Re: "Impeachment: Lynch mob politics"

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/16/2019 11:13 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:qt8ck7$9c1$2...@josh.motzarella.org:
>
>> On 12/16/2019 5:28 AM, Steve ignores most fools and losers wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 18:10:18 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/15/2019 2:02 PM, Steve ignores most fools and losers wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 11:54:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/15/2019 11:48 AM, Steve ignores most fools and losers wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 10:39:33 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/15/2019 10:31 AM, Steve ignores most fools and losers
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 08:22:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's first-hand, direct evidence of an effort to get Ukraine
>>>>>>>>>> to investigate Joe Biden.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which they should have done...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who is "they"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ukraine, of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should Ukraine be the primary investigator instead of the DoJ?
>>>>>> And even if Ukraine should be the primary investigator, why
>>>>>> shouldn't the DoJ take the lead from our side?
>>>>>
>>>>> Corruption in their country....
>>>>
>>>> Biden would be breaking US law.
>>>
>>> Maybe that, too.
>>
>> If Trump was acting out a legitimate concern to weed out corruption he
>> would have gone through the DoJ, not Rudy.
>>
>>
>
> What part of the Constitution empowers
> the president's criminal defense lawyer to
> conduct foreign policy agrements?

A president can request anyone he wishes to engage in talks with foreign
governments. There have been lots of unofficial ambassadors in the
country's history. However, those person have almost always been
identified by the presidents who have requested their assistance, and their
missions have been for America's interests, not the president's. Giuliani
was acting corruptly.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On 12/19/2019 10:06 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <uTNKF.178$VD2...@fx36.iad>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <I.Suck...@everywhere.all.the.time>
> wrote:
>> On 12/19/2019 8:45 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2019 3:09 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 08:24:40 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/18/2019 3:18 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:47:05 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/17/2019 3:57 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 08:48:56 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>> <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please provide evidence that Trump ordered anything you're whining
>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did. Shockingly enough, you weren't persuaded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of your opinions provided direct evidence that Trump did anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> You continue to be unable to grasp the importance of circumstantial
>>>>> evidence.
>>>>
>>>> None of your opinions provided direct evidence that Trump did
>>>> anything. Kindly stop evading this basic fact.
>>>
>>> I'm not evading it. I'm saying:
>>>
>>> 1) There is one piece of direct evidence that links Trump to the scheme:
>>> the July 25th call.
>>>
>>> 2) I agree that this one piece of direct evidence is not sufficient to
>>> impeach.
>>>
>>> 3) When you add in the mountain of circumstantial evidence that links
>>> Trump to the scheme, there is enough to impeach.
>>>
>>
>> There is enough to frog-march Trump before a firing squad.
>
> Congress is not allowed to do that.

Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean there isn't enough evidence to support
doing it. There is ample evidence to justify doing it.

[Rudy Canoza]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:14:56 -0800, an inept midget forger wrote:

>>> There is enough to frog-march Trump before a firing squad.
>>
>> Congress is not allowed to do that.
>
>Perhaps not

No. Not "perhaps."

>There is ample evidence to justify doing it.

There is NO evidence to justify it.

Even an inept, forging cocksucker like myself knows this.

I'm Rudy Canoza and I approve this message.

[Michael Ejercito]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message news:A6PKF.3$v_...@fx39.iad...

Forger, you are so ashamed of your beliefs, you forge Klaus.

Christopher Charles Morton called this a farce perpetrated to negate a
lawful election!


Michael

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Rudy doesn't have any beliefs- just his advanced (and hopefully
terminal) symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrome. LOL

Like most totalitarian leftists, he has a fantasy with assassinating
his political rivals.

Here are some of this other fantasies.......




"You know I would demolish you in a fistfight."
-Rudy, in a final, desperate attempt
to salvage his pride after being pummeled
senseless.
Message-ID: <EfFpB.31818$xN2....@fx44.iad>


> What's next- a fist fight challenge"
Sure, why not? Meet me at the Jolly Kone hamburger shack in
Bakersfield. I've dispatched a couple of other Usenet loudmouth fat
fucks in the parking lot there. I know the proprietor. If it appears
you've already suffered your stroke, I'll only use one hand to flatten
you.
-Rudy, explaining his fantasy "fist-fight" victories.
Message-ID: <U3SuB.25861$TD2....@fx18.iad>


"You still haven't recovered from the ass-kicking I gave you at the
Jolly Kone, have you? <chuckle>"
-Rudy Canoza to doctor postalman, 11/18/2017, referring to
another imaginary "fist fight"
Message-ID: <hr%PB.10409$Fz6....@fx41.iad>


"I tell you what. I'm about eight inches shorter than Shitbag [6' 2"]
Trump, and at least 80 pounds lighter, and I would *love* to take the
fat fuck on in a fistfight. He gets to pick the *public* venue and
the referee."
-5' 6" Rudy, declaring his wish to fist-fight the President
of the United States, by posting on Usenet.
Message-ID: <Xq8DB.451$Q03...@fx44.iad>


>> Trumpchev is such a vile bit of filth.
> Why don't you challenge him to a fist fight?
I already have. It's legal, too. I even said he gets to pick the
referee and judges - not that they'll really have anything to do.
-A desperate Rudy, trying to claim his previous message was
where he "challenged President Trump to a fist fight."
Message-ID: <bIc1C.305646$oE2.1...@fx33.iad>


>You are fit for someone to slam a fist into your florid fat face.
-Rudy, losing another argument.
Message-ID: <kB73D.209647$4M6.1...@fx27.iad>


I would gladly pay $2,000 for the privilege of beating your fucking
face to a pulp in person.
-Rudy, losing again
Message-ID: <ire3D.198667$bJ2....@fx15.iad>

...kleine klauschen, a cunt whom I *have* beat up with my bare
hands...
>Message-ID: <fewfF.255710$Yo.1...@fx08.iad>
- Rudy, dreaming

"Rudy Canoza beat the living fuck out of me in the parking lot at
Jolly Kone burgers."
Message-ID: <Rr5nF.88475$Sj1....@fx33.iad>


-Another inept Rudy forgery, where he fantasizes about finally
overcoming Klaus

"On 10/23/2019 3:02 PM, kleine klausche, a runt punk whom I have
flattened, ineptly forged"
- Another desperate fantasy from Rudy.:

"I'd like to see some political violence aimed at *you*, you rancid
cunt."
-Looks Like Rudy losing another argument.
Message-ID: <KJC2F.238959$i84.2...@fx34.iad>

[Phil Omdahl]

On 12/20/2019 7:21 AM, Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
>
> "Klaus Schadenfreude"  wrote in message news:A6PKF.3$v_...@fx39.iad...
>
>> On 12/19/2019 10:06 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article <uTNKF.178$VD2...@fx36.iad>,
>>>   Klaus Schadenfreude <I.Suck...@everywhere.all.the.time>
>>>   wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2019 8:45 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> I'm not evading it.  I'm saying:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) There is one piece of direct evidence that links Trump to the
>>>>> scheme: the July 25th call.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) I agree that this one piece of direct evidence is not sufficient to
>>>>> impeach.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) When you add in the mountain of circumstantial evidence that links
>>>>> Trump to the scheme, there is enough to impeach.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is enough to frog-march Trump before a firing squad.
>>>
>>> Congress is not allowed to do that.
>
>> Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean there isn't enough evidence to support
>> doing it.  There is ample evidence to justify doing it.
>

>   Christopher Charles Morton called this a farce perpetrated to negate a
> lawful election!

He is wrong. There is no "negation" or "overturning" of the election. The
founders *prescribed* this remedy for a president who abuses his power.
The remedy ought to be carried out in full.

[Rudy Canoza]

That is EXACTLY what it is. You are wrong.

[Just Wondering]

Funny, the Constitution says the remedy is for removing from
office ALL civil officers of the United States, but only upon
Senate conviction for Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors.

[Rudy Canoza]

And? Did you have a point?

[Phil Omdahl]

On 12/21/2019 1:34 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:06:15 -0800, Phil Omdahl wrote:
>
>> There is no "negation" or "overturning" of the election. The
>> founders *prescribed* this remedy
>

> They most certainly did NOT "prescribe".

They did. They wrote it, exactly as a physician writes an Rx.

> The Constitution only allows.

The founders wrote it. It is their prescription for what to do when a
rogue illegitimate idiot like Trump is in office.

[M I Wakefield]

"Winston_Smith" wrote in message
news:eh2tved5o0suiaq1l...@4ax.com...

> That might work except for the known time line. Impeachment promises - and
> actual planning - started the day after he was elected.

And yet, nothing happened -- even when Mueller laid out multiple cases of
obstruction of justice -- at least until IMPOTUS tried to blackmail a
country into interfering in the next election.

And before you clutch you pearls too firmly, and head for for fainting
couch, you might want to check out what various Republican had to say about
the prospect of President Hillary Clinton.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 12/21/2019 1:34 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:

{snip}

> That might work except for the known time line. Impeachment promises -
> and actual planning - started the day after he was elected.

This is the "boy who cried wolf" argument. Some Democrats have been
crying wolf since before day one of the Trump presidency. Nonetheless,
that fact has no bearing on whether there is a wolf right now.

[Phil Omdahl]

On 12/21/2019 1:34 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:06:15 -0800, Phil Omdahl wrote:
>

>> There is no "negation" or "overturning" of the election. The
>> founders *prescribed* this remedy for a president who abuses his power.
>

> That might work except for the known time line. Impeachment promises -
> and actual planning - started the day after he was elected.

That's bullshit.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <eh2tved5o0suiaq1l...@4ax.com>,
Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

> For almost three months he was not President; had zero power to do
> anything; had zero power TO abuse - but the rabid elements of the left
> were actively plotting and planning how to frame him for something -
> anything - and use it as an excuse for impeachment.

And for two and half years the House did nothing. Only after iDJT
solicitted a bribe did the House act.

The few on every fringe want all kinds of things. A few iDJT
supporters want him to dissolve Congress and rule as a christian
king. That's why the fringe is the fringe: no one else partakes
in their crazy.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Phil Omdahl]

On 12/21/2019 1:34 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:

>> The remedy ought to be carried out in full.

> This is what passes for deep thinking from the rabid left.
>
> In full?????

You are really dense. Trump ought to be impeached *and* removed.

[David Hartung]

On 12/21/19 5:36 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <eh2tved5o0suiaq1l...@4ax.com>,
> Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>> For almost three months he was not President; had zero power to do
>> anything; had zero power TO abuse - but the rabid elements of the left
>> were actively plotting and planning how to frame him for something -
>> anything - and use it as an excuse for impeachment.
>
> And for two and half years the House did nothing. Only after iDJT
> solicitted a bribe did the House act.

There was no such solicitation.

[jim]

.I agree. but there was something that
was obviously intended to look like solicitation of
a bribe

When you play with fire don't whine when
you get burned.

[Rudy Canoza]

There was. Stop lying.

[Michael Terrell]

On 12/21/2019 5:02 PM, jim wrote:
> David Hartung wrote on 12/21/2019 6:23 PM:
>> On 12/21/19 5:36 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article <eh2tved5o0suiaq1l...@4ax.com>,
>>>   Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For almost three months he was not President; had zero power to do
>>>> anything; had zero power TO abuse - but the rabid elements of the left
>>>> were actively plotting and planning how to frame him for something -
>>>> anything - and use it as an excuse for impeachment.
>>>
>>> And for two and half years the House did nothing. Only after iDJT
>>> solicitted a bribe did the House act.
>>
>> There was no such solicitation.
>
>
>
> .I agree.

Because you're a fucking idiot.

Trump solicited a bribe in that he tried to get Zelensky to give something
of value to Trump as a precondition of Trump performing an official duty.
That is the very definition of a bribe.

Trump wanted Zelensky to announce an investigation of Joe Biden when there
was no grounds for any investigation, and Trump knew there were no grounds.
He wanted the announcement in order to smear Biden. Trump didn't give a
fuck about any actual investigation - the mere announcement of it was the
dirt Trump wanted, in order to smear Biden. Trump was *not* interested
more generally in any corruption in Ukraine. In fact, Trump *promotes* the
kind of corruption that is rampant in Ukraine.

Trump solicited a bribe. You and your fellow fuckscum Hartung know this.

--
"I wish I could have felched Saul Alinsky, but he was already dead"
"jim" sjed...@mwt.net

[M I Wakefield]

"Phil Omdahl" wrote in message news:r6yLF.2531$Pb2....@fx40.iad...

> You are really dense. Trump ought to be impeached *and* removed.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal
from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor,
Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall
nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and
Punishment, according to Law.


Removal takes a super-majority vote, but upon removal, disqualification from
"any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States" takes only a
simple majority.

[Rudy Canoza]

No. Removal, upon impeachment, automatically causes ineligibility for any
future U.S. office.

[Phil Omdahl]

On 12/21/2019 6:55 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:

> You are proving quite an intellectual.

Not much is needed to dismiss the likes of a chump like you.

Your claim about the "timeline" [sic] of impeachment is bullshit. You know
this.

[Phil Omdahl]

On 12/21/2019 7:22 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 15:43:19 -0800, Phil Omdahl <idiot@number1>

> The correct words are

The correct words are, you're a fuckwit who doesn't know a fucking thing.

[Jade Helm]

Since the prosecutor who Biden had fired was investigating corruption
into his son Hunter’s involvement with Ukrainian gas company Burisma,
this admission by Joe Biden that he got the prosecutor fired is pretty
damning, showing clear personal motive to use his office to stop
investigation into his family. This is Abuse of Power. This is
subjecting U.S. foreign policy to the whims of an elected official,
squelching an investigation into his personal family, using the office
for personal gain.
So, when viewed through this lens the first impeachment article is a
complete lie. Trump didn’t do the things asserted. The transcript of the
phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky proves that. Trump made the
phone call public immediately. The phone call and Trump’s order to
review the foreign aid were contemporaneous but not conditional.

--
"Politics/government is the entertainment division of the
Military-Industrial Complex." Frank Zappa

www.globalgulag.us

http://globalgulag.us/globalgulag/index.html

[M I Wakefield]

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message news:HwBLF.3710$gy2....@fx42.iad...

Incorrect. As proof: Alcee Hastings was impeached as a federal judge in
1988, but the Senate didn't vote to disqualify, and Hasting was elected to
Congress in 1992 ... he's still serving.

[David Hartung]

According to what law?

[M I Wakefield]

"M I Wakefield" wrote in message news:qtmps6$qjl$1...@dont-email.me...

See also:

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/18/punishment-for-impeachment

[Rudy Canoza]

No, he was *not*. Stop with that fucking lie. There was *no*
investigation of either Burisma or of Hunter Biden by the corrupt
incompetent prosecutor Shokin, whom Biden correctly demanded be fired.
This is established public fact.

Fuck off and die with your stupid fucking lies.

[M I Wakefield]

Fun theory: Impeached presidents can't be pardoned for any crimes committed
in office.

https://twitter.com/DruckerPhilip/status/1208420452621668352

[Rudy Canoza]

According to the United States Constitution. I realize it's a document you
despise, but you should familiarize yourself with it all the same. It's in
Article I, section 3, Clause 7:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to
removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office
of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial,
Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

If Trump were to be convicted by a 2/3 vote of the Senate, which of course
he ought to be, then he could hold *NO* federal office thereafter - not
elective (representative, senator, president or vice president) nor
appointive (cabinet secretary or lower, judge, ambassador, Federal Reserve
governor - nothing at all).

Why do you despise the U.S. Constitution?

[Rudy Canoza]

Sounds completely wrong to me. A president can pardon *anyone* who is
subject to federal criminal prosecution, regardless of whether or not the
alleged crime occurred while the criminal held federal office. That is
*exactly* what Gerald Ford did with Richard Nixon. Ford preemptively
pardoned Nixon for any crimes he may have committed while Nixon was
president, thereby foreclosing any criminal prosecution of Nixon for those
crimes. That pardon may have been politically unpalatable and may have
helped to cost Ford the election in 1976, but it was valid and it stood.
Nixon, of courese, wasn't impeached and removed, but Ford's pardon of him
wasn't in any way dependent on that.

That opinion cited in your link is bullshit. We might both wish it wasn't,
but it is. If a possible President Pence were to pardon Trump
preemptively, as Ford did for Nixon, there would not be any possible
prosecution of Trump, regrettable as that would be.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <qtmpde$olg$1...@dont-email.me>,

Jade Helm <jade...@cocks.net> wrote:

> Since the prosecutor who Biden had fired

Russian troll.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <rpntvet38qv987uah...@4ax.com>,

Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

> >You are really dense. Trump ought to be impeached *and* removed.
>

> The correct words are "impeached" and "convicted".

Conviction implies removal, and removal implies conviction.

[David Hartung]

Was not a Federal judge named Alcee Hastings impeached and removed in
the 1980s? Is not that same Alcee Hastings currently serving in the
House of Representatives?

[NoBody]

Problem is that this time isn't any different than the others.

[NoBody]

On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 19:55:04 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 15:01:14 -0800, Phil Omdahl wrote:

>>On 12/21/2019 1:34 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:06:15 -0800, Phil Omdahl wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no "negation" or "overturning" of the election. The
>>>> founders *prescribed* this remedy for a president who abuses his power.
>

>Good ol' Phil does a lot of unmarked snipping here.

It's Rudely and that's typical of his twitness.

>
>>> That might work except for the known time line. Impeachment promises -
>>> and actual planning - started the day after he was elected.
>

>I love how the rabid left snips a full line of logic anyone from the
>moderate left, the center, the moderate right, or the full right posts
>and then replies with what passes for a "full line of logic" from the
>rabid left. Quoted in full below.
>
>>That's bullshit.
>
>You are proving quite an intellectual. Withering keen mind and all
>that.

Standard Rudely stupidity.

>
>I also love how you quote yourself on your first point, snip my reply,
>snip quoting your second point, and then leave my answer to point two
>as if it were a reply to point one. Maybe holding two thoughts at the
>same time is over-taxing.

Breathing for Rudely is a challenge.

[NoBody]

On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 15:36:49 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <eh2tved5o0suiaq1l...@4ax.com>,
> Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>> For almost three months he was not President; had zero power to do
>> anything; had zero power TO abuse - but the rabid elements of the left
>> were actively plotting and planning how to frame him for something -
>> anything - and use it as an excuse for impeachment.
>
>And for two and half years the House did nothing. Only after iDJT
>solicitted a bribe did the House act.
>
>The few on every fringe want all kinds of things. A few iDJT
>supporters want him to dissolve Congress and rule as a christian
>king. That's why the fringe is the fringe: no one else partakes
>in their crazy.

Most people would settle for actual evidence for the case.

[NoBody]

On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 23:02:13 -0500, "M I Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
wrote:

Rudely is an idiot and not worth the time conversing with.

[NoBody]

And "Josh" has run away again.