The Trump Second Impeachment Thread

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

I guess one person's seditious traitor is another person's revolutionary. 

Those Seditious Free French Forces! 

 

Indeed...making your side what?

[Shady]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. Biden had Senators over to discuss a compromise, they seem far off. 

What the Democrats and, I suspect many Republicans, would want from a Convictions is to then have vote barring him from every holding federal office again. 

The legal argument that he can't be impeached after leaving office is spurious. If it was true, any POTUS could commit any number of crimes on their last in office and face no consequences. 

 

No they cannot conduct an impeachment trial at the same time as other business.  They also cannot bar him from ever running for office again.  All they're doing is promoting division and setting a new precedent that impeachments are now acceptable for non-sitting presidents.  Just another institution that they're destroying.  Much like the judicial filibuster they got rid of during Obama's presidency.  Regardless, crimes would be dealt with through the normal criminal justice system.  Impeachment doesn't address crimes in that respect.  All impeachment does, if successful, is remove somebody from office.  That's it's primary purpose. 

[Boges]

Just now, Shady said:

 They also cannot bar him from ever running for office again. 

 

Wrong. There's historic precedent. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-explainer-idUSKBN29H1A8

Quote

 

Impeachment could be used to remove Trump from office and to disqualify him from holding political office in the future.

Two historical precedents, both involving federal judges, make clear that the Senate could also vote to disqualify the president from holding office in the future, with only a simple majority needed.

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.

 

 

[DogOnPorch]

Partisan...

Let's try banning Trump and see how many more real enemies the Democrats make.

[OftenWrong]

41 minutes ago, Boges said:

I guess one person's seditious traitor is another person's revolutionary. 

Those Seditious Free French Forces! 

Since political dialogue is no longer permitted under Democrat control, I guess so. In other words the more you fight something down, the more it comes back even stronger.

[Boges]

4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Since political dialogue is no longer permitted under Democrat control, I guess so. In other words the more you fight something down, the more it comes back even stronger.

Actually, the Jan 6 riots have caused many top leave the GOP. 

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/01/962246187/spurred-by-the-capitol-riot-thousands-of-republicans-drop-their-party

[Shady]

55 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Partisan...

Let's try banning Trump and see how many more real enemies the Democrats make.

The left wants to cancel everything it doesn't like.  Scratch a leftist find a fascist.  

[Shady]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

 

Wrong. There's historic precedent. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-explainer-idUSKBN29H1A8

 

No historical precedent of presidents.  That's why the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court won't participate.  Usually he or she presides over impeachment trials.

[OftenWrong]

20 minutes ago, Boges said:

Actually, the Jan 6 riots have caused many top leave the GOP. 

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/01/962246187/spurred-by-the-capitol-riot-thousands-of-republicans-drop-their-party

It's not the top that matters. Since rational right-wing criticism and dialogue are no longer permitted, how can the right defend themselves? Instead, the left-controlled media speaks of QAnon as if that is the modern view of right wingers.

Feed your bias here.

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Shady said:

No historical precedent of presidents.  That's why the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court won't participate.  Usually he or she presides over impeachment trials.

Well there have only been four POTUS impeachments. Trump has two of them. 

But impeachment can happen for a variety of Federal officials. And there is precedent from other Impeachment trials. 

It'll clearly be a legal debate. Quit being so resolute, your opinion is not indisputable fact. 

[Boges]

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

It's not the top that matters. Since rational right-wing criticism and dialogue are no longer permitted, how can the right defend themselves? Instead, the left-controlled media speaks of QAnon as if that is the modern view of right wingers.

Feed your bias here.

It seems to be the prevailing appetite for the GOP actually. 

Big Boy Conservatives are often castigated as RINOs. Many have left the party and oppose Trumpism. See the Lincoln Project. 

How else can you explain the shrugs for MTG's antics, while Liz Cheney is facing expulsion or demotion for voting to Impeach Trump. 

It speaks to a bigger crisis in the GOP. For election success they need the votes of both Fiscal and responsible Conservatives and the crazies in QAnon. It appears, it'll be tough to keep them both under the same tent. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Boges

[Shady]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

Well there have only been four POTUS impeachments. Trump has two of them. 

But impeachment can happen for a variety of Federal officials. And there is precedent from other Impeachment trials. 

It'll clearly be a legal debate. Quit being so resolute, your opinion is not indisputable fact. 

Why has the Chief Justice refused to participate?

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, Shady said:

Why has the Chief Justice refused to participate?

This is what Google says. 

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/01/roberts-will-not-preside-over-impeachment-trial/

Quote

 

In a statement released on Monday, Leahy wrote that the president pro tempore “has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents.” Leahy pledged to adhere to his “constitutional and sworn obligations to administer the trial with fairness.”

The Supreme Court had no comment regarding Roberts’ absence from the second impeachment trial.

 

Where is your source that he refuses? 

[Shady]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

This is what Google says. 

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/01/roberts-will-not-preside-over-impeachment-trial/

Where is your source that he refuses? 

It's his decision, if he wanted to preside he could.  That he chooses to not should tell you something.  You guys are like Moby Dick.  You need your white whale, process and precedent be damned!  And you don't care what you do to the country as a result.  It's really disgusting.

[Petros]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

You mean the "ratings" posted by the media outlets that support banning political speech, and who use their networks to remove alternative voices, and applications like Parler?

Everything is a conspiracy against Trump, isn't it?

[OftenWrong]

3 minutes ago, Petros said:

Everything is a conspiracy against Trump, isn't it?

You got it, little Peppi.  

[Petros]

17 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

You got it, little Peppi.  

I should just stand back from the keyboard and observe.  That way in one year, I can look back and laugh at these silly comments when Trump is in an orange suit being led to a correctional facility. 

[Boges]

1 hour ago, Shady said:

It's his decision, if he wanted to preside he could.  That he chooses to not should tell you something.  You guys are like Moby Dick.  You need your white whale, process and precedent be damned!  And you don't care what you do to the country as a result.  It's really disgusting.

So you're assuming he doesn't want to. 

Even if he doesn't want to, it doesn't mean he doesn't because he opposes Impeachment after leaving office. He may have better things to do, like being the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS

You haven't refuted the claim that the president pro tempore resides over cases like these? Just going to ignore that cite.  

[Right To Left]

8 hours ago, Boges said:

Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. Biden had Senators over to discuss a compromise, they seem far off. 

What the Democrats and, I suspect many Republicans, would want from a Convictions is to then have vote barring him from every holding federal office again. 

The legal argument that he can't be impeached after leaving office is spurious. If it was true, any POTUS could commit any number of crimes on their last in office and face no consequences. 

 

Seems like the US has had a string of presidents in modern times who could have been impeached for domestic and foreign crimes.

[Right To Left]

4 hours ago, Petros said:

I should just stand back from the keyboard and observe.  That way in one year, I can look back and laugh at these silly comments when Trump is in an orange suit being led to a correctional facility. 

All it will prove is which side of the political aisle has the most power behind them! 

I don't think the Dems and their media allies would have wasted four years fluffing up Russia conspiracy theories and trying to find ways to connect them with Trump, if they weren't worried that the examples of real crimes committed by Donald The Businessman could have been stuck to him without taking down Democrats and more important - financiers of both parties.

[Cannucklehead]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/us-politics/article-house-democrats-ask-trump-to-testify-under-oath-for-his-senate/

 

5th ammendment to the rescue!  

[WestCanMan]

12 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/us-politics/article-house-democrats-ask-trump-to-testify-under-oath-for-his-senate/

5th ammendment to the rescue!  

Trump doesn't have to show up for that farce. There's no evidence that he wanted his supporters to attack the capitol, the Dems just want to be on TV acting like upstanding citizens all of a sudden. 

They are trying to pull off another 'big switch' illusion, like when they pretended to leave their KKK days behind them.

The Dems are the party of chaos, racial division, and contempt for law and order. They're trying to act like they suddenly give a shit about "laws" but no one with any brains is buying it. 

[WestCanMan]

On 2/3/2021 at 5:33 AM, Boges said:

It's nice to retroactively mock this lot now that they're turning on Trump. 

This is the type of support Trump courted. 

Ditto with MTG who believes lasers from space cause forrest fires. 

Are you aware that Antifa members were in the crowd that entered the capitol buildings? 

[WestCanMan]

On 2/3/2021 at 6:54 AM, DogOnPorch said:

Partisan...

Let's try banning Trump and see how many more real enemies the Democrats make.

The Democrats are actively trying to make enemies. They'd like nothing better than for someone to snap right now and pull a reverse-James Hodgkinson and shoot some Democrats. But guess what? This time they will be blaming the violence on a political party and it won't be themselves, even though they are doing everything within their power to incite more violence. 

They spent all of 2014, 2015 and 2016 dividing the country along racial and political lines, and as soon as they saw a chink in the armour in 2020, they went all-in in support of the rioting, looting, arson and murder again. 

"It's 2020. We need to make bail for rioters & looters and get them back on the street as soon as possible so that they can contribute to more carnage". - Kamala C Harris.

[godzilla]

On 2/5/2021 at 3:49 PM, WestCanMan said:

"It's 2020. We need to make bail for rioters & looters and get them back on the street as soon as possible so that they can contribute to more carnage". - Kamala C Harris.

you just made that up.