20 Jan 21
@no1marauder saidWas Blount impeached or not? Yes or no?
Screw you. I've already given you multiple cites backing my argument while you have provided nothing supporting yours.
How many Senators have been impeached since Blount?
20 Jan 21
@no1marauder saidAre you claiming that is unique?
And Trump was impeached while in office anyway.
What do you think that proves? Anything?
20 Jan 21
no1 already stated Blount was impeached. He wants us to believe that Trump being impeached proves he can be impeached while Blount being impeached proves he cannot be impeached because he was a senator.
It is a clear contradiction. With Blount he wants you to think conviction means impeachment to prove there is a precedent that senators cannot be impeached while embracing shav logic where conviction does NOT mean impeachment.
no1 clearly wants it both ways. He and shav need to agree on the definition of impeached. They can work it out and get back to me.
20 Jan 21
@metal-brain saidHow many times do you want me to answer "yes" to that question?
Was Blount impeached or not? Yes or no?
As explained, the outcome of that case established the precedent that members of Congress cannot be impeached and none have been since.
Contrary to your baseless claim, it did not establish the principle that leaving office ends an impeachment proceeding since Belknap was impeached and tried.
20 Jan 21
@metal-brain saidI've already explained the Blount case and its meaning. There are no contradictions in that explanation.
no1 already stated Blount was impeached. He wants us to believe that Trump being impeached proves he can be impeached while Blount being impeached proves he cannot be impeached because he was a senator.
It is a clear contradiction. With Blount he wants you to think conviction means impeachment to prove there is a precedent that senators cannot be impeached while embrac ...[text shortened]... . He and shav need to agree on the definition of impeached. They can work it out and get back to me.
Blount's case has nothing to do with Trump anyway the latter being impeached while still in office. And the Constitution states in Article I, Section 3: "The Senate shall have sole power to try all impeachments", so a Senate trial appears to be mandatory by express Constitutional language.
20 Jan 21
@no1marauder saidThen senators can be impeached, obviously. Blount proves that.
How many times do you want me to answer "yes" to that question?
As explained, the outcome of that case established the precedent that members of Congress cannot be impeached and none have been since.
Contrary to your baseless claim, it did not establish the principle that leaving office ends an impeachment proceeding since Belknap was impeached and tried.
20 Jan 21
@no1marauder saidBlount went to trial too, yet you claim that proves he cannot be impeached while simultaneously claiming he was impeached.
I've already explained the Blount case and its meaning. There are no contradictions in that explanation.
Blount's case has nothing to do with Trump anyway the latter being impeached while still in office. And the Constitution states in Article I, Section 3: "The Senate shall have sole power to try all impeachments", so a Senate trial appears to be mandatory by express Constitutional language.
Does impeachment require a conviction or not? If it does tell shav he is wrong. If you agree with shav why did you claim senators cannot be impeached when a senator (Blount) was already impeached?
Correct your contradiction. Either impeachment requires conviction or it does not. Which is it?
20 Jan 21
@metal-brain saidI don’t say anything about Blount or Blunce or whatever. I’ve never heard of the man. Another point I’ve already stated.
So was Blount and no1 says that is precedent for no impeachment. You say Blount was impeached and no1 says he was not. You work out your contradictions between you two.
Let me know what you two decide on then get back to me. 🙂
You really are a horrible little troll aren’t you?
I bet you’re an incel.
20 Jan 21
@shavixmir saidBlount was impeached by the house. no1 claims that set a precedent that senators cannot be impeached because the senate acquitted.
I don’t say anything about Blount or Blunce or whatever. I’ve never heard of the man. Another point I’ve already stated.
You really are a horrible little troll aren’t you?
I bet you’re an incel.
You claim no conviction is necessary for impeachment since the house vote is enough for you. no1 wants it both ways and is contradicting himself. Apparently he can contradict you and you are fine with it.
20 Jan 21
@metal-brain saidWill you please stop lying?
Blount was impeached by the house. no1 claims that set a precedent that senators cannot be impeached because the senate acquitted.
You claim no conviction is necessary for impeachment since the house vote is enough for you. no1 wants it both ways and is contradicting himself. Apparently he can contradict you and you are fine with it.
Blount's case set a precedent because it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because he was a Senator, not because he was "acquitted" (which he technically wasn't; a dismissal on lack of jurisdiction grounds is not an acquittal).
There is no contradiction only a deliberate and stubborn refusal by you to accept the facts.
20 Jan 21
@no1marauder saidI propose we just let Metal Brain (rusted bolts stuck in some melted flesh) stew and ignore him on this subject forever more.
Will you please stop lying?
Blount's case set a precedent because it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because he was a Senator, not because he was "acquitted" (which he technically wasn't; a dismissal on lack of jurisdiction grounds is not an acquittal).
There is no contradiction only a deliberate and stubborn refusal by you to accept the facts.
20 Jan 21
@no1marauder saidThen you can give a source of information to confirm that assertion. All I am asking you for is your source of information. Is that so hard to provide?
Will you please stop lying?
Blount's case set a precedent because it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because he was a Senator, not because he was "acquitted" (which he technically wasn't; a dismissal on lack of jurisdiction grounds is not an acquittal).
There is no contradiction only a deliberate and stubborn refusal by you to accept the facts.
People on here assert all sorts of lies. Nobody here accepts anybody's word for anything. Do you think you are special?
20 Jan 21
@shavixmir saidTell no1 Blount was impeached and to accept it. You cannot claim ignorance any longer. Do you fear holding him to the same standard? Of course you do. 😆
I propose we just let Metal Brain (rusted bolts stuck in some melted flesh) stew and ignore him on this subject forever more.
21 Jan 21
1 edit
@metal-brain saidI already did multiple times; the article YOU cited.
Then you can give a source of information to confirm that assertion. All I am asking you for is your source of information. Is that so hard to provide?
People on here assert all sorts of lies. Nobody here accepts anybody's word for anything. Do you think you are special?
"On January 11, 1799, the Senate approved the following resolution by a vote of 14–11:
The court is of opinion that the matter alleged in the plea of the defendant is sufficient in law to show that this court ought not to hold jurisdiction of the said impeachment, and that the said impeachment is dismissed."
" the Senate’s action in the Blount case has been interpreted as precedent for determining that a senator cannot be impeached."
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The-First-Impeachment.htm
21 Jan 21
@metal-brain saidWhy in the f**k would he have to tell me something I have already agreed to several times in this thread?
Tell no1 Blount was impeached and to accept it. You cannot claim ignorance any longer. Do you fear holding him to the same standard? Of course you do. 😆
And why do you keep lying and say I haven't?