The second impeachment of Donald Trump thread

[TBoneTX 45,953]

One day, part of the wall between Heaven and Hell broke down, and St. Peter called the Devil over to discuss repairs.

"The break definitely came from your side," said Peter, "so I think that it is up to you to fix it."

"Ha!" snorted the Devil.

"In that case," said Peter, "I'm afraid that I'm going to have to sue you."

"Ha!" said the Devil.  "And exactly WHERE would YOU find a lawyer?"

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

4 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

One day, part of the wall between Heaven and Hell broke down, and St. Peter called the Devil over to discuss repairs.

"The break definitely came from your side," said Peter, "so I think that it is up to you to fix it."

"Ha!" snorted the Devil.

"In that case," said Peter, "I'm afraid that I'm going to have to sue you."

"Ha!" said the Devil.  "And exactly WHERE would YOU find a lawyer?"

Why do you bury Lawyers 10ft down

 

Cause down deep they are good people.

 

Interesting fact. They are the only profession  people trust less than car salesmen.

[Ban Hammer 13,489]

3 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Interesting fact. They are the only profession  people trust less than car salesmen.

where do politicians rank?

[Boiler 45,947]

2 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

where do politicians rank?

Same as Journalists

 

[Boiler 45,947]

 

Interesting, the election was Fortified.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

 

Interesting, the election was Fortified.

This is very telling for sure

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

 

Interesting, the election was Fortified.

 

  Fortified against fraudsters, apparently. Fortunate so many saw it coming and were prepared, but then again, this isn't the first time Trump has tried to pull off a massive fraudulent scheme. Nor even the second. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

On 2/6/2021 at 12:03 AM, Steeleballz said:

 

  Fortified against fraudsters, apparently. Fortunate so many saw it coming and were prepared, but then again, this isn't the first time Trump has tried to pull off a massive fraudulent scheme. Nor even the second. 

You mean upholding the voting laws that were already on the books?

 

 

 

So can we get Cori Bush impeached now for calling for violence in St. Louis?

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

Odd Chucky is leading this. Didnt he call for an attack on the Supreme court on the steps of the court and draw a rebuke from CJ Roberts? He used much stronger languages than Trump. 

 

Also telling Roberts refuses to be part of it

 

[laylalex 7,300]

Very interesting opinion piece in the WSJ on why impeachment IS constitutional, from Charles Cooper. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-constitution-doesnt-bar-trumps-impeachment-trial-11612724124?mod=djemalertNEWS (You should be able to read that without a sub -- I don't have one and I could read the whole thing.)

Quote

 

The strongest argument against the Senate’s authority to try a former officer relies on Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which provides: “The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The trial’s opponents argue that because this provision requires removal, and because only incumbent officers can be removed, it follows that only incumbent officers can be impeached and tried.

 

But the provision cuts against their interpretation. It simply establishes what is known in criminal law as a “mandatory minimum” punishment: If an incumbent officeholder is convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, he is removed from office as a matter of law.

 

If removal were the only punishment that could be imposed, the argument against trying former officers would be compelling. But it isn’t. Article I, Section 3 authorizes the Senate to impose an optional punishment on conviction: “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”

...

Some have argued in the alternative that the trial is unconstitutional because Chief Justice John Roberts won’t be presiding. (Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the chief justice was asked and declined.) Article I, Section 3 provides that “when the president of the United States is tried, the chief justice shall preside.”

 

This argument is mistaken, and the definite article is why: Mr. Trump is no longer the president. Section 3 excludes the vice president from a trial of a sitting president because she would accede to the office if he were convicted. No such consideration applies to Kamala Harris. It appears that Ms. Harris has also declined to preside, so the role will be filled by President Pro Tem Patrick Leahy. But she could unilaterally reclaim that prerogative at any time, including to cast tie-breaking votes on procedural motions or the decision to disqualify Mr. Trump.

 

 

Cooper is very, very conservative, and not exactly a lightweight of a lawyer.

Quote

Mr. Cooper’s decision to take on the argument was particularly significant because of his standing in conservative legal circles. He was a close confidant and adviser to Senate Republicans, like Ted Cruz of Texas when he ran for president, and represented House Republicans — including the minority leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California — in a lawsuit against Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He is also the lawyer for conservative stalwarts like John R. Bolton and Jeff Sessions, and over his career defended California’s same-sex marriage ban and had been a top outside lawyer for the National Rifle Association.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/07/us/politics/charles-cooper-trump-impeachment.html

 

 

 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Very interesting opinion piece in the WSJ on why impeachment IS constitutional, from Charles Cooper. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-constitution-doesnt-bar-trumps-impeachment-trial-11612724124?mod=djemalertNEWS (You should be able to read that without a sub -- I don't have one and I could read the whole thing.)

 

Cooper is very, very conservative, and not exactly a lightweight of a lawyer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/07/us/politics/charles-cooper-trump-impeachment.html

 

 

 

I agree it is constitutional but I don't think it he will be voted out. BTW have you signed the recall yet?

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

Rand Paul did a good job of breaking it down on Chris Wallace Fox show this am.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

Just now, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Rand Paul did a good job of breaking it down on Chris Wallace Fox show this am.

Did you happen to read the NYT piece?

I can't wait for them to play or show all the times the Dems have called for violence. Which BTW Cori Bush did that same thing this weekend

[Boiler 45,947]

Was there doubt that the Dems could not impeach

 

It is a political process not a criminal one so not sure how criminal issues come into it

[Dashinka 24,736]

On 2/6/2021 at 12:03 AM, Steeleballz said:

 

  Fortified against fraudsters, apparently. Fortunate so many saw it coming and were prepared, but then again, this isn't the first time Trump has tried to pull off a massive fraudulent scheme. Nor even the second. 

I think these players would be using fortifying it against the uninformed voters, or at least driving those folks to choose to go back to the swamp.