conspiracy schizos will be vindicated any day!
>>1288193Pretty sure they were already vindicated by the fact that the shot doesn't provide immunity nor does it prevent transmission as was sold to the public.
>>1288126>McConnel bitches about the very thing he did 3 years agoIs anyone really surprised by republican hypocracy anymore?
>>1288126so impeachment is now a polical question and not based on crimes? Good to know when trump wins in november. no more impeachments
>>1288202>so impeachment is now a polical question and not based on crimes?you're making this argument latethis is just failed republican bullshit>And that meant Republican senators could only force votes on procedural questions like adjourning or going into closed session. Republicans could have forced it to trial, in a closed session. They decided to scrap it instead, because they can't generate any of their bullshit news with a closed session.
>>1288203>you're making this argument late>this is just failed republican bullshitliterally not an argument from you retard. (((schumer))) is saying the senate now considers impeachments a political question, so trump can't get impeached at all if he has 50 senators>Republicans could have forced it to trial, in a closed session. They decided to scrap it instead, because they can't generate any of their bullshit news with a closed session.a closed session where dems are going to acquit him because there could be fucking film of him saying he is importing illegals to destroy America while driving a truck load of illegals in and dems wouldn't care. like how dems acquitted clinton after he raped that child in the oval office and then lied about it
>>1288206>there could be fucking film of him saying he is importing illegals to destroy AmericaWhere do you people get this shit from?
>>1288209schizophrenia
>>1288202>so impeachment is now a polical question and not based on crimes?It always has been you moron.
>>1288211>high crimes and misdemeanors? no no, that's a POLITICAL QUESTION, not a LEGAL QUESTION
>>1288212yea, retard
>>1288213>crime isn't a legal questionAlright, everybody in DC is retarded. No exceptions.
>>1288209They're the ones bussing illegals in too, so the rest of the post is likely projection as well. They're just violent and retarded, the American way
>>1288226Calling founding fathers retard? You’re not American.
>>1288226>doesn't know how the constitution worksAre you foreign? Or have a red state education?
We really do have to kill them.. yhere is no other way.
>>1288243Be sure to live stream the shooting
>>1288243As the founding fathers intended.
>>1288206>so trump can't get impeached at all if he has 50 senatorsyou're a retard who doesn't understand how impeachment works>a closed session where dems are going to acquit himSo Republicunts could have forced it to a trial, but they decided to scrap it because they wanted a spectacle instead of an actual trial. Thanks for proving my point, faggot
>>1288209why are we letting millions of illegals in per year if it isn't to destroy the country?>>1288210samefag
>>1288211high crimes and misdemeanors isn't a political question.>>1288255>you're a retard who doesn't understand how impeachment worksyou are the one defending dems for ignoring articles of impeachment. Guess the GOP can now do the same thing >So Republicunts could have forced it to a trial, but they decided to scrap it because they wanted a spectacle instead of an actual trial.this is why we need flags, to show what third world shithole you are actually from. a closed door impeachment is a waste of time because dms will all vote to acquit even if there is a video of the guy actively driving the illegals in himself because dems don't care about other dems breaking the lae
>>1288271Those illegals deserve to be here more than you do.
>>1288273No one thinks Mayorkas did anything wrong but MAGA cultists. Cry even more that you're an extremist minority in society.
>>128827480% of illegals are rapists and they all hate America and want to destroy it and want to own slaves>>1288277>No one thinks Mayorkas did anything wrong but MAGA cultists.dems don't think hunter did anything wrong by smoking crack and then lying about it to buy a gun. But dems still want stricter gun laws despite thinking its fine to lie on a background check>Cry even more that you're an extremist minority in society.wow, an extreme minority that won the 2016 election
>>1288278It's not just dems, half of republicans also think he did nothing wrong.
>>1288279>half of republicans also think he did nothing wrong.I don't know where you get these wild claims from, but at least in the context of Hunter's tax crimes 77% of Americans think he committed evasion https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-poll-finds-half-americans-think-hunter-biden-receiving-favorable-treatment
>>1288279>25% of Americans think hunter is innocent Let me guess, your source is either your own asshole, or a dailykos poll of dailykos readers
>>1288279>half of republicans also think he did nothing wrong.CITATION NEEDED
>>1288283>wild claimsThe only wild claims ITT are the ones about Mayorkas and Hunter Biden, which is why the impeachment is going nowhere.>>1288284>dailykosAhahah you're trotting out the 2008 boogeyman again>>1288285It's a high IQ thing, you wouldn't understand.
>>1288285I made it up. Most Americans actually think hunter is guilty and that his father at best, acted inappropriately wrt hunters business interests while he was vp
>>1288286>It's a high IQ thing, you wouldn't understand.where is the source, jew boi?
>>1288291Like I said. I made it up. Sorry
>>1288289>>1288291>>1288292chud headcanon is so wild
>>1288294Lmao you gave up, eh?Hard to dispute sources when you have none, I know.Better luck next time I guess, maybe stop making unfounded claims
>>1288295It's not hard to claim there aren't any sources when you live in an information vacuum like you do
>>1288294where is the source on most republicans thinking hunter is innocent?
>>1288297where is the post ITT besides your own that said "most republicans think hunter is innocent"? (protip: no one said that)
>>1288317see>>1288279
>>1288325>half = mostAhh so you're a retard
>>1288327source on half of all republicans thinking crackhead hunter did zero crimes, jew
>>1288279Who is supposed to believe this?
>>1288330where is the post ITT besides your own that said "hunter did zero crimes"? (protip: no one said that)
>>1288337Clear-thinking, rational, level-headed Americans of high intelligence and good parenting. (i.e. not Trumpsimps)
>>1288338see>>1288279
>>1288126>Using articles of impeachment to change policy you don't agree with.You're doing the constitution wrong.Repuglicans showing everyone what we already knew: They don't know the law.
>>1288342Didn't democrats hold months of congressional hearings labeling Trump as a traitor without subjecting him to due process?Why should we care about rule of law again?
>>1288378>Didn't democrats hold months of congressional hearings giving direct proof Trump was a traitor?*ftfy >without subjecting him to due process?His army of lawyers being there would seem to contradict that.
>>1288382>*ftfy You do understand that those hearings were legal proceedings, right? They had no evidentiary standards or presumption of innocence. A literal kangaroo court. >His army of lawyers being there would seem to contradict that.Do you even know what I'm talking about?
>>1288383>They had no evidentiary standards or presumption of innocence>A literal kangaroo court. Its not a criminal court you fucking moron.
>>1288386Jesus christ you're an idiot. I'm talking about the J6 hearings.
>>1288390You're the perfect combination of confident and retarded. A congressional hearing is not a criminal court. There is no presumption of innocence because there's no such thing as being found guilty in a congressional hearing. There are no evidentiary standards because the purpose of a congressional hearing is not to evaluate whether or not someone has violated a criminal statute. You have absolutely zero clue what you're talking about, anon, and the more you talk the more apparent it is.
>>1288391>There is no presumption of innocence because there's no such thing as being found guilty in a congressional hearing.That was literally my point you absolute fucking imbecile. God, the posters here are some of the dumbest people on the planet. A dead russian contributes more to political discourse than you do.
>>1288279they hated him because he spake truth.
>>1288413>That was literally my point you absolute fucking imbecile.No it wasn't. You said the Jan 6th hearings were a "kangaroo court" because they had no evidentiary standards or presumption of innocence, seemingly having no idea that a fucking congressional hearing is not a court. Acting indignant isn't going to change what a moron you are.
>>1288420>how could it be a kangaroo court if there were no kangaroos? checkmate, atheists
