Kelly expected to resign soon, no longer on speaking terms with Trump

[Buy1Sell2]

Thank you.

Let me slow it down:

First,

Please cite a rule, regulation, law, etc. that provides what you suggest--that a President can't be impeached [for violations occurring] prior to holding office.

Second,

Please cite a rule, regulation, law, etc. that provides that future Congresses are bound by prior Congresses with regard to impeachment proceedings.

So far, your assertions are based upon your opinions only.

This is based on precedent and is what The Left always cites. In fact it's the first question that Dianne Finklestein asks SCOTUS nominees.

 

[userque]

This is based on precedent and is what The Left always cites. In fact it's the first question that Dianne Finklestein asks SCOTUS nominees.

I monitor this thread. Feel free to provide the lawful cites to back up your opinions at any time. Enjoyed the debate!

Thank you.
Please cite a rule, regulation, law, etc. that provides what you suggest--that a President can't be impeached [for violations occurring] prior to holding office.

Please cite a rule, regulation, law, etc. that provides that future Congresses are bound by prior Congresses with regard to impeachment proceedings.

So far, your assertions are based upon your opinions only.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

I monitor this thread. Feel free to provide the lawful cites to back up your opinions at any time. Enjoyed the debate!

As with a lot of discussions of The Constitution, in the US, we really on interpretation and precedent. Just ask any Lefty about Roe v Wade and you'll see that precedent is what is followed. For example we have interpretation from the DOJ twice now where they say that a sitting president is unable to be impeached and that is being acknowledged by Robt Mueller as being accepted. In the case of Schuyler Colfax, please read the attached link from History Central and you will see that the House Judiciary committee set the precedent for this subject and precedent in the US makes it defacto law.
https://www.historycentral.com/Bio/rec/SchuylerColfax.html

 

[constitutionman]

I monitor this thread. Feel free to provide the lawful cites to back up your opinions at any time. Enjoyed the debate!

you keep pushing him like that, he is going to put you on his ignore list. don't waste your time with him. he is all huffs and puffs.

 

[userque]

As with a lot of discussions of The Constitution, in the US, we really on interpretation and precedent. Just ask any Lefty about Roe v Wade and you'll see that precedent is what is followed. For example we have interpretation from the DOJ twice now where they say that a sitting president is unable to be impeached and that is being acknowledged by Robt Mueller as being accepted. In the case of Schuyler Colfax, please read the attached link from History Central and you will see that the House Judiciary committee set the precedent for this subject and precedent in the US makes it defacto law.
https://www.historycentral.com/Bio/rec/SchuylerColfax.html

Thanks. Here is just one example of a cite: 18 U.S. Code § 111

You still fail to provide a cite to a rule, regulation, and/or law in the following respects:

1. Please cite a rule, regulation, law, etc. that provides what you suggest--that a President can't be impeached [for violations occurring] prior to holding office.

2. Please cite a rule, regulation, law, etc. that provides that future Congresses are bound by prior Congresses with regard to impeachment proceedings.

So far, your assertions are based upon your opinions only.

 

[userque]

you keep pushing him like that, he is going to put you on his ignore list. don't waste your time with him. he is all huffs and puffs.

He's OK. Just has some misunderstandings is all.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Thanks. Here is just one example of a cite: 18 U.S. Code § 111

You still fail to provide a cite to a rule, regulation, and/or law in the following respects:

I've already explained this in full. Debate? now concluded.

 

[userque]

I've already explained this in full. Debate? now concluded.

Thanks. I appreciate your 'explanation.' I'm looking for a cite to a rule, regulation, or law.

I understand you no longer want to debate; but keep in mind that I monitor this thread and if you should change your mind, I'd love to see those cites.

Thanks again