ch33zw1z
Lifer
- Nov 4, 2004
- 39,756
- 20,331
- 146
Im not sure what the problem is then. From where I'm sitting, impeachment now is a statement of who is on the side of democracy and who isn't. Voting nay is laying the groundwork for the next would-be dictator to push the limits even further. Trump's behavior is simply unacceptable, and americans need to tell him that.
Pohemi
Lifer
- Oct 2, 2004
- 10,884
- 16,971
- 146
Sadly, many Americans also need to hear this. I know they've already been told, but they aren't really listening.
Wrong
to convict you need a super majority
to never allow him to take office again you need a simple majority. So 51 votes
even if all the Rs and all the Ds vote party lines trump will never take office again
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 17,650
- 15,843
- 146
He’s has to be convicted first by supermajority . Then the simple majority vote to prevent him taking office. IIRC
The founding fathers held a impeachment trial for a senator who had already been expelled from the senate
It seems that the original intent of the constitution included the ability to convict on impeachment after removal from office. Admittedly in that case the senator was not convicted but there was nothing wrong with the constitutionality of the trial. Federal judges have been impeached after they left office. The process is the same as the one for the office of president. So there’s not much of a question about whether it can be done.
John Quincy Adams said he was liable to impeachment for life:
“I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office”
www.justsecurity.org
Focusing too much on the penalty (removal from office) and not enough on the substance: in an allegation that the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. The founders chose to use a quasi-criminal process, rather than a quick political removal like a non-confidence motion. Does a president get away from being convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors by just running out the clock, or resigning before judgment?
The possibility of impeachment remains for the rest of a former president’s lifetime. Because the penalties that can be imposed as a result of impeachment - inability to hold federal office, loss of pension, loss of Secret Service protection, banishment from the townhouse - are held for life. So IMO impeachment is still a meaningful process while a former president is alive but becomes moot once he dies.
Although not related to American history ... The British exhumed Oliver Cromwell’s body in 1661, convicted him and subjected him to a posthumous execution. (The king must’ve really hated that guy.)
It seems that the original intent of the constitution included the ability to convict on impeachment after removal from office. Admittedly in that case the senator was not convicted but there was nothing wrong with the constitutionality of the trial. Federal judges have been impeached after they left office. The process is the same as the one for the office of president. So there’s not much of a question about whether it can be done.
John Quincy Adams said he was liable to impeachment for life:
“I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office”
The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office
Top impeachment law scholar discusses the options for the 117th Congress.
www.justsecurity.org
Focusing too much on the penalty (removal from office) and not enough on the substance: in an allegation that the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. The founders chose to use a quasi-criminal process, rather than a quick political removal like a non-confidence motion. Does a president get away from being convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors by just running out the clock, or resigning before judgment?
The possibility of impeachment remains for the rest of a former president’s lifetime. Because the penalties that can be imposed as a result of impeachment - inability to hold federal office, loss of pension, loss of Secret Service protection, banishment from the townhouse - are held for life. So IMO impeachment is still a meaningful process while a former president is alive but becomes moot once he dies.
Although not related to American history ... The British exhumed Oliver Cromwell’s body in 1661, convicted him and subjected him to a posthumous execution. (The king must’ve really hated that guy.)
You need to send this post to the managers of the impeachment so they can open with this in the trial. Get the unconstitutional argument out of the way immediately, not only educating the people, but also to detroy the 45 republican's argument. I want to hope that the managers already have this info, and plan on presenting it, but I don't have that much faith in the idiots running this country... So, send it please!The founding fathers held a impeachment trial for a senator who had already been expelled from the senate
It seems that the original intent of the constitution included the ability to convict on impeachment after removal from office. Admittedly in that case the senator was not convicted but there was nothing wrong with the constitutionality of the trial. Federal judges have been impeached after they left office. The process is the same as the one for the office of president. So there’s not much of a question about whether it can be done.
John Quincy Adams said he was liable to impeachment for life:
“I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office”
The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office
Top impeachment law scholar discusses the options for the 117th Congress.
Focusing too much on the penalty (removal from office) and not enough on the substance: in an allegation that the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. The founders chose to use a quasi-criminal process, rather than a quick political removal like a non-confidence motion. Does a president get away from being convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors by just running out the clock, or resigning before judgment?
The possibility of impeachment remains for the rest of a former president’s lifetime. Because the penalties that can be imposed as a result of impeachment - inability to hold federal office, loss of pension, loss of Secret Service protection, banishment from the townhouse - are held for life. So IMO impeachment is still a meaningful process while a former president is alive but becomes moot once he dies.
Although not related to American history ... The British exhumed Oliver Cromwell’s body in 1661, convicted him and subjected him to a posthumous execution. (The king must’ve really hated that guy.)
Last edited:
Hmm
You are right on the order.. but it looks like they are independent of each other
Explainer: Can lawmakers use impeachment to bar Trump from holding office again?
The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to impeach President Donald Trump as soon as Wednesday, accusing him of inciting insurrection ahead of last week's storming of the Capitol.
www.reuters.com
"Paul Campos, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Colorado, said that even if the Senate does not convict the president, senators could hold a second, separate vote to prevent him from future office."
If He wants a show trial circus. Trump and his handlers see the Republican strategy for exactly what it is – an attempt to vote to acquit based on weak constitutional grounds, while distancing themselves from him and not having to defend his behavior. Trump and his handlers know perfectly well that most powerful Republican leaders are doing everything they can to put him in the rearview mirror. That’s why he wants them to vote for his acquittal on the basis that he really did win the election and that he’s the rightful President of the United States. He wants to force them to keep showing fealty to him, or face the wrath of his supporters.
His handlers know it’s a dodge around the core question, and an attempt to evade taking a stand on his personal concerns about fraud. He’s not harping on this just because he’s an idiot with a broken record for a brain, he’s harping on it because it compels GOP politicians to clearly choose sides, to unambiguously declare either support for Trump or the opposition. A mob boss can't stop looking for loyalty.
In the long term, he doesn’t care that his hunger for absolute capitulation will lead to a GOP composed entirely of a base of zealous cultist supporters with no tolerance for dissent, and that this will split the party and result in its national power being diminished. Yes, the distortions of the American political system will ameliorate this effect, but how far can they trust gerrymandering, suppression, and the Electoral College to protect them when the national vote margin climbs into double-digit millions? And in the short term, he hasn’t considered any possibility that his demand for GOP Senators to kiss his ring and beg his favor by signing off on his delusional reality and criminal behavior might not go the way he wants or expects.
Obviously, Republicans in the Senate are heavily predisposed to acquit. And if they get their quick show trial, with a rundown of the accusations and then a rush to a nay vote covered by the weak principle of Constitutionality, they’ll absolutely follow that path, and pay no political price. But if Trump forces a circus. if the trial managers are allowed to spend days or weeks laying out the connections and planning that led to the insurrection on 1/6 - if conspirators in the rebellion provide witness to the scheme in exchange for plea deals, if hours and hours of television are spent unequivocally establishing Trump’s anti-American attempt to break democracy and the GOP keeps bleeding registrations as they have - and the Trump team responds and argues that, instead of repeating the mantra that none of this is relevant, only the Constitutional principle matters — then the political tipping point for Republican Senators could begin to shift. Then maybe, just maybe, you’d get a few more Senators to convict. In reality though as it stands, it still wouldn’t be enough.
That’s what makes Trump, ultimately, a fucking moron: He understands the GOP’s plan and their political incentives to get him acquitted, but he can’t play along with it, even to his own potential detriment, simply because it bruises his ego to do so.
His handlers know it’s a dodge around the core question, and an attempt to evade taking a stand on his personal concerns about fraud. He’s not harping on this just because he’s an idiot with a broken record for a brain, he’s harping on it because it compels GOP politicians to clearly choose sides, to unambiguously declare either support for Trump or the opposition. A mob boss can't stop looking for loyalty.
In the long term, he doesn’t care that his hunger for absolute capitulation will lead to a GOP composed entirely of a base of zealous cultist supporters with no tolerance for dissent, and that this will split the party and result in its national power being diminished. Yes, the distortions of the American political system will ameliorate this effect, but how far can they trust gerrymandering, suppression, and the Electoral College to protect them when the national vote margin climbs into double-digit millions? And in the short term, he hasn’t considered any possibility that his demand for GOP Senators to kiss his ring and beg his favor by signing off on his delusional reality and criminal behavior might not go the way he wants or expects.
Obviously, Republicans in the Senate are heavily predisposed to acquit. And if they get their quick show trial, with a rundown of the accusations and then a rush to a nay vote covered by the weak principle of Constitutionality, they’ll absolutely follow that path, and pay no political price. But if Trump forces a circus. if the trial managers are allowed to spend days or weeks laying out the connections and planning that led to the insurrection on 1/6 - if conspirators in the rebellion provide witness to the scheme in exchange for plea deals, if hours and hours of television are spent unequivocally establishing Trump’s anti-American attempt to break democracy and the GOP keeps bleeding registrations as they have - and the Trump team responds and argues that, instead of repeating the mantra that none of this is relevant, only the Constitutional principle matters — then the political tipping point for Republican Senators could begin to shift. Then maybe, just maybe, you’d get a few more Senators to convict. In reality though as it stands, it still wouldn’t be enough.
That’s what makes Trump, ultimately, a fucking moron: He understands the GOP’s plan and their political incentives to get him acquitted, but he can’t play along with it, even to his own potential detriment, simply because it bruises his ego to do so.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,800
- 10,094
- 136
That notion only has a chance in hell if Republicans vote to "impeach". Maybe that would have occurred if Trump was in office. Now they will rally behind the technicality of it all and frame this very differently from how people here have described it.
The world isn't that black and white. And Trump only appears guilty if the subtext of his speech is applied. I tell you now, a good portion of our population has no god damn idea what subtext is. If Trump's mere existence didn't scare them off - then their ID and Ego will make trying to explain it absolutely impossible.
ch33zw1z
Lifer
- Nov 4, 2004
- 39,756
- 20,331
- 146
It's pretty simple choice. Support Democracy, or support a guy who instigated an attempt to overthrow Democracy. Up to them. And I don't really care if their feels get fucked along the way.
It's like "He tried to rape the babysitter but she got away & his wife threw him out so let's just put this behind us.".
Well the baby sitter was asking for it and she was involved in a plot with the lizard people to eat the children to stay young while starting fires with the Jew laser.
pauldun170
Diamond Member
- Sep 26, 2011
- 9,495
- 5,710
- 136
Trumps new lawyers
Lol
www.theguardian.com
Lol
One of Trump’s attorneys believes Epstein was murdered, the other declined to prosecute Cosby
David Schoen also represented ‘all sorts of reputed mobsters’ while Bruce Castor sued Cosby accuser for defamation
Trumps new lawyers
Lol
One of Trump’s attorneys believes Epstein was murdered, the other declined to prosecute Cosby
David Schoen also represented ‘all sorts of reputed mobsters’ while Bruce Castor sued Cosby accuser for defamation
I wonder if Dominion can proactively send these lawyers a letter not to spread lies about them.
Fenixgoon
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2003
- 33,307
- 12,876
- 136
Trumps new lawyers
Lol
One of Trump’s attorneys believes Epstein was murdered, the other declined to prosecute Cosby
David Schoen also represented ‘all sorts of reputed mobsters’ while Bruce Castor sued Cosby accuser for defamation
we're dealing with a clown and of course we got a circus...
if Trump forces a circus, the House trial managers should not spend weeks on this, spend just a few days. If the trial takes weeks, folks will get bored and then Trump and the GOP may face lesser consequences.
I know it won't happen this way, this is a fantasy hypothetical: put all this on C-SPAN:
House managers should call some witnesses:
The cop who was being crushed in the doors, the cop being beaten with a hockey stick, witnesses to the killing of the cop.
Play videos of Trump, Brooks, Trump Jr. and Rudy "no ethics, no problem" Giulliani calling for violent insurrection.
Call horny furry Qanan guy, to testify that he, and many others interpreted Trump’s tweets and the speech at the podium as a call to overturn the vote, and to storm the capital with video of him howling like a banshee in the Senate chambers.
Play the video the gallows they set up, and any video of rioters chanting “Hang Mike Pence”.
Play the video of the cop who led the rioters away from Pence and the chambers.
Play the video of the rioter throwing a fire extinguisher at the group of cops, hitting one in the head
Play the video of the rioters trampling on the “Don’t tread on me” rioter as the rioters rush to beat the cop with a hockey stick.
Call Trump to the stand
Ask him if he won the election
Ask him if he intended the "stop the steal" rally was to convince Congress to throw out the certified electoral votes
Sit down
Call for a vote
I'm sure Trump thinks/knows he’ll be acquitted no matter what. That’s why he wants the election fraud out there. Then when he’s acquitted on ostensibly Constitutional grounds, he will with due haste construe it as "TOTAL VINDICATION!!" of his stolen election bullshit.
If he's going to be acquitted. Don't make it easy on him
I know it won't happen this way, this is a fantasy hypothetical: put all this on C-SPAN:
House managers should call some witnesses:
The cop who was being crushed in the doors, the cop being beaten with a hockey stick, witnesses to the killing of the cop.
Play videos of Trump, Brooks, Trump Jr. and Rudy "no ethics, no problem" Giulliani calling for violent insurrection.
Call horny furry Qanan guy, to testify that he, and many others interpreted Trump’s tweets and the speech at the podium as a call to overturn the vote, and to storm the capital with video of him howling like a banshee in the Senate chambers.
Play the video the gallows they set up, and any video of rioters chanting “Hang Mike Pence”.
Play the video of the cop who led the rioters away from Pence and the chambers.
Play the video of the rioter throwing a fire extinguisher at the group of cops, hitting one in the head
Play the video of the rioters trampling on the “Don’t tread on me” rioter as the rioters rush to beat the cop with a hockey stick.
Call Trump to the stand
Ask him if he won the election
Ask him if he intended the "stop the steal" rally was to convince Congress to throw out the certified electoral votes
Sit down
Call for a vote
I'm sure Trump thinks/knows he’ll be acquitted no matter what. That’s why he wants the election fraud out there. Then when he’s acquitted on ostensibly Constitutional grounds, he will with due haste construe it as "TOTAL VINDICATION!!" of his stolen election bullshit.
If he's going to be acquitted. Don't make it easy on him
Last edited:
Trumps new lawyers
Lol
One of Trump’s attorneys believes Epstein was murdered, the other declined to prosecute Cosby
David Schoen also represented ‘all sorts of reputed mobsters’ while Bruce Castor sued Cosby accuser for defamation
Heartbreaker
Diamond Member
- Apr 3, 2006
- 5,166
- 6,787
- 136
Trumps new lawyers
Lol
One of Trump’s attorneys believes Epstein was murdered, the other declined to prosecute Cosby
David Schoen also represented ‘all sorts of reputed mobsters’ while Bruce Castor sued Cosby accuser for defamation
Doesn't really matter though, since is a political
Lost_in_the_HTTP
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2019
- 13,316
- 7,885
- 136
zzyzxroad
Diamond Member
- Jan 29, 2017
- 3,264
- 2,287
- 136
I wonder if he realizes that Trump's AG reviewed the security footage and said no one entered Epstein's cell that night. Most conservatives somehow missed that and think the footage was somehow lost. I'm sure Trump and Barr didn't put a spotlight on it because the thought path the cult took was Hillary had him killed.Trumps new lawyers
Lol
One of Trump’s attorneys believes Epstein was murdered, the other declined to prosecute Cosby
David Schoen also represented ‘all sorts of reputed mobsters’ while Bruce Castor sued Cosby accuser for defamation
Lost_in_the_HTTP
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2019
- 13,316
- 7,885
- 136
And you believe him? It's been stated Barr had some kind of mystery visit that night, prior to the discovery.
zzyzxroad
Diamond Member
- Jan 29, 2017
- 3,264
- 2,287
- 136
Well my point is really if he did lie is sure the hell wasn't for Hillary. He probably was telling the truth and I haven't seen any credible reporting on a secret visit. Epstein was looking at life in prison as a child molester and the most logical answer is usually the right one. Barr arranging a murder in a federal prison with 24 surveillance footage would be a huge risk and I don't think he had ties so I don't see why he would. I don't want to derail the thread though and have no interest in rehashing the matter.
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,242
- 14,243
- 136
Yes, a huge risk is putting it mildly. I would go so far as to say that being in the position of Barr or Trump gives no better opportunity to pull this off than anyone else. You can't give an order to prison guards to murder an inmate. So if such a thing happened, it would have been a bribe, which anyone with sufficient resources could have pulled off.
But really, there is no strong evidence to suggest that this was anything other than what it appears to be. This is a conspiracy theory which seems to cut across political boundaries because each side can blame someone they don't like. It's no excuse.
BTW, if there is footage, then Biden's AG should be able to view it now as well, and if it is now somehow missing, I have a feeling we're going to hear about it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter