Please to be posting a copy of your law degree -it's quite clear you have no fucking clue on the US Constitution.
Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).
Please to be posting a copy of your law degree -it's quite clear you have no fucking clue on the US Constitution.
Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).
Please to be posting a copy of your law degree -it's quite clear you have no fucking clue on the US Constitution.
Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).
Please to be posting a copy of your law degree -it's quite clear you have no fucking clue on the US Constitution.
Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).
Please to be posting a copy of your law degree -it's quite clear you have no fucking clue on the US Constitution.
Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).
Please to be posting a copy of your law degree -it's quite clear you have no fucking clue on the US Constitution.
Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).
Please to be posting a copy of your law degree -it's quite clear you have no fucking clue on the US Constitution.
Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).
It's over - your overlords didn't have the votes.
Like we say, fuck off.
The Founding Fathers win again.
acquitted
not cleared of inciting the Capitol riot
words have meaning
Was cleared an option in the voting?
Take it up with the OP
OK
Let’s go with exonerate or vindicate. Clear is mild yet still appropriate.
Does those work, Lionel?
You really are terrible at this, but given your fantasy life of being some Hot Shot I understand. Limited mental ability is a struggle I bet.
Please to be posting a copy of your law degree -it's quite clear you have no fucking clue on the US Constitution.
Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).
It's over - your overlords didn't have the votes.
Like we say, fuck off.
The Founding Fathers win again.
acquitted
not cleared of inciting the Capitol riot
words have meaning
Was cleared an option in the voting?
Take it up with the OP
OK
Let’s go with exonerate or vindicate. Clear is mild yet still appropriate.
Does those work, Lionel?
You really are terrible at this, but given your fantasy life of being some Hot Shot I understand. Limited mental ability is a struggle I bet.
Please to be posting a copy of your law degree -it's quite clear you have no fucking clue on the US Constitution.
Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).
It's over - your overlords didn't have the votes.
Like we say, fuck off.
The Founding Fathers win again.
acquitted
not cleared of inciting the Capitol riot
words have meaning
Was cleared an option in the voting?
Take it up with the OP
OK
Let’s go with exonerate or vindicate. Clear is mild yet still appropriate.
Does those work, Lionel?
You really are terrible at this, but given your fantasy life of being some Hot Shot I understand. Limited mental ability is a struggle I bet.
Comments
funny
Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).
It's over - your overlords didn't have the votes.
Like we say, fuck off.
The Founding Fathers win again.
not cleared of inciting the Capitol riot
words have meaning
Fuck off.
With meaning.
Post the law degree or STFU.
Have the covid checks been mailed out?
Let’s go with exonerate or vindicate. Clear is mild yet still appropriate.
Does those work, Lionel?
You really are terrible at this, but given your fantasy life of being some Hot Shot I understand. Limited mental ability is a struggle I bet.
Words have meaning!!
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/acquit
Synonyms for acquit
absolve, clear, exculpate, exonerate, vindicate
A limited vocabulary on the word “acquit” for a supposed attorney. Give up the ruse, dummy, and stick with kissing Biden’s ass.
Lionel Hutz confirmed.
What a clown.