Starting Impeachment proceedings. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Starting Impeachment proceedings.
in Politics

By TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
Is Jerry Nadler wasting the public's time?

https://www-foxnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.foxnews.com/media/nadler-says-his-committee-has-launched-formal-impeachment-proceedings-against-trump.amp?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ==#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.foxnews.com/media/nadler-says-his-committee-has-launched-formal-impeachment-proceedings-against-trump 


"Appearing on CNN, Nadler said people shouldn't be "hung up on the semantics" since his committee is "investigating" the facts and evidence."

“This is formal impeachment proceedings,” Nadler said. “We are investigating all the evidence, we’re gathering the evidence and we will at the conclusion of this, hopefully by the end of the year, vote to, vote articles of impeachment to the House floor or we won’t. That’s a decision that we’ll have to make. But that -- that’s exactly the process we’re in right now.”

"All right, so when you say formal impeachment proceedings, have you started drafting or preparing articles of impeachment should you need them?" host Erin Burnett asked. 

“There are articles of impeachment introduced a number of months ago and referred to the committee,” Nadler responded. “As the investigation proceeds, we may want to draft our own articles of impeachment that may more closely fit the evidence. We’ll see.”



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • @TKDB ;

    Do we impeach a President, or does congress impeach an Executive officer? When impeachment proceedings are take place isn't the legal precedent Congress must prove beyond reasonable doubt a man sitting as Executive officer is in whole truth a President of united State, after all the Oath of office simple state a request to demonstrate an ability as effort. The legal obligation to a Court would be to prove, establish, an display the executive officer is in truth President by ability as united state. The voting democracies power only makes this distinction when a person is elected to officer by unanimous vote as this is then a united state. President of the United States is a man who sits before, in basic principle, the American Untied State Constitution on behalf of all men under oath of abilities to be measured, as witness to all people on behalf of creating all men a as equal in a state of two principles for legal outcome in law.


    This whole process kind of appears to be a religious lie to present a public belief, impression that a democracy can actual elect a President before law. The whole truth here is the House of Representation cannot vote a President is in office unless the entire House is unanimous in its vote before the process begins. Otherwise the impeachment is simple just made on the Executive officer of the Oval Office.

    Is Jerry Nadler wasting the public's time?

    No, it is not a waist of time as America holds no legitimate structure of time for measurement in legal use of law. It can, it may be, just distraction to finding whole truth in such matters as a woman President and not Presadera, or a idea to promote political  accomplishment for a upcoming election.

  • The tears of Democrats should be a brand of chardinae.
  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Yes, Nadler is wasting the publics time.

    The Steele Dossier, that was used to create the Mueller Report, was a waste of the publics time.

    The Liberals in general, via their individual liberal philosophies, are attacking the current POTUS, because they can't compete politically with Trump.

    So if a majority of the public is behind Trump, because some of the Socialist Liberals, and some of the Liberals, are losing political ground to the voting public, their only overall alternative, is to attack the messenger?

    And this is why Trump, has been getting attacked, like he has, before he even went into the Oval Office. 

    Because some of the Liberals, and the Socialist Liberals, had to save face somehow, right? 

  • @TKDB ;
    Just asking what makes Trump a President? The understanding is he has been elected to the oval office from a majority of voters does not mean a united state has been created to be represented before American Constitution by the oval office.
  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Read the below, its my answer to your individual rhetoric:

    Yes, Nadler is wasting the publics time.

    The Steele Dossier, that was used to create the Mueller Report, was a waste of the publics time.

    The Liberals in general, via their individual liberal philosophies, are attacking the current POTUS, because they can't compete politically with Trump.

    So if a majority of the public is behind Trump, because some of the Socialist Liberals, and some of the Liberals, are losing political ground to the voting public, their only overall alternative, is to attack the messenger?

    And this is why Trump, has been getting attacked, like he has, before he even went into the Oval Office. 

    Because some of the Liberals, and the Socialist Liberals, had to save face somehow, right?  
  • edited August 13
    No, it's not a waste of time. Is it a waste of time for a detective to investigate rumors of a potential crime, even if it turns out later the person was innocent? Of course not, because if we started arguing that, how would we catch the people who are actually guilty of a crime? We need trials to determine if someone is guilty or innocent of a crime, including the president. The trial for the president, in this case, is the Senate voting on whether to remove him from office. In my opinion, we should have been already in the step of the senate voting on it.

    Though, certainly, concerns over whether the senate is biased are valid. The issue with our current state of politics is the people are not holding politicians accountable.  If you think a senator or multiple of them are going to simply vote "no" on convicting Trump if he is clearly guilty of a crime, because of political reasons, then you need to start the encouragement of primarying those sobs. The formalities are there to get rid of senators who shouldn't be there if they are so politically biased they won't remove someone from office guilty of a crime. We just aren't using it. Maybe you yourself should be the one to primary that senator.

    But, of course, a larger problem is there too... with how politically divisive the US has become, even many of the people will deny their president is guilty of a crime even if he actually is, also for political bias. Sadly, there was nothing in the constitution to prevent against degradation of society as a whole becoming so politically divisive, and I don't think there is anything possible to exist to prevent that from happening. So... this is part of the reason I consider the US pretty much screwed. Once we became a nation who doesn't care if our politicians commit crimes simply because they identify in the same party as you... we became f***ed. And I'm looking to move out of here if this election doesn't show any kind of turn around from this trend.  I'm willing to give America one final chance in the 2020 election, but if this trend is yet again present, my wife and I are leaving. I've finally convinced her the need to do so lol. I was worried I would never do that, but anyways. For me, I'm not basing it off of politics either. If Democrats take over, if I find evidence that they won due to the political division and political biases people in our society at large hold, I'm leaving. same thing if the Republican regain full control of our government. It really doesn't matter to me which side wins here. I just want to see an improvement in our society, and if that doesn't happen in 2020, I'm pretty certain at that point, we're at a point of no return in terms political divisiveness, rise in gun violence, and of idpol(which actually exists in both right-wingers and left-wingers, it's not just left politics. I mean, come on, right-wingers obviously have idpol too given they are so adamantly opposed to simply putting Trump on trial. They're so convinced he's innocent before proper procedures to prove someone's innocence, a trial, has even taken place! For any other person, if they're suspected of a crime, they would be demanding a trial, and only accept their innocence if found not guilty. This is clear idpol that Trumpists are employing here too. And yes, I'd be saying the same thing for a democrat, and in fact, I did for when dems opposed Bill Clinton being voted on for removal in the senate).
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • @TKDB ;

    Executive officer trump is not a President, realistically it could be proven he sacrificed one changes to be President of the united states of America in a deal that would have him elected to the Executive office. Unless you can explain how he is representing a united state of men before American constitution otherwise he is just the Executive officer. A person does not need to be President simple because it is demanded by the voter it is an ability. He is not the only person ever to simple be a Executive officer once elected to Office, it is not a crime.



  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Where is your Real Life evidence to support your below rhetoric?

    "Executive officer trump is not a President, realistically it could be proven he sacrificed one changes to be President of the united states of America in a deal that would have him elected to the Executive office. Unless you can explain how he is representing a united state of men before American constitution otherwise he is just the Executive officer. A person does not need to be President simple because it is demanded by the voter it is an ability. He is not the only person ever to simple be a Executive officer once elected to Office, it is not a crime."

    Because, I don't understand where you are deriving your individual rhetoric from?

    What news media outlet source can be used by you to support your argument? 
  • @GeoLibCogScientist I couldn't agree more. America is a very young country relatively, but we do have a very old Constitution relatively. The idea that our constitution is basically a holy text that should not be changed is definitely a weakness considering most Nations revise their constitutions on a more regular bases to adapt to changing times.

    The American experiment is just another failure. It's pathetic that every 4-8 years many of our global stances pull a 180 and then how can any country really trust us long term. The executive branch is running away with more and more power and each side will take full advantage of it but then when it isn't theirs. Republicans are up in arms when Democrats gerrymander Maryland, and the Democrats defend themselves, then the opposite is true when Republicans are gerrymandering Pennsylvania.

    In short term strategy it is a mistake to begin impeachment proceedings. We already know the Senate will vote no and really what good is it too impeach a president with what would most likely be less than a year left in their term. It will just turn more moderates off from the Democrats. In the long term it would have little to no effect on correcting the extreme American polarity and would probably just make it worse.

    Trump's re-election hinges on one thing, the state of the economy. The biggest threat to that is fully out of his hands at this point. Hong Kong protests could trigger a global recession. If that happens Trump won't win re-election as their will be enough propaganda to blame him for it domestically, not to say that his trade wars couldn't trigger a recession just that Hong Kong is far more likely and measurable.
    CYDdhartaGeoLibCogScientist
  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    @WordsMatter

    Where is your sourced reference material, to support your below rhetoric?

    "The American experiment is just another failure. It's pathetic that every 4-8 years many of our global stances pull a 180 and then how can any country really trust us long term. The executive branch is running away with more and more power and each side will take full advantage of it but then when it isn't theirs."

    "Republicans are up in arms when Democrats gerrymander Maryland, and the Democrats defend themselves, then the opposite is true when Republicans are gerrymandering Pennsylvania."
  • If you drop the dime what's the crime?
    Sadly, there was nothing in the constitution to prevent against degradation. 

    In constitution, or did you mean nothing in American, United State, Constitution as you are not using that terminology and the presumption is to believe you meant to say this. Nothing in basic principle and legal precedent constitution, by assembly of group complete in its formation of united state, in a direct relationship to the history of a nation such as America. The explanation around political divisiveness in basic principle as a democracy unless every vote is cast the same never reaches united state only majority. The larger the voting pool of a nation the even less likely a united state can be created democratically with vote. The best example of a republic united state by declaration that can be declared by a person. All Woman are created equal by a requested testimony before United State Constitution requiring a woman under oath as Presadera speak on behalf of all woman, as a woman, and nothing other than truth. So help them basic principle and legal precedent
  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    @John_C_87

    You're pushing your "Whole Truth" rhetoric again John. 

    "If you drop the dime what's the crime?
    Sadly, there was nothing in the constitution to prevent against degradation. 

    In constitution, or did you mean nothing in American, United State, Constitution as you are not using that terminology and the presumption is to believe you meant to say this. Nothing in basic principle and legal precedent constitution, by assembly of group complete in its formation of united state, in a direct relationship to the history of a nation such as America. The explanation around political divisiveness in basic principle as a democracy unless every vote is cast the same never reaches united state only majority. The larger the voting pool of a nation the even less likely a united state can be created democratically with vote. The best example of a republic united state by declaration that can be declared by a person. All Woman are created equal by a requested testimony before United State Constitution requiring a woman under oath as Presadera speak on behalf of all woman, as a woman, and nothing other than truth. So help them basic principle and legal precedent"
  • edited August 13
    John_C_87

    No disrespect to you is intended, but your grammar mistakes in this message have been making it very difficult for me to determine what your point is. If English isn't your first language, perhaps we could speak in a different language(though it may be required in the terms of this site to speak English. I don't recall, we'll have to look) What other languages do you know besides English?

    At any rate, I'm assuming what you're saying is basically that since the US has such a large population, it can't effectively be a representative republic, and that's why it has degraded societally?

    Here's why I'd disagree with that:
    1) We've never been a true republic, in that we've never represented the average person, which I would think the intention of a republic is to represent people, and ours never did. Since this is common knowledge anyone learns this in history classes, I'm not offering any sources, but should anyone challenge this, I'll provide some. But until the mid-1900s or so, political party primaries were closed off from the average person. Only party elites got to decide who wins the party's primary(they weren't even open to registered members of that party, only the top of the party decided, which would be akin to the DNC and RNC flat out deciding who is the candidate. Imagine Debbie Wasserman Schultz vote only mattering for who became the 2016 "democratic" primary). This was the case for basically every major party in the US since the beginning until the mid-1900s - so the majority of US history. This alone suggests America was never representative of the average voter since the average voter always had to choose between candidates who were hand-picked by elites directly(there's certainly the case party elites still have much influence, given superdelegates, but back then there was no such thing as a regular delegate even to determine the party's nominee of any party). Additionally, many other issues made America not representative of the average person, such as rich, white, propertied males only being able to vote until the mid-1800s or so. Finally, other issues such as gerrymandering, first past the post voting(encourages lesser of two evil options and a two-party system since any third major party will be seen as a spoiler) and the electoral college(which all of that still exists today and have since the beginning of the nation) further degrades the vote of the common person.
    2) Today it's still the case we don't represent the average person. Again, gerrymandering exists still, countless tactics are employed to keep only two parties in power, and given the population of the US, there's no way hundreds of millions of people are going to have all their views represented by only two parties. Furthermore, a study done on the politics in modern America confirmed that votes do nothing to close-to-nothing for determining actual policy, rather wealthy elites and elitist interest groups(i.e PACs and Lobbyists) have far more influence on the government.





    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • @GeoLibCogScientist ;
    Sorry, I can place the outline in a basic principle that is more clear. Constitution and American united state constitution are not the same thing. It is the boundaries of the definition of constitution itself that limit degradation. The American United State Constitution is a specification on common defense for an assembly for a more perfect union of justice by judicial applications of law. So looking in the American Constitution is just looking in the wrong place for limits in degradation. American united state is made on basic principle and legal precedent, the United States of America. This doubles as a union of governing independent states of legislative law.

    It is understood that many Executive officer's have committed crime throughout history, however some the same crimes have been carried out by many other people as well, it is not justice to hold one person accountable for all others. I agree with you on impeachment is not a waist of time it is more by principle a legislative stall as itself is time consuming and take away from other structures of politics. Some of what is said is a long time disagreement between myself and TKDB in any democratic preprocess being the easy way to insure a fulfilment of obligations for becoming a Presented of the United State of America. AS this is where the power of President rests. A vote would be required that is unanimous for a man to become a President in America the odds of that ever happening are very slim and this is not the only way a male can be President of the United States.

    The basic principle an America republic is set one the representation of American United State Constitution the people as a democracy, for the people who are invited to participate in that preservation.
  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    @John_C_87

    In other word's, your "Whole Truth, philosophy, right John? 

    "Sorry, I can place the outline in a basic principle that is more clear. Constitution and American united state constitution are not the same thing. It is the boundaries of the definition of constitution itself that limit degradation. The American United State Constitution is a specification on common defense for an assembly for a more perfect union of justice by judicial applications of law. So looking in the American Constitution is just looking in the wrong place for limits in degradation. American united state is made on basic principle and legal precedent, the United States of America. This doubles as a union of governing independent states of legislative law.,

    "It is understood that many Executive officer's have committed crime throughout history, however some the same crimes have been carried out by many other people as well, it is not justice to hold one person accountable for all others. I agree with you on impeachment is not a waist of time it is more by principle a legislative stall as itself is time consuming and take away from other structures of politics. Some of what is said is a long time disagreement between myself and TKDB in any democratic preprocess being the easy way to insure a fulfilment of obligations for becoming a Presented of the United State of America. AS this is where the power of President rests. A vote would be required that is unanimous for a man to become a President in America the odds of that ever happening are very slim and this is not the only way a male can be President of the United States."

    "The basic principle an America republic is set one the representation of American United State Constitution the people as a democracy, for the people who are invited to participate in that preservation."
  • My beginning question to TKDB was would the House need to prove a elected Executive officer is by fact President of the United States of America before actions of separation can take place in a Court of law pertaining to a President? The reason is that a President of the United States is a declaration on all states both legal and illegal and is connected to the executive officer there are two job specifications which take place not one. 
  • @TKDB ;
    No, just simply looking at the perjury taking place with a rather large group of Americans with the possible election of a woman President. Any condition of a outside solution to the issue in basic principle was started when an event that could not be mistaken as anything else was met. 
  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    @John_C_87

    In other word's, your "Whole Truth, philosophy, right John? 
  • TKDB said:
    @John_C_87

    In other word's, your "Whole Truth, philosophy, right John? 

    The whole truth idea is not mine TKDB, the whole truth is a direction given by the Judicial Courts not me. Is asking for the whole truth illegal? Truth, the voter votes for a person to take an oath before them as a witness in a job description which has a process of ability that needs to be demonstrated to all who vote. This process creates all men as equal as those who are not under oath can still make the same commitment to American United State Constitution.

    Having been asserted as consistent with fact or reality under oath: 

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/sworn

    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/true

    Impeachment

    A process that is used to charge, try, and remove public officials for misconduct while in office.

    Impeachment is a fundamental constitutional power belonging to Congress. This safeguard against corruption can be initiated against federal officeholders from the lowest cabinet member, all the way up to the president and the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Besides providing the authority for impeachment, the U.S. Constitution details the methods to be used. The two-stage process begins in the House of Representatives with a public inquiry into allegations. It culminates, if necessary, with a trial in the Senate. State constitutions model impeachment processes for state officials on this approach. At both the federal and state levels, impeachment is rare: From the passage of the Constitution to the mid-1990s, only 50 impeachment proceedings were initiated, and only a third of these went as far as a trial in the Senate. The reluctance of lawmakers to use this power is a measure of its gravity; it is generally only invoked by evidence of criminality or substantial abuse of power.

    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/impeachment

    The question is can Congress or the House actual impeach a President of the United States?  President’s are a witness placed before the Court off law, House, and American United State Constitution. The impeachment process is for the public official in office, that description is Executive officer or even other political official positions of authority are what is under legal challenge.  


  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Where is your evidence to support your statement?

    "The whole truth idea is not mine TKDB, the whole truth is a direction given by the Judicial Courts not me."

    Do you have a written passage from the Judicial Courts, to back up your claim? 


  • @GeoLibCogScientist ;

    There are two basic principles to address  in the history of American voting. In the early part of the United States of America the purpose of slavery as a name is to identify a Prisoners of War that had been sold into private custody. We can micro debate a right to vote with this endlessly.

    Second issue can a woman be sworn to tell the whole truth in basic principle and legal precedent on behalf of all men as a President of united state, a complete group?

    The second issue is confronted in basic principle as a common defense, a woman can be used to create all woman as equal by declaring her Presadera of the United States. Presadera being a created word meaning a woman siting for the future of all woman before constitution. Also know as basic principle and legal precedent.  

    At no point could any-one in truth not also agree prejudice existed and was the greater priority to the common defense and law.


  • To start with lets all agree to read about the impeachment process and it's requirements.

    https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

    What it comes down to is that the President has to to be found guilty of "High crimes or misdemeanors"
    (Misdemeanors have never been defined)
    In my opnion to be found of either of those the house should only be able to make these findings if the crimes are in fact indictable.

    If these crimes are found indictable, as they were found to be in the case of President Nixon and President Clinton.  

    In the case of President Nixon he was impeached by the House by a 2/3 majority (which as a general rule will require both parties to vote for it because I don't think either party has ever had a 2/3 majority).  It was then sent to the Senate for vote for removal.  In this case it had become clear to Nixon that the votes for removale existed.  So rather than giving the Senate the chance to remove him he decided to resign.  He was later indicted and charged with his crimes but then pardond by President Gerald Ford.

    In the case of President Clinton they had a total of 11 indictable crimes, many of which were Felonies.  The House in this case was able to get the 2/3 majority of the house for inprachment to be approved.  It was then passed to the Senate who pretty much voted on party lines on the question of removal. So a 2/3 majority was not reached.  After his Presidency there was a plea agreement reached that President Clinton would plea guilty to 1 misdemeanor and giveup his law license.  A deal we all know would never be offered to us with that many indictments against us.

    Now lets get to the current tirelessly endless search for indictable offenses by the Democrats.  Yes it is a waste of time as after, what is it now 4 trys at finding crimes, which included a Special Council lead by a man who was obviously and sadly not really in charge and lead by 15 Trump hating attornies who were unable to find any indictable charges ( and yes I did read the Mueller Report, unlike apparently Muller himself did).  Some of of you may argue that there are indictable offenses in the second half of the report but I would say that if they were even able to get an indictment on some of the charges in the report. I highly doubt they would ever get a conviction.  Which is why the Democrates keep looking before filing new Articles of impeachment.  Afterall the first attempt failed badly.  They couldn't even get thier own party complely on board.  At this point it is becoming a waste of time and resources. If it weren't for Democrats wanting this narrative to follow the President into the 2020 election and their oppressive hate for the current president, which feeds in to thier most verbale base, they probably would have dropped this after the Muller Report came out.
  • @TKDB ;
    Where is your evidence to support your statement?
    "The whole truth idea is not mine TKDB, the whole truth is a direction given by the Judicial Courts not me."
    Do you have a written passage from the Judicial Courts, to back up your claim?

    "I am not clear the whole truth is in your pay grade."

    Yes, there are written transcripts, however by constitution you would need to see my birth certificate or I.D. as evidence as well so that you can see that my age is younger than the oath taken to be sworn into a court of law. For a common defense to preserve American constitution. Again, you are trying to create a united state of doubt by questioning truth. On the other had the topic is looking for a United State all men are created equal. How is this done by a President of the United States of America. How is it not done by any person elected to the executive office?

    The hope is to keep moving forward in the forum  discussion with recognition of the word President as a accusation and/or admission, A President of the United States of America by republic standard can be taken past the independent states of governing by their many territories, and place into the one system of law ending at the supreme court. Keep in mind does this now mean that a Military tribunal will take place by the House before the supreme court hears the appeal after a trial?

    Does the House confirm under oath they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the sitting Executive officer can be Proven to be representing in basic principle all men in a united state in relationship to legal precedent before the American Constitutional? These questions apply to this elected official as a running mate was a woman which makes her a Presadera not President. Two different witness, Two different backgrounds of basic principle, male and female.


  • After saying all that I do agree that Electoral Colleges need  be disposed of allowing for the majority vote to stand. If they wantbto have a convention where delegates from each district wants to announce how thier district voted and only the results of their distiricts majority vote, than that would be fine. Let them have have their party as long as my tax dollars aren't paying for it.

    As for gereymandering.  This needs to be stopped.  There should be a commutee put together with an equal representation of all parties (not just Democrates and Republicans) to set permanent lines that can only be changed by a similar committtee because of populaton shifts, as in the ammount of people, not because the politcal makeup has changed.
  • TKDBTKDB 256 Pts
    @John_C_87

    More of your common philosophy.

    Here's the theme of the forum:

    "Starting Impeachment proceedings."


    And below, is more of your individual philosophy teachings.

    "I am not clear the whole truth is in your pay grade."

    "Yes, there are written transcripts, however by constitution you would need to see my birth certificate or I.D. as evidence as well so that you can see that my age is younger than the oath taken to be sworn into a court of law. For a common defense to preserve American constitution. Again, you are trying to create a united state of doubt by questioning truth. On the other had the topic is looking for a United State all men are created equal. How is this done by a President of the United States of America. How is it not done by any person elected to the executive office?

    The hope is to keep moving forward in the forum  discussion with recognition of the word President as a accusation and/or admission, A President of the United States of America by republic standard can be taken past the independent states of governing by their many territories, and place into the one system of law ending at the supreme court. Keep in mind does this now mean that a Military tribunal will take place by the House before the supreme court hears the appeal after a trial?

    Does the House confirm under oath they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the sitting Executive officer can be Proven to be representing in basic principle all men in a united state in relationship to legal precedent before the American Constitutional? These questions apply to this elected official as a running mate was a woman which makes her a Presadera not President. Two different witness, Two different backgrounds of basic principle, male and female."

  • "Starting Impeachment proceedings."
    Do you believe that perjury is a Impeachable crime for an Executive officer? In this case it is not clear as the Executive officer is simply not preserving American United States Constitution. This means as far as displayed ability there is none taking place on the issue of a female President.  It is the accusation of crime as grievance seen and, in all honesty any negligence has been taking place for some time by many people.

    Again to look for background and depth this post I was looking for a direct answer from you. Do you feel if a Executive Officers where to answer a question before Congress then the Senate on behalf of all men would it create him as equal with all other men?



Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch