Biden impeachment inquiry

@metal-brain said
Has been used is not the same as has to be used. You cannot prove anything because you have nothing. Even your quotes don't prove what you claim. It isn't just me. You cannot prove it to anyone. That is why you are giving up. You have nothing but opinions.

@no1marauder said
Of course, it's an opinion, but unlike yours, AJ's and Mott's, it's an opinion based on historical evidence and legal research.

None of you have presented a single shred of evidence to the contrary.

@metal-brain said
An opinion based on historical evidence and legal research is still an opinion unless you can prove it is more than an opinion. You cannot and it is not my burden of proof to prove a negative when you made the claim, not me.

@metal-brain said
An opinion based on historical evidence and legal research is still an opinion unless you can prove it is more than an opinion. You cannot and it is not my burden of proof to prove a negative when you made the claim, not me. However, I did prove it wrong with this:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office ...[text shortened]... n the constitution. You just made it up based on an assumption, nothing written in the constitution.

@no1marauder said
I have no idea what an idiot like you means by "prove". The dictionary says it is to: "To establish the truth or validity of (something) by the presentation of argument or evidence". https://www.thefreedictionary.com/prove

That is exactly what I have done, the fact that you can't present anything that rebuts my argument and evidence strongly suggests you have nothing that questions its truth and validity.

@metal-brain said
STOP LYING!

Your opinion is not a fact. You need to prove it by a direct quote from the constitution. You never did that. Not even close.

@no1marauder said
Why do you morons immediately start with the ridiculous accusations of "you're lying" when you are doing poorly in an argument?

No, a "direct quote" from the Constitution isn't needed; they used a term i.e. High Crimes and Misdemeanors that had a fixed meaning. That an idiot like you doesn't know what that was (and is) wasn't their problem. There are many terms in the Constitution that are not defined that the Framers used based on the understood meaning of the term.

I'll make it easy for you and the others; show some evidence that the Framers intended officials to be impeached and removed from an office for conduct that occurred before they took that office.

@metal-brain said
Once again, you want to prevent the majority from deciding.
That is a departure from democracy.

@no1marauder said
I'll make it easy for you and the others; show some evidence that the Framers intended officials to be impeached and removed from an office for conduct that occurred before they took that office.

@mott-the-hoople said
Ill make it easy for you, show some evidence the framers put a time frame on committing the crimes such as biden has done.

@no1marauder said
I already did; "other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" meant misconduct in the office for which impeachment and eventual removal was sought.

No President has been impeached for conduct before ascending to the Presidency in the 236 years since the Constitution was ratified.

@kevcvs57 said
if the majority got to decide the presidency Trump would never have set one stinking foot in the White House.

@mott-the-hoople said
no president has been impeached before after leaving office either…but…always a first time ehh?

You trying to shytweasel the constitution now 😂

@averagejoe1 said
Which means Biden would have been elected by what is referred to as 'mob rule'.
This is a fact.

Please come out on this post and tell us that, yes, you would have been in favor of mob rule.

Of course,, I have proven that you are, but you will not admit it.