Speaking of impeachment.........

Dude, the federal gov't is a republic. The macro view of The Constitution says as much.

 

I agree. Senators for whatever reason just didn't think those Clinton crimes were impeachable.

 

Each state gets as many EC votes as there are congresscritters from said state. If you're thinking that's inequitable, maybe you should take that up with the US Census and those who determine the number of a state's congresscritters based on US Census population data.

 

No they just didn't want to remove him from office. They desperately wanted to censure him but the Senate in an impeachment trial cannot do that. He was already impeached and yes FELONIES are high crimes. The Senate only decides if they will remove him. When a President, who is also a lawyer, the highest enforcer of the law walks into a federal court and having already committed felonies going into that court, commits a prima facie act of perjury and obstruction of justice with the judge sitting right there in front of him, then does so again before a federal grand jury investigating THAT crime, he has grossly violated his oath of office along with the high crimes and misdemeanor. Of course the MSM was trying to make it all about sex which it wasn't.

Biden now has his own selling influence scandal, we'll see how his defenders rally around this one or will they have the wherewithal to impeach and remove him.

 

They don't count them equally in your state?

You don't vote in California, the vote in YOUR state for YOUR state's slate of electoral votes is entirely separate from any other state.

We are NOT a Democracy as guarantied by the Constitution. We are a Republic of States and the States select the President. There are no national offices in our federal republic.

 

BWAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAA!

Thanks for ESTABLISHING that you do NOT know the meaning of the term republic.

PRICELESS!

 

NOT all congressional districts contain an IDENTICAL number of voters.

That is WHY the EC is a TRAVESTY that MUST be ABOLISHED.

 

Thanks for ESTABLISHING that you too do NOT know the meaning of the term republic.

PRICELESS!

 

Right. My choice of impeachable in a previous was incorrect. What I meant to post was Senators didn't think Clinton's crimes were dire enough to remove him from office.

 

Well, The Constitution has its own definition for republic. I'd say The Constitution is an authority on the subject.

 

The US federal gov't isn't a democracy...You're ascribing for something the federal gov't isn't: a democracy...It's a republic.

The Constitution says the federal US gov't is a republic.

 

Probably because the genesis of the investigation was an affair between consenting adults. Not the illegal extortion of a foreign leader to extract campaign assistance or inspiring supporters to attempt to violently steal the election.

 

Nope. The genesis of the impeachment was over Clinton's lying under oath.

 

The YOU should have no problem CITING that definition in the Constitution.

So CITE that DEFINITION for the term "republic" from the Constitution that YOU allege exists.

NOT going to be holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

 

Now YOU are just FLAILING because you do NOT know the ACTUAL definition of a republic.

SAD!

 

No matter how "dire" they were not going to remove him. They created the narrative about "oh it was just about a BJ we don't impeach and remove Presidents over a BJ". You do realize it was not about a BJ don't you? It was about a federal civil rights lawsuit by a former subordinate employee whom he had sexually harassed and assaulted and his lying in a federal court about evidence he was REQUIRED to give.

 

Oh please elaborate then what am I missing and where does the Constitution establish us as a Democracy and still waiting for you to tell me when was the last time you voted in a national election.

 

GUARANTIES IT!

 

Debating The Constitution, I see. Next, you're probably gonna tell me all fascists are righties.

 

The genesis of the investigation was WhiteWater.

 

The US republic is a collection of states. One doesn't consider a democratic majority of the whole nation. Rather, one determines the democratic majority of each state.

 

Where are you from?

 

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

The investigation was about perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering in a federal civil rights lawsuit by a former subordinate employee whom he had sexually harassed and assaulted. Under the Molinari amendment which CLINTON SIGNED INTO LAW with much celebration by feminist groups a boss being sued for sexual harassment is REQUIRED to give testimony as to any subordinate employees of whom he solicited sexual favor and then gave special treatment, gifts or favors as that supports the plaintiffs case.

During the deposistion, which judge Wright took the unusual step of attending, Clinton's attorney objected to him having to give that testimony. He signed the law but asserts it doesn't apply to him. the judge told him to his face federal law says he does.

Now if you want to make the case that bosses being sued for sexual harassment and assault in federal court can lie and get away with go ahead. If you make the case that Presidents do not have to obey the law even ones they sign into law go ahead. But the "oh it was consensual" is of NO MATTER. He committed VERY SERIOUS FELONIES.

 

Nope they were separate one had nothing to do with the other.