On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 11:33:36 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

https://ibb.co/p277Xr9

Chuck certainly isn't helping his case when he cites Belknap, a 140
year old impeachment of a corrupt war department head in the Grant
administration.
Maybe if he knew how to read he would know Belknap was acquitted in
the senate and the reason the 40 some senators who voted not to
convict was they thought it was unconstitutional.
Now he is looking at 45 who think the same thing about this Trump
witch hunt. They don't have near enough of a case to convict anyway.
This mess is just going to embolden Trump more. Is that really what
your plan was Chuck?

Maybe this rebuke will stop the impeachment fever. You realize we had
ONE impeachment of a president in the first 200 years we were a
country and 3 in the last 25 years. None succeeded and they were all
political stunts.
Most people don't even know why Andrew Johnson was impeached in the
first place even if they did have the Trivial Pursuit factoid that he
was the only one before Clinton. Most probably assumed he was kicked
out of the White House too.
The fact is, he was right and Congress was wrong.
He violated a newly passed, unconstitutional law.
(Fired Stanton)
From Wikipedia.
"While evaluating the constitutionality of a similar law in Myers v.
United States (1926), the Supreme Court stated that the Tenure of
Office Act was likely invalid".