Jump to content
Null

Why Impeach Trump now?


Recommended Posts





  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For those who do not know, impeaching Trump has the following result -- 1. He loses his $200,000+ lifelong pension 2. He loses his $1 Million per year travel allowance 3. He loses lifetime fu

You are completely missing the forest for the trees. You cannot look at this situation as having been caused by this one speech, which seems to be what those who support Trump are doing.  From th

Wrong forum. The question isn’t who has the sole power of impeachment; but when and against whom may that power be exercised. The Court’s interpretation of the impeachment clause, with res

9 minutes ago, AUUSN said:

Remember. Bin Laden didn’t actually fly the planes.

But he did plan the assault.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How is the question of whether a former President is subject to the Constitution's impeachment clause nonjusticiable?

Because that's the standard and only a dumbass or a hack would think otherwise.

Go listen to that podcast I posted.

Quote

Contrary precedent, if any, is not determinative to the Supreme Court granting writ. Appellate Courts and SCOTUS routinely hear cases with contrary precedent.

Hell, they could rule he farts glitter and sh**s rainbow sherbert too therefore he's president for life, since we're going so deep into fantasy land here. 

Quote

Why would that be necessary?

Because that's the only way they'd rule in his favor. "SOLE" and all that jazz.

Quote

Is it your view that the issue would ultimately be a political question, and therefore nonjusticiable on that basis?

I mean, it is. Might as well be asking them to overturn Marbury v Madison.

You may get Alito to agree, maybe Thomas too, but those guys are hyperpartisan weirdos.

So 7-2 (at worst) to invent a new legal fiction contrary to the text of the Constitution. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

But he did plan the assault.

He had people to do that for him. Ultimately responsible for it, no doubt, since he was in charge and the final word on the matter was his, but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did the planning and others carried it out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AUDub said:

Because that's the standard and only a dumbass or a hack would think otherwise.

Wrong forum.

9 hours ago, AUDub said:

Because that's the only way they'd rule in his favor. "SOLE" and all that jazz.

The question isn’t who has the sole power of impeachment; but when and against whom may that power be exercised.

The Court’s interpretation of the impeachment clause, with respect to whether the senate may exercise the power granted it by that clause against a former president, is not a political question. Likewise, whether a former president is subject to the senate’s impeachment power is not a political question. Perhaps you, or the authority you are relying on, do not understand the doctrine. To be fair, it’s a complex rule.

You are inclined to attack persons (the author of article, Alito, Thomas, the “hacks” and “dumbasses” referenced above, etc.) instead of the positions that they maintain. Not a persuasive form of argument. #BeMoreLikeBrad

:) 

  • Like 2
  • Love 2
  • Haha 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The Court’s interpretation of the impeachment clause, with respect to whether the senate may exercise the power granted it by that clause against a former president, is not a political question. Likewise, whether a former president is subject to the senate’s impeachment power is not a political question. Perhaps you, or the authority you are relying on, do not understand the doctrine. To be fair, it’s a complex rule.

A question: my understanding is that it takes a super-majority to convict someone in an impeachment trial, but only a simple majority to bar them from future public office. The former seems to be in doubt, and may need to be settled by the courts. Do you know if it is the same for the latter? Does the person have to be impeached for the latter to occur?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2021 at 1:59 PM, wdefromtx said:

They can impeach him if they so choose, but I think it is foolish for them to try to do it right away. If I recall, impeachment will take priority on the calendar over other things and shouldn't they be more concerned about whatever else they wanted to pass with the Covid relief bills? The could easily take car of more pressing issues first them do whatever. Unless by law they have to do it immediately, which I haven't looked to see. But if they don't have to do it immediately and make this their first priority, it will show that they have no intention of trying to heal this country. 

not so fast my friend......trump is a clear and present danger and needs to be dealt with immediately.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

“Let’s put the shoe on the other foot,” he noted. “If a Democrat president did what happened last week, would the Republicans in the House and Senate vote to impeach him if they could? The answer is yes.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

A question: my understanding is that it takes a super-majority to convict someone in an impeachment trial, but only a simple majority to bar them from future public office. The former seems to be in doubt, and may need to be settled by the courts. Do you know if it is the same for the latter? Does the person have to be impeached for the latter to occur?

That is a great question. My gut says it depends on the means by which congress is attempting to bar the person. In other words, if they are proceeding under Article II (impeachment clause), a conviction may be a precondition to subsequent disqualification. The opposing view would argue that, given the Senate's broad latitude and discretion over impeachment, a conviction is not necessary. 

Now, if congress were to proceed towards disqualification under the 14th Amendment (Section II or III, it's one of them but my mind is failing me at the moment), only a simple majority of both bodiesis needed. From a textual standpoint, I cannot say whether "office" includes the presidency. From a historical standpoint, the Amendment should be read through the post-civil war context in which it was written (which in turn helps to demonstrate what the drafters were trying to achieve).

In either event, both scenarios present issues that are largely uncharted. 

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

not so fast my friend......trump is a clear and present danger and needs to be dealt with immediately.

It won't make a difference after Biden is in, so go ahead a get more pressure things regarding the pandemic passed first them come back in a few weeks and do it or whatever. Which, I think it is what some are planning on wanting to do. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

“Let’s put the shoe on the other foot,” he noted. “If a Democrat president did what happened last week, would the Republicans in the House and Senate vote to impeach him if they could? The answer is yes.”

I am sure they would try, but my stance would still be the same as with Trump.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Now, if congress were to proceed towards disqualification under the 14th Amendment (Section II or III, it's one of them but my mind is failing me at the moment), only a simple majority of both bodies is needed. From a textual standpoint, I cannot say whether "office" includes the presidency. From a historical standpoint, the Amendment should be read through the post-civil war context in which it was written (which in turn helps to demonstrate what the drafters were trying to achieve).

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Interesting way it is ordered. It appears it was written mainly with Congress in mind, which would make sense given the historical context you mentioned. I would think President would be included, as it is a civil office, but given the position in the text it reads almost as an afterthought.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

not so fast my friend......trump is a clear and present danger and needs to be dealt with immediately.

Sorry fidy, after stating this for four years, it kind of fails. We get you and the "cult" hate him, but lies don't help your cause. I mean, show me where he endangered you or I during his term. We've heard this ad nauseum. You nor I have to like him, but don't lie to make a political point. But, but, but CNN said...... Full stop.  

6 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

“Let’s put the shoe on the other foot,” he noted. “If a Democrat president did what happened last week, would the Republicans in the House and Senate vote to impeach him if they could? The answer is yes.”

Possibly. Politics brother. Know that. It does not make it right.

Edited by AUFAN78
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, AUDub said:

He had people to do that for him. Ultimately responsible for it, no doubt, since he was in charge and the final word on the matter was his, but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did the planning and others carried it out. 

Thanks for agreeing. We both just shattered this ignorant narrative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Jonah Goldberg has heard enough. A thread:

 

Is the definition of "Trump apologist" One who reads the words Trump said at the rally and doesn't in any way think those words are inciting violence?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Is the definition of "Trump apologist" One who reads the words Trump said at the rally and doesn't in any way think those words are inciting violence?

Maybe. I mean, at some point when you look around and so many people from so many different political and philosophical viewpoints across the spectrum are all telling you the same thing and you don’t see it, maybe it’s time to re-examine the situation and consider that maybe they aren’t wrong. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TitanTiger said:

Maybe. I mean, at some point when you look around and so many people from so many different political and philosophical viewpoints across the spectrum are all telling you the same thing and you don’t see it, maybe it’s time to re-examine the situation and consider that maybe they aren’t wrong. 

Maybe. For some reason, it is assumed that the people on the left are 100% correct and the people on the right are 100% looney. I'm used to it.

All I know to do is look at the actual words that were said and then use my intellect and education to interpret what those words mean. I will readily admit that it is possible that all of never-Trumpers are smarter and more educated than I am. It is also possible that hatred has damaged your ability to reason.

Just for fun I'll ask (and don't expect a reply) "What words did Trump use to incite the mob?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

But in this case it's not the left saying one thing and the right saying another and you choose between them.  People from all across the political spectrum are saying the same things here.  Jonah Goldberg is not on the left.  

Only a fringe group of the true believers still are giving this man the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think it's nonsense to waste time on something that is about to happen anyway. It seems that pissing off people in this country is a prerequisite for leading the country (if that's what you want to call it these days). We have some major hurdles to jump in the coming years and all these people want to do is ignore it all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I just think it's nonsense to waste time on something that is about to happen anyway. It seems that pissing off people in this country is a prerequisite for leading the country (if that's what you want to call it these days). We have some major hurdles to jump in the coming years and all these people want to do is ignore it all. 

I think you're misplacing that blame.  Trump and his excusers and enablers have only themselves to blame.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess what I'm saying is, to watch this braying jackass for the last four years and then especially to hear his rhetoric surrounding the election for the last couple of months, and to be aware of how he amps up these wackos from militia groups, white nationalists, and so on until it finally boils over with what we saw on January 6th and put the onus for bringing about unity and peace on others is a special sort of blindness.

I believe we can and will have peace again.  But you don't get there by continuing to enable and wink at bad behavior.  It has to be confronted and those actions have to have consequences.  THEN you might have a chance at some peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Wrong forum.

Natch. Bitch about tenor. Not surprised.

12 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The question isn’t who has the sole power of impeachment; but when and against whom may that power be exercised.

And I'm telling you that the argument you're presenting is set in stone, practice, and already been adjudicated. 

Quote

The Court’s interpretation of the impeachment clause, with respect to whether the senate may exercise the power granted it by that clause against a former president, is not a political question. Likewise, whether a former president is subject to the senate’s impeachment power is not a political question. Perhaps you, or the authority you are relying on, do not understand the doctrine. To be fair, it’s a complex rule.

You are inclined to attack persons (the author of article, Alito, Thomas, the “hacks” and “dumbasses” referenced above, etc.) instead of the positions that they maintain. Not a persuasive form of argument. #BeMoreLikeBrad

By the standard you and Luttig seek to apply, there is nothing that isn't justiciable. 

But you got your likes and laughs from the coterie of right wing dumbasses here, so I bet you're just feeling peachy keen, "legal scholar" that you are pass yourself off as. 

Edited by AUDub
  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2021 at 9:07 PM, GoAU said:

I don’t know, but since he didn’t incite anyone to storm the Capital I don’t see how it’s even relevant.   
 

 

He's been inciting his cult for months. Months before the election. Months after the election. And he along with other speakers incited them on the day of the attack on the Capitol. Taken together, Trump's public tweets, videos and statements are absolutely damning.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/01/road-to-a-second-impeachment/

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...