On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 08:45:31 -0500 (EST), justan wrote:

Wrote in message:r
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 11:33:36 -0500, Keyser wrote:https://ibb.co/p277Xr9Chuck certainly isn't helping his case when he cites Belknap, a 140year old impeachment of a corrupt war department head in the Grantadministration. Maybe if he knew how to read he would know Belknap was acquitted inthe
senate and the reason the 40 some senators who voted not toconvict was they thought it was unconstitutional. Now he is looking at 45 who think the same thing about this Trumpwitch 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 whatyour plan was Chuck?
Maybe this rebuke will stop the impeachment fever. You realize we hadONE impeachment of a president in the first 200 years we were acountry and 3 in the last 25 years. None succeeded and they were allpolitical stunts. Most people don't even know why Andrew Johnson was impeached in thefirst place even if they did have the Trivial
Pursuit
factoid that hewas the only one before Clinton. Most probably assumed he was kickedout 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 ofOffice Act was likely invalid".

Does the way Chuckles wears his glasses on the tip of his ample
probiscus make him appear to be smart.

Not smart enough to get bifocals.