Impeachment

When Is an Officer Impeached? II

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Are we there yet? Probably.

As I noted in an earlier post, because the Democratic leadership has decided to sit on the articles of impeachment that were adopted by the House majority, there is now a bit of a debate on the question of whether President Donald Trump has actually been impeached yet. Not much turns on that question since Trump retains all the powers of the office of the president up until the moment he is convicted in a Senate impeachment trial. But the answer to that question turns out to be less obvious than one might expect.

The answer matters more in the states, where some constitutions provide for the suspension of an officer upon his impeachment. As I noted, a Florida court once thought, at least, that the officer is not impeached until representatives of the lower chamber actually appeared in the upper chamber and levied charges against an officer. The Florida court pointed to English and American practice in support of that interpretation of what it means for the House to impeach someone.

The Florida court was probably right about the federal practice up until that point in 1868. But congressional practice has changed.

When the House contemplated its first impeachment, of Senator William Blount in 1797, there was a fair amount of uncertainty about how it should do it. Legislators looked to the English Parliament to try to figure out how the process worked and did their best to follow along.

Notably, that meant passing a resolution in the House designating someone to walk over to the Senate and impeach Senator Blount. The Senate Journal records that a message had been received from the House to be delivered by Representative Samuel Sitgreaves, to wit:

Mr. President: I am commanded, in the name of the House of Representatives, and of all the people of the United States, to impeach William Blount, a Senator of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors; and to acquaint the Senate, that the House of Representatives will, in due time, exhibit particular articles against him, and make good the same.Mr. President: I am commanded, in the name of the House of Representatives, and of all the people of the United States, to impeach William Blount, a Senator of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors; and to acquaint the Senate, that the House of Representatives will, in due time, exhibit particular articles against him, and make good the same.

The House had commanded Sitgreaves to go to the Senate and impeach Blount. Once that was done, then the Senate could send notice to Blount that he had been impeached and could prepare for trial. The House would draft and exhibit in the Senate articles of impeachment later.

This was the form that the House used to impeach officers all through the nineteenth century. The form was the same when the House impeached judges, a justice, a cabinet member, and a president. In 1904, the Senate sergeant-at-arms announced the presence of a member of the House who

In obedience to the order of the House of Representatives we appear before you, and in the name of the House of Representatives and of all the people of the United States of America we do impeach Charles Swayne, Judge of the district court of the United States for the northern district of Florida, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The Senate was further informed that "in due time" the House would "exhibit articles of impeachment" and "demand that the Senate shall take order for the appearance of the said Charles Swayne to answer the said impeachment."

That was the last time the House used this form of impeachment. In 1912, the Senate Journal records a rather different message from the House. At that time, the House instructed its chief clerk to send a written message to the Senate which was then entered into the record of the upper chamber. The clerk was "directed to communicate to the Senate"

Resolved, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this House has impeached, for high crimes and misdemeanors, Robert W. Archbald, circuit judge of the United States.

The Senate was merely notified that the House had already impeached Judge Archbald and informed that a set of named managers had been appointed to exhibit before the Senate articles of impeachment. Subsequently the House likewise adopted resolutions specifying that an officer "is impeached," as it did with President Bill Clinton in 1998, and then sent a written message to the Senate informing the upper chamber that an impeachment had occurred and demanding that the Senate convict and remove the officer in question.

Up through 1904, an impeachment was an act performed by the House on the floor of the Senate. Since 1912, the Senate hears about an impeachment in the past tense.

If we take the House practice as decisive, then President Trump could credibly claim to have not yet been impeached and could enjoy that status until the House sends one of its members to the Senate to impeach him—if this were 1868. But since the early twentieth century, the House has uniformly adopted a different practice. It has declared that an officer is impeached at the moment of the House vote and then just sends the paperwork over to the Senate letting them know what has happened.

Sorry, Mr. President, you've been impeached. Probably.

Advertisement

NEXT: Elizabeth Warren Fails Her Own Public Education Purity Test

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You are over-complicating this. He is impeached. Senate can now proceed to the trial. Sending the articles is not mentioned at all in the Constitution. House is done. Senate can now act.

    1. The thing is, the Senate wants to pretend it never happened almost as much as the President does.

      Mitch MUCH prefers not doing things rather than doing things. Before starting the trial, he has to swear an oath to be impartial, and I wonder if he can be charged with perjury for breaking it

      1. You sure make a big deal out of this impartiality shit, but only for one party. Not a single Senator is undecided. They may say they are; thus compounding the perjury charge.

        Politicians are biased. Senators are biased. Who the dickens do you think you are fooling by pretending to be unbiased yourself about which Senators are unbiased?

        1. Yeah funny how no one talks about “impartiality” when Democrat Senators have publicly announced they would convict Trump even before the trial has happened.

        2. The House inquiry and impeachment vote were the most biased thing I have ever seen. Now the Senate should be impartial? Why, you certainly are not! LOL

          1. At least appear unbiased. You know, statesmanlike.
            It’s no good how the right now elevates tantrums as righteous.

            Boasting you are coordinating with the White House and arguing against the existing Senate rules is the unusual short term partisan gain with no regard to anything else.

            1. You do remember that both the House and Senate coordinated with Clinton during his impeachment, don’t you?

              Or are you too far gone to admit that the House was not only biased but violated their own oaths to the Constitution.

        3. “You sure make a big deal out of this impartiality shit, but only for one party.”

          I only referred to Mitch. How many parties does he belong to?

      2. Mitch is no more at being at risk for being charged for perjury than Warren, Sanders, Schumer, Graham, etc.

        But in any case the oath was promulgated as a Senate rule and violation of the oath is a Senate matter not criminal.

        1. If the oath has no power, why does it exist?

      3. Wouldn’t the oath also apply to Dem Senators? Like those who have already declared their support for impeachment?

        1. Being in support of impeachment means approximately nothing. Presumably, you mean the ones who have already declared their support for conviction (and/or removal). Depends on what they do, and say, after the trial begins.

          1. Damn Jimmy,
            You’re more twisted than a pretzel!

    2. I’d say he was explaining it rather than overcomplicating it. And the explanation seems to reveal that when an officer is impeached depends on what the House actually resolves, which may differ from case to case. In this case the House :

      “Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United
      States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and
      that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to
      the United States Senate:
      ….blah blah blah detail of articles”

      which reads to me that the House did actually impeach Trump by explicitly resolving so to do, and also resolved that the articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate. Consequently, the impeachment itself is complete. The exhibition of the articles to the Senate remains to be done, but is of no constitutional significance, since articles are not mentioned in the constitution, nor was the impeachment made conditional on their exhibition to the Senate – it was unconditional.

      Thus it seems to me that from a constitutional point of view, this impeachment is done, and it’s now up to the Senate to try the impeachment if, and when, and how, it pleases. If the House’s officers decine to exhibit the articles and appoint managers by the time the Senate chooses to start the trial, it’ll presumably be quite a short trial.

      1. “Resolved, having voted on two articles of impeachment, we now hesitate, to provide time to consider others.”

        1. Fine, there’s no rule that says a given session of the House can’t impeach an officer twenty times on twenty different (or, even, the same) counts. This impeachment is, however, in the books. Perhaps the House will decide to initiate another impeachment, perhaps not.

          1. Decide not to bother holding a trial? Yeah, I’m sure the House would just ignore that and not bother to address it by sending articles of impeachment to the Senate again (and again).

  2. So you’re saying, based on the historical precedents, that the President is both impeached and not impeached?

    Erwin Schrödinger called, he says you confused the heck out of him.

    1. Presumably, you asked the not-dead Schrodinger, because the one that’s been dead for almost 60 years isn’t confused by much of anything these days.

  3. ” there is now a bit of a debate on the question of whether President Donald Trump has actually been impeached yet.”

    I suggest that this issue can be resolved neatly and effectively by differentiating between “impeached” and “formally impeached”. Mr. Trump and his apologists can sit back and expound on the latter, while pretty much everyone else settles on the former.

    1. The problem is that many in the “everyone else” category is claiming that the Senate can’t act until it receives the articles.

      1. They can’t act on what the house did. Not directly. They could enact their own rules that provide a timeline to be valid for consideration. They could even enact rules that state that unless the impeachment of whatever officer (remember this isn’t just about POTUSes) is for an actual crime, they automatically “acquit” or dismiss.

        Think of that latter like a court deciding that if a cop gives you a ticket for something that isn’t illegal, they dismiss the case. One might even call it “A frivolous charge”. Seems like that might exist somewhere.

      2. Well, they can’t, but that’s not a constitutional issue. It’s just that their current impeachment rules, adopted back when Clinton was in office, state that they start things off once the House notifies them who the managers will be.

        Until they change that rule, their own rules, NOT the Constitution, let the House delay things.

        1. If the House or rather the Speaker refuses to name Managers for nakedly political reasons and even worse to attempt to force the Senate to act as the House wishes it to act, in direct violation of the Constitution, it seems to me the the Senate, acting on it’s own could simply schedule the trial to begin and inform the house.

        2. That’s technically incorrect. The Senate rules state:

          IV. Sequence of events at the beginning of a trial……………….9
          1. First a message(s) from the House of Representatives
          is received containing the information that the House
          has voted impeachment, adopted articles, and appointed
          managers. The Senate then adopts an order informing the
          House when it is ready to receive the managers to
          present the articles of impeachment

          From:

          PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES FOR
          IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN THE
          UNITED STATES SENATE

          (REVISED EDITION)

          PREPARED PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 439,
          99TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION

          https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-99sdoc33/html/CDOC-99sdoc33.htm

          1. However, as we know, the rules can be reinterpreted by a simple majority vote. Reid’s playbook on the filibuster offers a tutorial.

            1. Changing the rules specifically to get the outcome you want is generally frowned upon by American voters. That’s a good way to lose the Presidency AND control of the Senate.

    2. I didn’t see anything in the Constitution about the difference between impeached and formally impeached. Really this controversy just rests on the Senate rules.

      The Senate should probably pass a rule that deems an impeachment that is not transmitted by the house within 90 days as dropped, and then hold a vote to formally dismiss it. I don’t think anyone can doubt the fairness of that, it’s up to the House to shit or get off the pot.

      1. I don’t see anything in the constitution that says the House can impeach someone for things that are not crimes, but here we are.

        It says “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” – nothing about “and things that aren’t against the law”.

        But really once you understand that “impeached” merely means accused, it falls away.

        The cop gives you a ticket – this is him accusing you of a crime.

        The cop files the ticket with the court – this is you being charged with a crime.

        What the House has done is they have written a ticket. They have accused the president of … not committing a crime. Telling the Senate would be charging him with … not committing a crime. Then the Senate can get on with trying him for not committing a crime, with people appointed by the House to prosecute him for not committing a crime.

        1. “I don’t see anything in the constitution that says the House can impeach someone for things that are not crimes, but here we are. ”

          I guess because everyone else can. The House has sole power to impeach… that means they decide whether or not to impeach, not you.

          1. Poor Jimmy keeps forgetting about that pesky Constitution which makes clear that one can only be impeached for a high crime/misdemeanor.

            Seriously, were is the US law that makes Obstruction of 1/2 of Congress a crime by a co-equal branch of government? That is why we have three co-equal branches of government to resolve those type issues by a 2-1 majority.

      2. I didn’t see anything in the Constitution about the difference between impeached and formally impeached.

        Apparently the president was informally impeached 19 minutes after taking the oath of office, according to one narrative floating around.

        1. ” the president was informally impeached 19 minutes after taking the oath of office, according to one narrative floating around.”

          The D’s might have wanted to impeach him since day one, but they waited until he actually did what he’s accused of.

          1. And what is that? I have no idea what they are accusing him of having done that is criminal. I know they are charging him with abuse of power: a rather vacuous accusation that he pressured the Ukraine into investigating Biden, by withholding a White House meeting, and military aid. The aid was delayed, but delivered. And, a meeting? Seriously? The second is nonsense, since there is a legal recourse regarding a response to subpoena, to which the POTUS availed himself. POTUS did not defy a court order for his staff to appear, he defied the subpoena. Not treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors, by any stretch.

            1. There are a bunch of previous VC posts about how impeachment needn’t be criminal, and also outlining how what Trump did with the funding was criminal.

              Did you forget all of those?

              1. Did you forget that the President has the sole power of foreign policy?

                Did you forget basic rules of evidence?

                1. The president does not have the sole power of foreign policy. Where on earth did you get that idea?

            2. “And what is that?”

              He withheld an official act (delivering military aid to Ukraine authorized by Congress) to demand compliance with something he wanted for personal gain (an announcement that Ukraine was investigating his possible election rival.)

              This is impeachable for two reasons… first, it looks very much like a bribe, and second, it is inviting foreign interference in American elections, which at one point in time (up to about 3 months ago) would have OUTRAGED Republicans.

              Your argument that he was so clumsy in soliciting the bribe that he didn’t actually manage to get it, therefore it isn’t really impeachable, is just dumb. You don’t get off from your bank robbery charge because you forgot to bring your gun to the bank and therefore didn’t actually get any money before you ran away.

      3. “I didn’t see anything in the Constitution about the difference between impeached and formally impeached. Really this controversy just rests on the Senate rules.”

        I didn’t either. So?

  4. I saw in a different forum a rather extended fantasy that ran like this: The Senate should simply adopt rules for handling impeachment that said if articles of impeachment were not forwarded to the Senate within 24 hours of passage in the House, the Senate deems the case dismissed. (My summary doesn’t do the original grandiosity any justice.)

    The problem with that fantasy is that absolutely nothing in that fantasy (or real life) prevents the House from simply passing the articles again, and presenting them to the Senate in less than 23:59:59, whenever they want.

    1. Two things:

      1. They certainly could impose a timeline for bringing charges to the senate. This is a standard feature of our legal system. Federal law requires an indictment within 30 days of a criminal complaint, for example.

      2. The Senate could do more than ‘dismiss’ them, they could establish a rule that automatically acquits the accused if the articles aren’t transmitted in a timely manner, which would prevent future impeachment articles on the same charges based on the same evidence. (Acquittal

      I’m not saying they should do such a thing, but they certainly could. And it’s pretty ridiculous to formally impeach the president, and then sit on it for months before transmitting it to the Senate. It undercuts the whole argument for impeachment if it doesn’t demand immediate action.

      1. Standard features of our legal system are inapplicable to impeachments, which are standard features of our constitutional system. The legal system is derived from the Constitution. You cannot logically use it to constrain the Constitution.

        On your last point, if the House has intent to see Trump removed from office, it is hardly ridiculous to hesitate now, after McConnell announced both complicity with Trump, and also his own intent and certainty to dismiss the case. The hesitation becomes an expeditious (if unlikely) means toward achieving the goal. That’s why Trump supporters don’t like it.

        1. The Constitution lists several things about impeachment, none of which say that the standard features of our legal system are inapplicable to impeachment.
          In fact, the Constitution says that impeachment can only be for treason (a crime), bribery (a crime), and “high crimes or misdemeanors” (crimes). The Senate is then to conduct a trial.
          So why wouldn’t standard features of our legal system apply?

          Equally, Congress uses laws to detail the rights/responsibilities mentioned in the Constitution all over the places, so why would that suddenly stop happening here?

          Also, talking about Republican “complicity” is funny, considering several Senate Democrats are *running for President* having publicly announced the intention to convict Trump before he was even impeached…

          1. “In fact, the Constitution says that impeachment can only be for treason (a crime), bribery (a crime), and “high crimes or misdemeanors” (crimes).”

            In fact, the Constitution says that impeachment is the sole power of the House, which means that impeachment can be for whatever the House says is an impeachable offense.

            “The Senate is then to conduct a trial.
            So why wouldn’t standard features of our legal system apply?”

            Because impeachment isn’t a criminal trial (duh). So features of the criminal law system are not applicable. Because the “standard features” of our legal system come from two sources… the Constitution directly, and from Congress, which has the authority to change anything that didn’t come directly from the Constitution. The Constitution expressly limits some things it restricts to only proceedings of criminal law.

            The Senate can choose to limit itself to analogues of criminal trial proceedings, if it chooses to, but (surprise!) it isn’t going to do that. If they did that, the prosecution would have the power to compel witnesses to appear, and Mitch and the boys absolutely don’t want that.

            1. “Sole power” means that no other chamber or branch can impeach. That’s all. The Constitution is the only thing allowed to determine what the House can impeach for, and that exhaustive listing is 1) treason, 2) bribery, and 3) high crimes and misdemeanors.

              As for the Senate, the Constitution says that “the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Therefore, as per the Constitution, the Senate portion of the impeachment process is a trial. Period.

              If you take the argument logically, since everything the House can impeach for is a crime, any trial in the Senate must be a criminal trial. The Supreme Court has punted on the question, much like they punt on any other difficult issue, which has left the process open to much “interpretation”.

              I know that currently, “impeachment is a political process” is the rule of the day, which has been taken to mean whatever the listener’s partisan viewpoint means at that time. And what you describe is what is currently happening… but it does not actually follow from the text of the Constitution.

              The correct answer would be for Congress to pass laws to describe what “high crimes and misdemeanors” are, the same way the Constitution describes treason and federal statute describes bribery, and to lay out exactly what the impeachment process is… just like Congress passed laws for the details of everything else they do under their broad Constitutional powers.

        2. Lathrop, give it a rest. Look, the House voted for impeachment. The deed is done. Among the many arguments they made was that this POTUS was a clear and present danger, and/or a national security threat. If the House chooses to delay transmission, just what do you think that says?

          The average person is going to look at this sorry spectacle and conclude that the Team D partisans who made those arguments are full of brown bovine organic matter.

          That will translate over to the ballot box, which is where we should be settling this dispute. It is clear our elected leaders cannot. We the People can sort this out. Can’t wait until November 2020, so I can vote out that son of a bitch Andy Kim (NJ D-3).

          1. But he writes the sweetest pop songs!

          2. Impeachment is explicitly set up as separate from the ballot box.

            It will get settled there, but this dispute does not belong there.

            1. In this case, I disagree Sarcastr0. We actually want the people to settle this at the ballot box. That is how we gain consensus.

              Where I do agree with you: political disputes should be resolved by our elected leaders. They have shown themselves to be uniquely incapable of the task.

          3. Among the many arguments they made was that this POTUS was a clear and present danger, and/or a national security threat. If the House chooses to delay transmission, just what do you think that says?

            I think it says that the House wants to see a path that could at least conceivably lead to the clear and present danger being eliminated, instead of abetted. You don’t see that? Really?

            I prefer more forthright discussions than these impeachment threads have delivered. I keep urging a trial in the Senate, structured to give Trump supporters everything they could want in the way of witnesses, even the whistle-blower and both Bidens. So far, no one on the Trump side says they want that. Why not? Preferring a sham process to get their guy off the hook is why not.

            When the Trump side complains the process is tearing the country apart, I think they have a point. Then they lunge for the one possible approach—a sham acquittal—which will maximize the damage. Good going, guys.

            What would minimize, “tearing the country apart,” would be a full trial, with witnesses, counsel, process for producing witnesses and evidence, examination and cross-examination. In short, sunlight. Then, no matter how the verdict came out, at least everyone could judge the result in light of the evidence. That would let political accountability do its work. But what the pro-Trump side wants most is no accountability at all. They make that clear in nearly every comment. That is what is tearing the country apart.

            1. No, I don’t see that = I think it says that the House wants to see a path that could at least conceivably lead to the clear and present danger being eliminated, instead of abetted. You don’t see that? Really? In the words of the immortal Gary Coleman, Whatchu talkin’ ’bout Willis?

              Now just what the hell do you think clear and present danger or national security threatmeans, Lathrop? Those phrases strongly imply urgency, and a necessity to act quickly (if not immediately). Now you want people to believe this was true even if the House delays (or refuses) to transmit these articles to the Senate. Let me see if I follow Lathrop Logic correctly…The guy is a clear and present danger, but not enough of a clear and present danger to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate? What? That is really something. Just what do you take us for?

              No, it is pretty obvious what happened here. Team D made their choice, and now the country has to live with the aftermath. This one can only be settled at the ballot box. That suits me just fine. I will happily cast my vote against that son of a bitch Andy Kim who voted for this travesty. Our Republic has been cheapened and disgraced with this action.

              As for any question about whether it ‘counts’ or not. It is utter crap and moot. The deed is done. The House voted to impeach, POTUS Trump is impeached. Just get the damned trial over with, and the country can move on.

              1. “Now just what the hell do you think clear and present danger or national security threatmeans, Lathrop? Those phrases strongly imply urgency, and a necessity to act quickly (if not immediately).”

                There’s two parts in there, necessity to act is one, and quickly is the other. Doing nothing right away is acting quickly, and it’s what Mitch wants to do. It takes some pretzel-worthy logic to get the House majority and Mitch on the same side of an issue, as you have argued. The key, here, is that “quickly” is the less important part of the equation. The House majority wants Trump to be either limited or removed… they can’t have that right away. So, they’re choosing between getting nothing right away, or getting at least a chance of getting something, later.

                Allow an analogy:
                The goal of buying lottery tickets is to get rich quick.
                I’ll offer you two choices… one is to get a lottery ticket to last week’s lottery drawing. The other is to get a lottery ticket for next week’s lottery drawing.

                By the logic you’ve advanced, the person who wants to get rich quickly should buy the ticket to last week’s drawing, because then they don’t have to wait a week to find out they didn’t win the jackpot.

                1. Pollock, I didn’t make the rules here. The House held their hearings. They impeached POTUS Trump. The evidence record they have, is what they have. Now make your case to the jury, which in this case is the Senate.

                  Memo to Speaker Pelosi: Quit whining about the rules and get on with it.

                  1. “Pollock, I didn’t make the rules here.”

                    Didn’t realize that I did. So sorry.

                    Anyways, I’m sorry your prior argument was so badly flawed, but your prior argument was badly flawed. I stand by my criticism of it.

          4. “The average person is going to look at this sorry spectacle and conclude that the Team D partisans who made those arguments are full of brown bovine organic matter. ”

            The ones who aren’t already team R will concede that the team R defenses are equally bovine excrement. Note that approximately nobody has advanced actual innocence as a defense. He did it.

          5. “The average person is going to look at this sorry spectacle and conclude that the Team D partisans who made those arguments are full of brown bovine organic matter.”

            When a clinger uses “average person” he means below-average person — lousy education, lack of marketable skills, shambling character, superstitious, bigoted, stale-thinking — usually from a deplorable, couldn’t-keep-up backwater.

        3. Do you also accuse Dem Senators of complicity with Pelosi for having voiced their support for impeachment prior to passage of the Articles?

          1. No. Being in favor of impeachment does not imply a failure of impartiality once the trial begins.

            Did you mean to ask about Senators opining that conviction was appropriate before the trial begins?

      2. “1. They certainly could impose a timeline for bringing charges to the senate. This is a standard feature of our legal system. Federal law requires an indictment within 30 days of a criminal complaint, for example.”

        Sure. And, as I said before, the House can pass articles of impeachment and send them over within the time limit. They can either write new ones, or send the old ones again.

        “2. The Senate could do more than ‘dismiss’ them, they could establish a rule that automatically acquits the accused if the articles aren’t transmitted in a timely manner,”

        Sure. And, as I said before, the House can pass articles of impeachment and send them over within the time limit. They can either write new ones, or send the old ones again.

        “which would prevent future impeachment articles on the same charges based on the same evidence.”

        Oops. You’re talking out of your ass here.

        ” it’s pretty ridiculous to formally impeach the president, and then sit on it for months before transmitting it to the Senate.”

        I tend to agree, but at present, the expectation of pretty much everybody, R’s, D’s, and non-partisans, is that the R’s are going vote en bloc to acquit, regardless of whether or not Mr. Trump did what he’s been accused of. Sending the articles into that environment isn’t going to achieve anything, so might as well hold them to demand that Mitch at least pretend to hold a fair trial.

        I’m not 100% certain the conventional wisdom is correct. Removing Trump doesn’t put a Democrat in the White House, it puts a Republican in. Would Mitch and his pals prefer to work with President Pence?

        1. Whether Trump did what he is accused of and whether those actions rise to the level where he should be removed from office are two different questions.

          1. rsteinmetz, indeed they are different questions. That is why it will be good for the nation—to address the, “tearing the nation apart,” concern from both sides—to hold as open a trial as possible, with witnesses, process to compel testimony and evidence, counsel for both sides, examination and cross-examination. That way we find out in a way which brooks no obfuscation from either side whether, “Trump did what he is accused of.” In short, the nation gets evidence.

            Then, with the truth and the Senators both in the room at the same time, the Senators are fully empowered to decide in light of the evidence whether, “those actions rise to the level where he should be removed from office.” Nobody says they can’t do it, whichever way they prefer.

            And then the nation gets to decide politically whether the Representatives and the Senators did it right. That is the process which the nation ought to demand. You ought to demand it too. Do you?

          2. “Whether Trump did what he is accused of and whether those actions rise to the level where he should be removed from office are two different questions.”

            Duh. That’s what the trial is for.

            1. Fine….then kindly ask Speaker Pelosi to transmit the fucking articles of impeachment to the Senate and get on with it. We’ll have ourselves a nice trial, and move on.

        2. ” …so might as well hold them to demand that Mitch at least pretend to hold a fair trial….”
          Where does the House get the power to demand such from the Senate? Under this logic, could the Senate have announced their refusal to consider any Articles not arrived at within constraints set by the Senate?

          1. “Where does the House get the power to demand such from the Senate?”

            From the Constitution.

            ” Under this logic, could the Senate have announced their refusal to consider any Articles not arrived at within constraints set by the Senate?”

            Can they announce this now?
            Hint: The answer is in the amendments.

            1. If the House still has some power over the impeachment process from its own Constitutional authority, then Trump is not yet impeached.

              The impeachment of an official is the end of the House’s Constitutional authority in the matter. There is nothing written about “transmission of the documents” or anything like that. If Trump is impeached, then only the Senate matters from then on: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. “

              1. “If the House still has some power over the impeachment process from its own Constitutional authority, then Trump is not yet impeached.”

                this seems to mean a lot to you.

                “The impeachment of an official is the end of the House’s Constitutional authority in the matter. There is nothing written about ‘transmission of the documents’ or anything like that. [unless you count the Senate rules that are written, and talk about “transmission”] If Trump is impeached, then only the Senate matters from then on: ‘The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. ‘”

                Mostly true, but at the same time, wholly unresponsive to what I wrote. Did you mean to reply to someone else?

            2. “Where does the House get the power to demand such from the Senate?”

              From the Constitution.

              Strange. My copy says the House only has sole authority over it’s own rules and Senate has sole authority over Senate rules.

              Could you point out the part where the House has authority to set Senate rules?

  5. What would we think of an elected prosecutor who got an indictment of a political opponent, knowing he could not possibly get a conviction on that indictment, but it didn’t much matter because he had no intention of actually pursuing the indictment in court anyway? He merely wanted to give the individual the stigma of being “indicted”. Maybe this prosecutor would even boast to his political allies, who would roar with delight, about what he had done.

    That’s what has happened here. But somehow Trump is the bad guy who is “breaking norms” and tearing down hallowed institutions. Impeached by a parliament of scoundrels and braying idiots.

    1. That’s what has happened here.

      Not exactly. Trump certainly tried to do what you described, but he was caught before his scheme could be successfully carried out. But you’ve certainly summarized why his impeachment is proper.

      1. Can’t both sides be right? He did a bad thing, but so did the Democrats fishing and investigating for years, motivated by the desire to hurt a political enemy?

        Which is more vile in the short term? The long term? Which is more harmful? The Constitution speaks to the badness of impeachment, but also speaks to the badness of the latter through the 4th and 5th Amendments. Which is the bigger danger to the Constitution?

        1. Which is worse is a dumb game. Also, Trumps deeds are established. The idea that the Dems are framing a guilty man seems supported more with feelings than facts.

          1. “Trumps deeds are established.”

            Not to a substantial portion of his partisan supporters.
            They cannot seem to see that Mr. Trump struggles to accomplish things; his preferred path to accomplishments is to take credit for things that other people have actually done.

    2. ” knowing he could not possibly get a conviction on that indictment”

      You’re making a number of assumptions. You’re certainly not alone in making those assumptions, but having lots of other people making the same wrong assumptions doesn’t make them true. Ask anyone who predicted a Hillary landslide in 2016.

      On other sites, I’ve seen a lot of people arguing that the D’s are trying to undo the 2016 election, which only proves that those people don’t understand what happens if Trump is convicted. I wouldn’t expect to see that here, although I wouldn’t be totally surprised, either.
      Would Mitch and the Senate R’s prefer to work with President Pence? Would they perhaps prefer any other R to be carrying their banner in 2020? Probably not, but not completely foregone, either.

      The House D’s might desperately wish they could put a D in the White House before the next election, but that isn’t one of the things they can do. They still think Trump is more objectionable than the hypothetical President Pence, and they don’t think much of Mr. Pence, either.

  6. Does anyone think this game the Dems are playing appeals to voters?

    1. As I’ve said, “this is a political process”, far from giving carte blanche, as its defenders so cavalierly toss off, means you will stand tall before the voters.

      But that is of no concern if the crime were obvious and undisputed. You wouldn’t need to play games.

      1. Heck, for Clinton the crime was obvious and undisputed, and the attackers still took it on the chin. Good luck with “Ya gotta read between the lines”.

        1. Clinton didn’t get removed from office, but he didn’t go completely unscathed, either. He had to surrender his law license in Arkansas. The facts that he didn’t want to practice law or live in Arkansas any more are trivial, of course.

          The House R’s lost that round because although Clinton was guilty, nobody thought he should have been asked that question under oath in the first place. They WANTED to impeach him for financial improprieties in the Whitewater development, but Starr didn’t deliver those goods, so they went with what they could get. For Trump’s special prosecutor, Mueller showed up with a case for obstruction of justice, but the House was going to let that one go and just try to beat him at the ballot box, until Trump started trying to mess with the election.

      2. “that is of no concern if the crime were obvious and undisputed. ”

        You mean like this one? (or the last one, for that matter.)

      3. Krayt, but how do you stand tall before the voters while trying to hide the evidence. Show me one comment on these threads, from any Trump supporter, who favors open process in the Senate, with witnesses, counsel for both sides, cross-examination, compulsory process for evidence and witnesses, etc. I hear complaints from Republicans about tearing the nation apart. Trying to exonerate Trump while hiding the evidence is the formula to do that.

        The problem seems to be that even Trump’s defenders think it would be repugnant to defend his conduct politically. So they want the conduct hidden. Prove you aren’t one of those. Join me in calling for a full trial in the Senate.

        1. The current Senate rules allow for all of that right now, Lathrop. The House did have multiple hearings with witnesses, and they are a part of the record. The House then impeached POTUS Trump. That is done.

          The House simply needs to present the case with the evidence they have. The Senate is the jury. Should be a snap, because the evidence is so compelling, right? After all, it convinced a majority of the House to impeach POTUS Trump. Let them convince 67 Senators to remove POTUS Trump. So make the case. They sure in hell haven’t convinced a majority of the country that POTUS Trump needs to be removed before an election.

          I personally don’t have a problem with POTUS Trump’s conduct wrt Ukraine. I don’t see anything remotely resembling a crime. Inelegant AF call, definitely cringe-worthy, but impeachment-worthy? I just don’t see it.

          1. “They sure in hell haven’t convinced a majority of the country that POTUS Trump needs to be removed before an election. ”

            Polling suggests otherwise.

            “I personally don’t have a problem with POTUS Trump’s conduct wrt Ukraine. I don’t see anything remotely resembling a crime.”

            You welcome foreign interference in American elections, noted.

            1. Don’t be asinine, Pollock.

              1. Says the guy who wants foreigners determining the winners of our elections.

                1. Says the guy that welcomed foreign interference in the US elections for years.

                  1. Gee, I don’t know if he did THAT. Can’t rule it out, but he’s only actually admitted the once.

                    1. Wait, you lent your account to Trump? Why would you do that?

                      I mean, after all your conspiracy theory gnashing and wailing for years about the Russia hoax based on UK, Australian, and Italian foreigners reports, and publicly celebrating the Ukraine’s criminal release of the Manafort records expressly to embarrass the Trump campaign, I thought you disliked Trump.

                      Oh, wait, I get it! You either don’t know how to read, or were trying to make some sort of deflection of your own misbehaviors back at someone else. It seems to be an attempt at wit, but as usual, you get only halfway there.

                2. Yeah Pollock, whatever. Asshole.

                  We’ll settle this the old fashioned, American way….at the ballot box.

            2. The average of polls of impeachment at fivethirtyeight show a small pro-impeachment support but it is nearly the smallest advantage since support overtook opposition back in late September. I won’t go into possible issues with their weighing of polls but I would note that polls that produce the largest pro-impeachment numbers also appear to directly ask about removal more than polls that produce lower support or disapproval of impeachment. It is not clear to me whether 538 does anything to address this issue.

              Realclearpolitics average of polls shows for the first time that there is now a slight overall disapproval of impeachment and removal. I’m not sure if/how they apply weights to polls so I can address that issue. Either way the size of the gaps between approval and disapproval on both websites is tiny and probably not good evidence to assert that one side or other has won the public over to their point of view. The one thing you can say from both averages is that the trend has been for a declining size of gap over time and the nation appears to be nearly evenly split on this issue.

  7. The senate could just schedule and begin the impeachment trial without delivery. Of course, the House could refuse to send over impeachment managers to try the case, which probably devolves to the same scenario you suggest. I doubt a court is going to want to get involved on ruling that delivery is necessary when the constitution is silent on the issue.

    1. Where is it written that the House has to provide the Impeachment Managers, I know that’s the way it has always been done but why couldn’t some one else do it? What happens if the Senate schedules a trial and the Impeachment Managers don’t show up? Can the Senate immediately move to vote and acquittal by default? That’s pretty much what would happen in a criminal trial if the Defense ofr Prosecutor didn’t show up.

      1. Where is it written that the House has to provide the Impeachment Managers,

        Senate rules.

    2. Since the Senate sets it’s own rules, can the Senate appoint it’s own choice of managers?

      1. Sure, if they don’t mind the obvious problem that rewriting the rules to get you the outcome you want isn’t the way voters like to see things done. That’s how you wind up with President Warren.

        1. Sure, if they don’t mind the obvious problem that rewriting the rules to get you the outcome you want isn’t the way voters like to see things done. That’s how you wind up with President Warren.

          As long as Pelosi,Schiff and Nadler are the faces of impeachment, that problem doesn’t exist. All are seen as virulent partisans and the more info that comes out about FISA abuses and spying on the Trump campaign the more people will relish Team D getting a dose of it’s own medicine.

  8. We need to get over the mechanics of this whole impeachment thing. It was a farce, a sham, completely engineered by the left to undermine a duly and lawfully elected President. Efforts must now turn to hold those accountable who have been perpetrating these crimes.

    1. Trump got duly and lawfully impeached after he got elected. And he duly and lawfully won’t get removed.

      Anyone wanting to punish members Congress in anything beyond elections has a problem with how our republic is set up. I know you in particular want to change how we’re set up through violence.

      It’s your right to speak that way; and it’s ours to scorn you for it.

      1. Impeachment was an abuse of the political process. A mockery of the House’s constitutional obligations. A sham. Nothing but using a veil of legitimate authority to try to undermine the President. This cannot be allowed to stand. There is no immunity for abusing such power. It is time for those who are responsible to answer.

        1. That’s a lot of words to say your guy totally did what they said he did.

        2. Half the country disagrees. Might mean your super angry analysis isn’t airtight.

          Good luck on your personal righteous crusade of posting veiled threats on the Internet.

  9. House should simply vote a resolution that they are not done. Still thinking about it, and about whether to add other charges. Sole power ought to take care of it from there.

    1. Boy that looks divisive.

      But I think in that case then Mitch can tell them to take all the time they want, he won’t schedule a trial until after the November elections because it’s not urgent anymore.

      And in the meantime Lindsey Graham can start holding his hearings on Biden’s firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor, and the results of Guiliani’s investigation.

      1. “Boy that looks divisive.”

        Overcoming a society’s lesser elements often is divisive. But the culture war is worthwhile, because it stifles clinger influence.

        1. Clearly, a visit from your alter ego Reverend Arthur I Kuckland is needed.

      2. “But I think in that case then Mitch can tell them to take all the time they want, he won’t schedule a trial until after the November elections because it’s not urgent anymore.”

        Mitch could do this already. He doesn’t, because he likes being the MAJORITY leader.

        “in the meantime Lindsey Graham can start holding his hearings on Biden’s firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor, and the results of Guiliani’s investigation.”

        President Warren would like that, and might even say so after she gets elected.

  10. Lawyers arguing about political actions. How about this?

    LAWYERS HAVEN’T ANY INSIGHT INTO A POLITICAL PROCESS. STOP PRETENDING YOUR OPINION MATTERS!

    1. You do know the VC offers full refunds if you are unsatisfied.

      1. Do you get double your money if your feelings also get hurt?

        1. Yea, I didn’t express that well
          Persons by the mere act of graduating law school, offer no better informed opinion than the average person on the street.

          THIS IS NOT A LEGAL MATTER.

          It is a political event with political considerations and consequences.
          Stop obscuring the reality, with meaningless legal mumbo jumbo

          1. Shocking, isn’t it, that lawyers tend to see things from a lawyer’s point of view.

            1. Applying standard that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, will provide answers to questions that dont pertain.
              In other words, you are wrong.
              But being wrong in the age of President Trump suits the Nation just fine, keep screaming into the night.

          2. Persons by the mere act of graduating law school, offer no better informed opinion than the average person on the street.

            The average person on the street has the IQ of confetti, so that’s probably not true.

            1. Look at the quality legal advice the President has received from law school graduates M. Cohen and R. Guiliani. There’s enough confetti for some people to get a second helping, apparently.

            2. Hunter Biden has a law degree.

  11. With Professor Laurence Tribe, from the Dem side, arguing the applicability of the Ninth Amendment to impeachment proceedings –

    https://reason.com/2019/12/20/when-is-an-officer-impeached/#comment-8060415

    …now is a chance for bipartisan agreement – allowing on both sides that the impeachment process is subject to the 9th Amendment, all that’s left is to figure out what the Ninth Amendment requires in this context.

    I’d say that at the time of the 9th Amendment, there was a consensus that the reserved rights of the people included a right to have justice – not merely criminal justice – administered without arbitrary delays. That’s a reasonable assumption since that right can be found in the Magna Carta and early state bills of rights.

    By analogy with the criminal process (without having to make impeachment a purely criminal process, since freedom from delay applies even to civil cases in small-claims court) – then consider Klopfer v. NC, 386 US 213 (1967). In this case, the court “dismissed” charges against a defendant while leaving the prosecutor with the power to refile the charges at any time, subject to the defendant’s right to claim a speedy-trial violation if and when the charge was reinstated. The Supreme Court said that wasn’t adequate – an arbitrary and undefined delay subject to the whim of the prosecution was not consistent with a speedy trial.

    So by analogy, once the House has voted to approve articles of impeachment, it can’t reserve to itself the arbitrary right to filed the charges in the Senate whenever they feel like it. The Senate can – and, I would argue, must, if the defendant insists – set a deadline for the formal exhibition of the impeachment charges to the Senate. And if the House misses the deadline, then the charges should be dismissed.

    1. Didn’t this get ripped apart last time you posted it as out taking Tribe of context and also being wrong?

      1. Why should that slow him down?

        He, like so many others, keeps thinking that if the Senate dismisses the charge (whether because the House missed a deadline or any other reason) the house can’t just re-impeach him.

        1. Of course, just like the Supreme Court *could* make up laws as it goes along (hypothetically) – I’m talking about what the people authorized them to do in the Constitution.

          1. Your imagination is quite vivid, but your grasp on reality is quite limp.

            1. You’re the one imagining a nonexistent rebuttal.

              1. No, your rebuttal is nonexistent, and you are imagining otherwise.

                1. In case you missed it, this is the imaginary rebuttal – imagined not by me but by you.

                  Sarcastr0
                  December.21.2019 at 5:04 pm
                  Didn’t this get ripped apart last time you posted it as out taking Tribe of context and also being wrong?

                  James Pollock
                  December.21.2019 at 5:26 pm
                  Why should that slow him down?

                  1. You see, when you make highly debatable assertions and then fail to provide any evidence or argument in favor of those assertions, and cite to imaginary arguments in your favor which don’t actually exist, that leaves the impression that maybe your case isn’t as rock solid as you imagine.

                    You’re asking people to take on faith that procedures without any precedent in Congressional impeachments are self-evidently justifiable – specifically, multiple impeachments for the same act. The only supporting arguments you’ve given are in the nature of “look over there!” and “Orange Man Bad.”

                    1. “You see, when you make highly debatable assertions and then fail to provide any evidence or argument in favor of those assertions, and cite to imaginary arguments in your favor which don’t actually exist, that leaves the impression that maybe your case isn’t as rock solid as you imagine.”

                      You seem to have neglected to cite to a claim I made. Is that one of the imaginary arguments in your favor that don’t actually exist that you were talking about?

                    2. You claimed that something that didn’t happen wouldn’t slow me down – and I guess you were accurate – you didn’t technically say Sarcastro’s claim was true, so good, you’re backing away from his accusation with your technically accurate denial.

                    3. Funny how admitting you were wrong takes so many separate comments… and don’t get around to actually admitting you were wrong.

                      Gee, I wish I’d predicted that. Oh, wait. I did.

                    4. Poor Sarcastro, you led him on. It’s as if he’d said

                      “Pollock is doing the Lizard People’s bidding by trying to replace Trump,”

                      and I’d replied

                      “Omg Pollock has no shame,”

                      then I got all indignant that you might understand that to mean I was supporting the lizard-people accusation.

                    5. shocking. A response that devolves to personal attack, to cover being caught out wrong a couple more times.

                      You’re predictable, Eddy.

                    6. You realize, don’t you, that I’m doing you a *favor* by letting you climb down so readily from supporting Sarcastro’s claim?

                      I indulged your pretense that you weren’t supporting his false assertion – I let you wiggle out through a technicality.

                      You’d think I’d get a bit of thanks.

                    7. “You realize, don’t you, that I’m doing you a *favor* by letting you climb down so readily from supporting Sarcastro’s claim?”

                      Right. By continuing to double down on the multiple times you were shown to be wrong in THIS thread, you’re firmly establishing how Sarcastro’s accusation that you doubled down after being proven wrong some other time is baseless and wrong.

                      Do carry on. and on, and on, and on…

                      “You’d think I’d get a bit of thanks.”

                      I already observed that you have an extremely vivid imagination, matched with an extremely limp grasp on reality.

                    8. “You’re asking people to take on faith that procedures without any precedent in Congressional impeachments are self-evidently justifiable – specifically, multiple impeachments for the same act.”

                      You’ve claimed (incorrectly) that Constitutional text precludes, specifically multiple impeachments for the same act. My claim is that nothing precludes it. If you want to disprove my claim, all you have to do is cite that which precludes re-impeachment. Or, in your mind, two or three comments that don’t address your failure to cite anything, and instead are just personal attacks. Why don’t you drag out one of your favorites, “Orange man bad”? That one’s always a hit!

                    9. OK, time to fish or cut bait.

                      Here’s the accusation you find plausible:

                      “Didn’t this get ripped apart last time you posted it as out taking Tribe of context and also being wrong?”

                      Now prove it.

                      Do it.

                    10. “You’ve claimed (incorrectly) that Constitutional text precludes, specifically multiple impeachments for the same act.”

                      Are you familiar with the Ninth Amendment? The amendment which I cited about rights *outside* the text?

                      That is, rights which exist even if they’re not mentioned in the text?

                      Why is this basic stuff so confusing to you?

                    11. You’re a demonstrated liar, Eddy. Even when you’re quoted directly, you suddenly didn’t say what you said.

                      Tell a few more lies, then go to bed.

                    12. “Why is this basic stuff so confusing to you?”

                      Because you have a vivid imagination, and a limp grasp of reality?

                    13. I was quite wrong, I admit.

                      I was wrong to let you off the hook when you endorsed Sarcastro’s lying comment.

                      You endorsed and supported the lie.

                      You know it’s absolutely false, but you backed it up, made a comment presuming it to be true, and you specifically say you find it plausible.

                      So, yes, I messed up in letting you off the hook on that one.

                    14. Now look, I lowered myself to your own disgusting level. I apologize – not to you, never to you – but to the reader.

                      I’ll never lower myself that far again. It’s too disgusting.

                    15. “you specifically say you find it plausible.”

                      I said I find it credible. Because, on multiple occasions, I’ve personally observed that you lie and resort to personal attacks when proven wrong. So, to find you accused of lying and resorting to personal attacks when proven wrong, that’s not “plausible”. It’s “credible”, and highly so.

                    16. “I’ve personally observed that you lie and resort to personal attacks when proven wrong”

                      I’m not responsible for the delusive visions you see when using whatever drugs you use.

                      Or maybe – Occam’s Razor – you are simply projecting your lying nature onto others.

      2. “Didn’t this get ripped apart last time you posted it as out taking Tribe of context and also being wrong?”

        Could you provide a link?

        1. Look, I know you’re not a fantasist, recalling only those “facts” which are convenient to you, so I’m sure that somewhere on the Internet is a rebuttal to my position, I ask simply that you link to it so everyone else can see it. That would prove it’s not simply something you imagined.

          1. Let me put it this way: How would someone who had no good arguments against me, have behaved differently than you? Like you, such a person would have attempted to avoid discussing the issues, and would have “remembered” seeing a rebuttal to my position somewhere but would have grown strangely quiet when asked to point out that rebuttal so others could read it, too.

            Come on, drop the fake memory of an imaginary rebuttal and come up with a rebuttal of your own, if you can.

            1. ” How would someone who had no good arguments against me, have behaved differently than you?”

              Given your history of imagining away good and obvious arguments against you, how you know the difference?

              1. You see, James, we’re dealing with a very specific claim here. I’m asking you to prove your claim, but for whatever reason you fail to do so.

                Sarcastr0
                December.21.2019 at 5:04 pm
                Didn’t this get ripped apart last time you posted it as out taking Tribe of context and also being wrong?

                James Pollock
                December.21.2019 at 5:26 pm
                Why should that slow him down?

                1. Let’s break down that claim into its component parts –

                  -Where was I shown to have taken Prof. Tribe out of context?

                  -Where was I shown to be wrong?

                  I don’t expect you to provide the necessary links, because your claim is simply wrong.

                  1. “Let’s break down that claim into its component parts”

                    Oh, yes, let’s do.

                    “Where was I shown to have taken Prof. Tribe out of context?”

                    Who cares?
                    Where did I say you were shown to have taken Prof. Tribe our of context, or in context, or any other way?

                    “Where was I shown to be wrong?”
                    In your imagination? Never happens. In reality… too many times to present.

                    Now, your turn:
                    My claim:
                    “He [here meaning YOU, specifically, Eddy], like so many others, keeps thinking that if the Senate dismisses the charge (whether because the House missed a deadline or any other reason) the house can’t just re-impeach him.”

                    Your “rebuttal”
                    “Of course, just like the Supreme Court *could* make up laws as it goes along (hypothetically) – I’m talking about what the people authorized them to do in the Constitution.”

                    Note the lack of citations showing where the Constitution prevents re-submitting articles of impeachment, and thus the dismissal of this response as an actual rebuttal.

                    Buh- bye, Eddy. Be sure to make a comment that doesn’t actually address your failure, followed by a few additional comments where you comment on your own comment.

                    1. Geez, I already accepted your disavowal of Sarcastro, if you’d held your horses for just a second you would have noticed!

                      I’ve already mentioned (in a remark you *don’t* quote) the lack of any Congressional impeachment precedent for your “impeach and impeach again for the same thing approach. That’s an argument, it doesn’t address my “failure” since you just made up that “failure.”

                    2. “I’ve already mentioned (in a remark you *don’t* quote) the lack of any Congressional impeachment precedent for your “impeach and impeach again for the same thing approach.”

                      You also claimed that Constitutional text precluded it (in a comment I *did* quote). Well?

                    3. Oh, hello again!

                      “You also claimed that Constitutional text precluded it (in a comment I *did* quote).”

                      Well, unless you can back that up, good-bye again.

                    4. “Well, unless you can back that up”

                      Such as by, say, quoting you, which I’ve already done?

                      I have no idea what Sarcastro was talking about, but I’m finding him increasingly credible.

                  2. OK, here’s the remark you quoted:

                    “Of course, just like the Supreme Court *could* make up laws as it goes along (hypothetically) – I’m talking about what the people authorized them to do in the Constitution.”

                    So I *didn’t* say “the constitutional text precluded it.”

                    And now that you’re going back to supporting Sarcastro’s assertion, I’m asking you once again to support it or back the fuck off.

                2. ” I’m asking you to prove your claim, but for whatever reason you fail to do so.”

                  What claim did I make?

                  1. I see that you’re abandoning poor Sarcastro. First you led him on, leading him to suppose you backed his assertion, now you realize his assertion can’t be sustained, it’s as if you never led him on at all! In fact, you never heard of him!

                    Fair enough, now that you’ve distanced yourself from Sarcastro I won’t hold you to account for his claim.

                    1. You said something which didn’t happen wouldn’t slow me down, and congratulations, you were quite right!

                    2. “you were quite right!”

                      This is only a surprise for you. (again)

      3. “Didn’t this get ripped apart last time you posted it as out taking Tribe of context and also being wrong?”

        Well, Sarcastro, it seems Pollock has abandoned you and denies supporting this claim of yours.

        So it’s up to you to prove it.

        Fish or cut bait.

        Provide a link to this rebuttal you claim exists.

        1. “it seems Pollock has abandoned you and denies supporting this claim of yours.”

          MUCH more correctly, it seems that Pollock will take your word that he said it, over his word that he didn’t, because Eddy has a disinclination for truth, particularly the kind of truth that shows when he’s demonstrably incorrect.

          1. Again, I regret crawling into the sewer with you and I shan’t do it again. Stay there immersed in your own shit.

            1. ” Stay there immersed in your own shit.”

              It reminds me of you.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.