Article of Impeachment Against Vice President Nix

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Simfan, please grow a brain and focuse on saving the Pacific.


As I tried to stress last night and was apparently misunderstood. The Chief Justice is to preside over impeachement hearings, that includes the timing and votes. Chief Justice bgwah is a dedicated public servant and his demonstrated his capacity for fairness and reason many times over the years and as non other than his rival politically my view on his capacity should carry great weight.

Bypassing process, will only enable and strengthen the case of those who are seeking any in to undermine the government in game and the game as whole from an out of game perspective. WE should not be facilitating their endeavors by committing counterproductive actions ourselves.

Impeachments are in Article I of the Constitution. Its literally right at the beginning (well almost, you might have to scroll). Lets get it right.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

FYI, I seem to have worded my post poorly because I did not "demand Atlasia's final surrender." I meant that we - meaning Atlasia - might need to *offer* surrender to Yankee if legal action against him was unsuccessful. (I hadn't anticipated that my words would be taken to mean the opposite.)

Surrender to what? I am not at-large. I am not engaging in any kind of rebellion. Has the echo chamber grown so defening that you are imagining stuff that is not happening? Were this interpretation of your post correct, the only one who it would apply to would be theo ne burning down damn country with the support of officeholder whose legal action you embrace. It is beyond clear that the evidentiary process for this trial against me is a total joke reaching as far as to twist a clear statement warning of the need to prevent rebellions into active endorsement of said rebellions.

But now instead your post was worded as if this were a cabal to take down the game, the AG's action was one meant to force acceptance of your radical plans and that I a mere member of the Senate had now come to represent Atlasia in the vein of the (ATlasia is basically Yankee et. al.) comments being made by several of your associates.

Regardless of how it was intended to be written, either indicates a breach of duty in my opinion and I will be voting to impeach.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We are not charging anybody with treason for their views, unlike a certain fellow member of the administration whose job is to fairly apply the laws.


We have had people impeached for inactivity and they were only saved once those positions were reformed to establish a concrete activity standard, as no doubt the Chief Justice and the Vice President will recall. So the standard is not treason nor anywhere near it. This is not real life I would point out and the standards are likewise somewhat different.

The critical point for me here is a refutation of law and once again we have the same old people using the same old tactics of putting words in people's mouths and outright lying. "I think there are some Senators who want to impeach bore". No, Mr. Vice President, there is no desire to impeach the President now that he has done his job, the same way there was no desire to impeach the Justices once they did theirs. Thirdly, you fled the country on the grounds that you "feared for your safety" in a statement which also as the only source of opposition a none existant rebellion led by someone who has consistently affirmed our laws, meanwhile a real rebellion was occuring.

You posted a very confusing statement demanding the surrender of Atlasia and for which your explanation just doesn't make sense as a logical statement, because it would have required me to be doing the same things as TNF, which I was not. Secondly you posted that you do not affirm the laws and constitution. You are perfectly fine to hold views regarding dissolving of the game and you are free to voice those opinions.

However, as long as you hold office you are responsible to uphold them and in failing to do so, or declaring that you are declining to do so, constitutes just grounds for your removal from office. Nobody is removing you from the game, no one is charging you with treason here because of your beliefs. We prefer to leave that up to the esteemed, intelligent members of this administration to do that to its opponents, in its various witch hunts, not us. We are merely acting in our constitutional role as the legislative branch to remove someone from office. Fleeing in a crisis, declining to affirm the law of the land even absent the call for Atlasia's surrender, seem like reasonable grounds for removing an officeholder.

Kalwejt, myself and and other members who are supporting this led the effort to reign in perma bans from a freakin game and have criticized the excessive nature of the prosecutions by this administration's justice department. Don't you dare claim that we are targetting anyone for their beliefs or trying to drive someone from the game. Maybe your friends roll like they, but we don't so stop presuming we are likewise simply because that is what you are used to.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sweet Justice from transsexual Thailand should remember that impeachment is Constitutional by definition. There is no judicial review of the process; it is totally up to the Senate and the people to interpret what constitutes an "impeachable offense."

And, for the record, until I hear Ben explain why he has introduced these articles, I'm suspending judgement on whether anyone should be impeached.

This was the Vice President himself, then a Senator from the Northeast Region stating his view in the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, on the potential application of impeachment when challenged by then Senior Associate Justice Opebo on the constitutionality of impeaching someone on the grounds of inactivity.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yet, oddly, no evidence has been introduced to that effect.

Well Mr Vice President could you explain this statement?

Only one thing has changed: I do not reject the reality Atlasia's federal laws, legal structure, and authority, but I do not affirm it either. More to follow elsewhere.

maybe you could explain why you believe it to constitute treason?

Treason is not a necessary standard for impeachment.

We have also endorsed in law and the constitution the notion of using it for inactivity (On Second Thought, We Do Have Expectations Amendment), composed by the esteemed man from Bakersfield with amendments from myself and I think Kalwejt. It has also been amended since then, but it is still present in the Constitution.

The creation of an activity standard utilizing impeachment, expands the acceptable range of usage for impeachment beyond treason, quite far actually.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I in no way condoned the lack of process in this manner Nix. I had to work that day and so I wasn't here to be the first one to respond to Cris and the others saying "that is not how it works". Bgwah runs the show, etc etc.

Taking your word for it regarding the statement that you made. The question remains why you would claim to not be safe, call for my surrender when I am not resisting justice, whilst the real treason is occuring in the Midwest in open rebellion?

 If you were unsafe, wouldn't it have been from the people in open rebellion? If you were demanding surrender terms to be communicated to the President, wouldn't it be the one seeking to overthrow the Government, not the one being brought up on false charges, for stating a dire futuristic prediction in a Senate debate thread, by your administrations Attorney General? At a time I will note that said AG was also reforming a group that was once banned for the express purposes of destroying Atlasia.

For real Nix, what the hell did you think I was doing or trying to do? Did you blindly trust in Al or presume that I would suddently act in a manner that I have not in the six years, or both? What would make you think that I, having committed no crime and being persecuted by your administration's AG because of a personal vendetta, would pose a threat to you? WHo did you feel threatened enough by to leave the capital?

At the very least your statement, in the absence of anything from bore was completely irresponsible, and had a destabilizing effect. The "misinterpretations" as you call them of your words led some to question whether or not the administration was supporting TNF. 

The problem is nothing you have said make sense throughout this process. And so for all I see you doing is ascribing false motives to us in this process and claiming that refutes a given point.