Posted on 12/18/2019 6:26:53 PM PST by Hostage
“Impeachment” means “To Charge” not “To Convict.”
Now with the Left, to charge IS to convict.
Disagree. A vote for impeachment is not impeachment. It is a vote to commence the process of impeachment.
And Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize. Both things are just as meaningless.
Nixon resigned before he was impeached
“But impeachment means removal upon conviction.”
After reading the comments, I’m in agreement with those that say you are wrong. The Google definition of both ‘impeach’ and ‘impeachment’ have to do with a charge of misconduct or treason or otherwise calling certain acts into question.
As another poster said, it’s and indictment.
If Trump is not convicted, then he cannot be removed from office or prevented from running again.
Nixon probably would have been removed, and he knew it.
One is not correct, the other one is.
Yes... and the Aaron Burrs are now figuring out how and where they can.... run! We are coming. In the millions, armed with the Constitution, and the brilliance of the Founders.
The Constitution is not a “living document” to re-define the meaning of what can actually have to BE, as Articles of Impeachment, instead of the raving drug and booze addled rantings of crazed neo socialists and Marxists. They have just impeached..... THEMSELVES! That is the message which they do not seem to have understood as yet. It will begin to dawn on them.... like buyer’s remorse in a VD ward filled with whores and pimps.
No offense, but you're flat-out wrong about this. Give it up.
From Wikipedia: Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official. Whereas in some countries the individual is provisionally removed, in others they can remain in office during the trial. Once an individual is impeached, they must then face the possibility of conviction on the charges by a legislative vote, which is separate from the impeachment, but flows from it, and a judgment which convicts the official on the articles of impeachment entails the official’s definitive removal from office.
The House has accused him...unlike Clinton, he will be acquited of all charges...
An accusation is not a conviction. Clinton was determined to be guilty, yet his sentence did include removal from office.
and the people will still decide...
Simply another pussy hat march......this will define this party for years to come.
What in the name of all that is holy are you talking about? Better yet, what are you smoking?
With all due respect, your opinion is irrelevant. The Constitution makes clear that impeachment by the House and conviction and removal by the Senate are two different things.
I heard Hillary is at the White House right now measuring for Curtains ,LOL
“Nixon probably would have been removed, and he knew it.”
A group of Republican Senators went to Nixon and told him he would be convicted. He resigned and of course there was no vote to impeach held.
Impeachment means to bring charges against an official. It does not mean removal from office. Read the Constitution before you are tempted to write something that makes you look like an illiterate buffoon.
That is all wrong too.
how so?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.