The Trump implosion thread!

Poll
2 votes (8.69%)
1 vote (4.34%)
No votes (0%)
2 votes (8.69%)
2 votes (8.69%)
13 votes (56.52%)
No votes (0%)
2 votes (8.69%)
No votes (0%)
1 vote (4.34%)

23 members have voted

September 9th, 2018 at 12:13:59 PM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
Quote: Evenbob
And how many don't
know the senate has to have an actual
crime they have to prove to impeach,
and the crimes have to have been
done while president..


Let's suppose the House votes to impeach, and the Senate votes to convict. After losing the trial, does the President have any recourse for an appeal? Nope. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (unanimously) that after impeachment & conviction, the trial is over and there is no appeal to any court, not even the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court can't step in because the Constitution says the Senate has the "sole" power. The only people who can step in are the voters who can vote out the rogue Senators in the next election.

Since there's no appeal, then the Senate could convict simply because they don't like the President, a crime does not need to be committed. District Judge John Pickering was impeached and convicted in 1803 for being an alcoholic.
September 9th, 2018 at 3:57:39 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: reno
Let's suppose the House votes to impeach, and the Senate votes to convict. After losing the trial, does the President have any recourse for an appeal? Nope.


So what, it'll never happen. He hasn't
committed an impeachable crime
while president or we would have
heard of it by now. They can only
get him in a perjury trap, but lawyers
are very savvy about that now after the
Bill Clinton debacle..
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
September 9th, 2018 at 6:07:59 PM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
Quote: Evenbob
He hasn't
committed an impeachable crime
while president or we would have
heard of it by now.


Suppose the President had given a series of public speeches that were long-winded, rambling, and embarrassing. Those speeches couldn't possibly be the basis for an Article of Impeachment, right? As it turns out, in September of 1866, Andrew Johnson gave a series of embarrassing speeches, and those speeches were the basis for Article 10 of his impeachment. (The text of Article 10 mentioned that his speeches brought about "cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing." Some crime, eh?)

It's not often that I quote Ann Coulter, but here we go:

Quote: Ann Coulter
Though it will come as a shock to people who acquire their legal knowledge from TV pundits, the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" has nothing to do with criminal law. The "somewhat startling" proposition that high crimes and misdemeanors need not be crimes at all is, nonetheless, an indisputable fact demonstrated by the "great preponderance of authority."

In fact, there is no such thing as a "high Crime and Misdemeanor" in the criminal law. Just as a sea lion is something completely different from a lion, and a mongoose completely different from a goose, the "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" mentioned in the Contitution are completely different from crimes and misdemeanors. Attaching "high" to "crimes and misdemeanors" creates an entirely different animal. And, as Rodham and Nussbaum once explained to the nation, the framers knew that.

Impeachment is not a criminal procedure; the acts that justify impeachment are not necessarily criminal acts; and the purpose of impeachment is not punishment.


As Coulter points out, John Mordaunt was impeached for being uncivil towards a woman and William Scroggs was impeached for throwing wild parties.
September 9th, 2018 at 8:05:33 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: reno
As it turns out, in September of 1866, Andrew Johnson gave a series of embarrassing speeches, and those speeches were the basis for Article 10 of his impeachment.


""Andrew Johnson, who succeeded to the presidency following Abraham Lincoln's assassination in 1865, was impeached because of his failure to follow procedures specified in federal legislation (passed over his veto) that prohibited the firing of Cabinet officials without the permission of Congress."

That was why he was impeached, for breaking
an actual law. But the real reason was, he was
totally against helping the freed slaves and
rebuilding the South. So they tried to oust him.

Quote:
high crimes and misdemeanors need not be crimes at all is


In the House they can do it just because
they don't like you. In the Senate, where
your trial is held, the House is the
prosecutor and has to prove actual crimes
were committed and the Senate acts as
a jury. In Clinton's case he did commit a crime,
but the Senate decided it wasn't enough
of a crime to warrant impeachment.

The standards for impeaching a judge
is very much lower than for impeaching
a president.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
September 9th, 2018 at 8:07:41 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18629
Quote: reno
Impeachment is not a criminal procedure; the acts that justify impeachment are not necessarily criminal acts; and the purpose of impeachment is not punishment.

As Coulter points out, John Mordaunt was impeached for being uncivil towards a woman and William Scroggs was impeached for throwing wild parties.


You're going to cause EB's head to explode if he has to turn on Coulter.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
September 9th, 2018 at 8:13:57 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18629
Quote: Evenbob
"The standards for impeaching a judge
is very much lower than for impeaching
a president.



You must think Clinton was impeached for lying about atomic secrets or something. Trump is right in that target box as well ---- easily. Probably be even more to it.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
September 9th, 2018 at 8:27:30 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: rxwine
You must think Clinton was impeached for lying about atomic secrets or something..


He was impeached for a crime, that's
all they needed. If the House goes
Dem, they'll find something that
sounds like a crime. But the Senate
will never impeach him, no party is
going to throw their own man out
of office and doom themselves in
the next election.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
September 10th, 2018 at 2:37:45 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Evenbob


That was why he was impeached, for breaking
an actual law. But the real reason was, he was
totally against helping the freed slaves and
rebuilding the South. So they tried to oust him.


Johnson was not about to help the slaves or punish the South. He was a Democrat. Lincoln formed a "unity ticket." The kind the lamestream media and RINOs suggested McCain form in 2008. Some of us laughed at that idea, as we knew how well it worked the first and IIRC last time it was tried.

It would be like if Trump had put Biden on the ticket, to offer "balance." How much of Trump's agenda do you think Biden would support if Trump died and he was elevated?
The President is a fink.
September 10th, 2018 at 10:58:05 AM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
Quote: Evenbob
In the Senate, where
your trial is held, the House is the
prosecutor and has to prove actual crimes
were committed and the Senate acts as
a jury.


But let's not make the naive assumption that Congress is occupied by honest, honorable men who would never dream of abusing their power. My point is that the criteria for impeachment & conviction has nothing to do with whether the allegations are serious or whether the evidence is overwhelming. That part is irrelevant. The only criteria for conviction is whether 67 Senators decide it's in their own best interest for their own political careers to remove the President. The bottom line is that the President has no ability to appeal a bogus conviction, and every single member of Congress knows that. All that matters is the next election.

My personal prediction is that the Dems will take the House in November, and the GOP will maintain control of the Senate. I'm predicting that the House will pass Articles of Impeachment in 2019. But there is absolutely no way that 67 Senators will vote to convict. Ain't gonna happen.
September 10th, 2018 at 11:01:14 AM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: reno
the House will pass Articles of Impeachment in 2019.


Fantasyland, where the Libs dwell in
restful delusions..
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.