• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Impeachment coming

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Well then, all and I do mean ALL of the administration close to Trump need to resign immediately. They need to do the right thing and submit their resignations. And I don't buy this crap that those close to Trump must HANG IN THERE so that Donald Trump won't go ballistic. Trump is an big ego person and for his staff to resign would hit Trump where it hurts, in his ego. And... his staff could rest assured knowing that they did the right thing. But to allow this traitor of a president to continue on for 11 more days should NOT be an option nor tolerated. Talk about the fox in the hen house, no sane farmer would leave a fox in his henhouse. This is unconscionable that Donald Trump would be allowed to remain as president AND within the Whitehouse regardless if it were for 11 more days or 11 more minutes. WTF AMERICA ?????
 
Maybe the repukes will go along this time when they realize that the mob wasn't after the Dems so much as they were after them.
 
sportage said:
Don’t know if this was brought up, but as an alternative “could” Trump rather than resign, or face the 25th amendment, or face impeachment, “could” Trump simply not resign but instead turn over the operations of the presidency to Mike Pence?
Click to expand...

That is the 25th Amendment. Most of the times it has been used it was because the President was going to have a medical procedure that would require anesthesia and to prevent a lapse in command the 25th Amendment was invoked to temporarily transfer power to the VP.

My bet is that the House is going to impeach him and the Senate is just going to sit on it until after the 20th. I don't know what happens then, Shulmer will then be the Majority Leader and get to make the decisions, so It seems possible that Trump gets impeached after he has left office.
 
Greenman said:
There is no "technically" about it, the target was specific. This isn't the first government building to be stormed by idiots, I doubt it will be the last.
Click to expand...
It is technical because the idea was wrong even if it was correct because they did not storm the White House. You were displaying incredulity that Republicans would storm a government building because Trump lost. That is exactly what happened, it just wasn't the building you named.
 
SMOGZINN said:
It is technical because the idea was wrong even if it was correct because they did not storm the White House. You were displaying incredulity that Republicans would storm a government building because Trump lost. That is exactly what happened, it just wasn't the building you named.
Click to expand...

yeah why would they storm the WH? It wasn't even an option--they were brought here, invited by Trump, publically, and very specifically, because of what was happening in the Capital, on that day during this week.

That was always their mission, and it was well-fucking publicized. Trump literally invited them here to attack the Capital building of the USA in order to stop the constitutional process that created this nation, from occurring. This has never happened before.

Greenman's quibble here is the most patently dishonest of all possible quibbles, in the grand real of quibbledom, because the entire purpose of this riot, this week, and been planned and publicized for weeks, if not more than a month by now. There was no "will Trump minions storm the WH" They were always here to attack the federal government from doing the people's work. He knows what we meant and everyone knows what he meant. And so does

"Well, I said attack the White House and her der...they didn't Huzzaaa!" Well, that was never an option from the beginning. It is fundamentally against the desire and purpose of the Trump army.

I think he is mixing Proud Boy rioters posing as "Antifa" over the Summer and attacking Lafayette plaza (White House) over the summer, with well, the same Proud Boy white supremacy-aficionados (now) wearing their standard colors this week and attacking the enemy that they had already publicly declared.
 
SMOGZINN said:
It is technical because the idea was wrong even if it was correct because they did not storm the White House. You were displaying incredulity that Republicans would storm a government building because Trump lost. That is exactly what happened, it just wasn't the building you named.
Click to expand...
This obviously means a lot more to you than it does to me. Substitute "any government building" for "White House". I'm fine with that and you've now proven conclusively that my prediction was incorrect, I'll get over it.
 
Dulanic said:
Yeah it won't happen. As frustrated as they are with him, they're still his little puppies and they don't want to lose his base because party > country.
Click to expand...
25 won't because Pence won't. Impeachment can have different outcomes.

Assuming the House successfully impeaches him, it goes to the Senate where 3 things can happen.

A majority says no.
2/3 say yea, he's removed from office.
A majority says yea, he can never run again (WIN!). Edit: Ah, but that can only happen after the 2/3 vote conviction.
 
Last edited:
Muse said:
25 won't because Pence won't. Impeachment can have different outcomes.

Assuming the House successfully impeaches him, it goes to the Senate where 3 things can happen.

A majority says no.
2/3 say yea, he's removed from office.
A majority says yea, he can never run again (WIN!).
Click to expand...
2/3rd required for conviction (which includes removal and a potential ban on holding office). Majority isn't enough.
 
Brainonska511 said:
2/3rd required for conviction (which includes removal and a potential ban on holding office). Majority isn't enough.
Click to expand...
No, look it up. I believe that majority is required to keep him from running again. 2/3 for immediate removal.

Edit: Actually evidently this only occurs after conviction, which requires 2/3 guilty votes from the Senate: [from Wikipedia]

To convict an accused, "the concurrence of two thirds of the [Senators] present" for at least one article is required. If there is no single charge commanding a "guilty" vote from two-thirds of the senators present, the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed.

Result of conviction: removal, and with an additional Senate vote, disqualification[edit]
Conviction immediately removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him or her from holding future federal office, elected or appointed. As the threshold for disqualification is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Senate has taken the position that disqualification votes only require a simple majority rather than a two-thirds supermajority. The Senate has used disqualification sparingly, as only three individuals have been disqualified from holding future office.[37]

Conviction does not extend to further punishment, for example, loss of pension. After conviction by the Senate, "the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law" in the regular federal or state courts.
 
Last edited:
fskimospy said:
Doesn’t exactly matter as the people saying that won’t be in charge in a week and a half.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if that's from the DC attorney general or one that's outbound in 14 days, I'd love to see Rudy and Don Jr.
do time for the part they played in this.
 
Muse said:
No, look it up. I believe that majority is required to keep him from running again. 2/3 for immediate removal.
Click to expand...
From my reading, it seems that you need to be convicted in order to be eligible for the additional punishment of lifetime ban on holding office. But the choice to implement that additional punishment, after conviction, is determined by a simple majority vote.
 
Would be amusing if, after supporting Trump's election fraud conspiracy theories, Hawley and Cruz vote to throw Trump out and ban him from ever running for office again. I mean, think about it. Those guys both want to run in 2024...
 
woolfe9998 said:
Would be amusing if, after supporting Trump's election fraud conspiracy theories, Hawley and Cruz vote to throw Trump out and ban him from ever running for office again. I mean, think about it. Those guys both want to run in 2024...
Click to expand...
That thought occurred to me also. It would be so convenient, with the cover of, we really now understand that Trump was a danger, so we acted to impeach him. I think it's quite possible.
 
Draft of new article of Impeachment: (Article 1: Incitement of insurrection)
www.cnn.com

Read: House Democrats' draft of a new article of impeachment against Trump | CNN Politics

House Democrats have circulated a draft of a new impeachment resolution against President Donald Trump with one article of impeachment, "incitement of insurrection."
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

I read it, and I like it. It ends with saying he should be disqualified from holding any office of trust, honor or profit under the United States.

While, I see little chance for conviction in the Senate, it's still good to spell out his heinous act, on his record second impeachment.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top