Before the house of representatives existed, it didn't, same with presidency, however, which one that has lasted longer wins. Pretty much means Trump was never legally impeached since it never stated current house of representatives xD

I became legal President with Trump being elected due to an order I issued against Obama. Don't be confused with elected president. Legal President overrides the elected president whenever they want and the legal president lasts their life time.

More info but not all:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QSzOUEPdlkPd0ppRSCZ1apETJaeLiS1S

[Read Algorithm, Basic Counters, [Draft 2 but skip the outdated two parts (algorithm and basic counters) in it], and draft one if you feel like it but it just is mainly for picture reference].

Prove it wrong, don't insult since it is a form of redirect. Anyway, you won't be able to prove it wrong so have fun 😛

Hearsay:

If two people say something, and there is no evidence in between, it is functionally the same as hearsay.

All evidence can be forged given enough time. Who is more likely to be able to forge evidence?

If juries take in everything they hear at trial, then aren't they speculating on each piece of information? If the actual can do this, so can the potential due to equal protection [Part of person is the stage their in] making it so witnesses can speculate.

Hearsay + No evidence = No trial.

Then add in intent [example]:

Her brain thinking it wasn't so hot but her body thought knew it was hot. Direct intent vs indirect intent [Which is sometimes also direct intent when brain thought is aligned with body thought.]. Body thought is what people perceive your actions meant, while brain though in actually what they meant. If the two don't align, it is functionally the same as an accident on the person's fault side, not the people knowing. To the people knowing it is intentional since brain thought and body thought aligns.

Sorry about length :/

Never know, just means it would be more probable

They didn't actually impeach him legally due to the before and not argument

Its minor details they lack

The bot prevented me to fully explain it here though xD

But it is in that google drive link somewhere in the <#604315008490536980> section if you can put the dots together. 🙂

China doesn't like their dumpling shop in Beijing to be threated to be legally ended so they agreed to the trade deal.

Okay, let me see if the bot will let me explain it this time xD

Before HoR was in power, it was not. Thus it never is because the not side always wins. Same with the presidency. Here is why:

The not side exists before it existed and forever backwards in time. It has to be weighed at something greater than 0.

Then due to the 14th amendment: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" it makes it so time has to be weighed the same. When you have one extreme then one finite sharing a constant, the extreme wins.

More info on logic here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QSzOUEPdlkPd0ppRSCZ1apETJaeLiS1S

Since the president was in power longer, he wins.

I had to shorten it by quite a bit so sorry if it jumps places

It is logic for ya, things before it outlasts it

It did

Before the current one

That is the flaw with a 4 year term and 2 year terms :/

Read the google drive, i beaten many people before you

I beat that @Deleted User

Under their authority is easy to beat too

Have you heard of the document?

Then you don't know

I have beaten ph.D

oops

The amendment/amends limits it

All, read the google drive

Apply your knowledge don't just know it

1st, 14th just to name two

First section of the 14th, last sentence. Then, the whole of the 1st amendment. Remember, with amendment/amends they never excluded indirect changes and the after overrides the before due to the nature of what you are doing to the constitution.

Reading the document would totally save me the trouble now

on the google drive

Nope, it applies to everything if you can figure it out. It isn't hard. Good luck without the google drive

I have influenced the USA Supreme Court in several rulings, enough for them to take a flash drive and wipe my drives with the information

Sophia, that is where you are wrong

Have you heard of line of succession?

What about functional and parts of that?

Play chess with me with law not checkers

I beat all of it Sophia

It is soo easy

5th amendment nullifies all cases against you and the 2nd enables you to dismiss it

You cannot think?

Figure it out, functional trial to functional trial

Figure it out Sophia, apply your knowledge, it isn't hard to prove

I beat all of gun control against a Ph.D student

I'd tell you, they knew their stuff

I back my things with my documents on the google drive which does have sources

I got an A+ in civics class and i can beat your frivolous claims

Just read the document

True, but due to what i said earlier even if they did, he still isn't impeached

Again, yes

Sophia, go back to law school

But there is more to it

Yup Unity

They have to give them to the senate to count

Vote wise yes, but actually [officially] no

Did Nancy give the articles to the senate yet?

Sophia, we are trying to give you a civic lesson but you are so false in your beliefs

I give them to documents to save time

I know it, but do you know the laws about impeachment

Yup Unity

It hasn't moved to the senate yet

The speaker has yet to do so

^

^

Sophia, I wish you were the speaker now so he'

he'd never get impeached ..

They have to send it to the senate or the senate doesn't have to take it up.

It is setup by law

That congress passed a long time ago

Yeah

I don't think she understands it well enough

Yeah, i mean, i may post detrimental stuff in that google drive but even that basic step is just...

Everyone has lied, just doesn't make you a liar xD

lol

A lot of those lies are mistruths or misrepresenting the facts, not lying about them.

Or in other words a full lie

Not if what you are saying is true

Lets say I say 2+2 = 4 and another person said the equation is 1+1+1+1=4, are they misrepresenting the facts?

Both true statements

It is misrepresenting the equation by perception

It is like trump saying he opened the plant by apple since he helped

Pretend the context is true

It does

Functionally Who opened it, and the end result

Which adds to it

It is partially true

He wouldn't be able to if apple didn't agree to it too

It is part of the equation

So 1 (apple) + 1 (trump) = 2 (opened plant)

It would be common knowledge that it would take apple to open it too

So they both didn't help open the plant

They BOTH did

It is implied apple too since it is their company

Did he said, I alone opened this plant?

It is still implied due to constitutional grounds

of what a president can and cannot do

By perception not reality

Equally not functionally

Did he say that