The Trump Impeachment Thread

Quote: rxwine

Hah, ha ha I'm trying to imagine which Democrat was having a crisis of conscious and wasn't doing what he or she wanted. About the only thing any Democrat could have been debating was which negative thing, like censure might be better.

The easiest job in the world for Pelosi, was uniting the Democrats against Trump. Same with Schumer. I wouldn't even call it a job, it was a given.

You are absolutely right none of them had a crisis of conscience because that would involve thinking for themselves. Something you are not allowed to do as a Democratic. It is easy to be a Dem your handlers show you the line say put your toe on it and don't move until we move the line.

Quote: kenarman

You are absolutely right none of them had a crisis of conscience because that would involve thinking for themselves. Something you are not allowed to do as a Democratic. It is easy to be a Dem your handlers show you the line say put your toe on it and don't move until we move the line.

We've had 4 years of this.

Can Trump qualify to run in Canada if he becomes a citizen? You like that psycho nutbag, you can have him free of charge.

Quote: rxwine

Can Trump qualify to run in Canada if he becomes a citizen? You like that psycho nutbag, you can have him free of charge.

Why would you wish that on those nice people up north?

Quote: rxwine

Can Trump qualify to run in Canada if he becomes a citizen? You like that psycho nutbag, you can have him free of charge.

To answer your question Canada allows any citizen whether born in Canada or elsewhere to run for any office. 4 of our Prime Ministers were born in the UK. The past leader of the Green Party was born in the US.

Quote: Wizard

They obviously threw that in there to prevent the impeached person from holding office again. I take it your point is that a careful reading of the Constitution would suggest the trial was legitimate for the purpose of doing just that.

That's my opinion on it. I wouldn't say, "Threw in there," though...my assumption would be that it was carefully considered.

The best comparison for what I'm saying that I can think of is getting fired from a job--which is what Impeachment essentially is. You can have an employee who gets fired for doing something terrible in the workplace, being derelict or just royally screwing up. When this happens, employees are usually either considered, "Eligible for rehire," or, "Not eligible for rehire."

In the event that an employee resigns, or his contract expires prior to you (as the employer) terminating it or even finding out about the indiscretion in question, then you can still go back and tag the personnel file as, "Not eligible for rehire." It's essentially the same thing. You don't want a President to have unlimited power, and we also have the concept of separation of powers, so much like a POTUS has veto power so does the Congress have the power to fire him.

Quote:

Good point, which was a central point of the House's case about the constitutionality question. To play the devil's *ahem* advocate, one might argue that Article 1 Section 3 addresses that.

In other words, if the former president did something so heinous, he would be held accountable in the criminal courts.

Finally, they might say that as another failsafe is the voters. In other words, if he did something so heinous, the voters wouldn't elect him.

To argue my own point, I agree with Trump that he could shoot someone in cold blood and plain view on Fifth Avenue and not face any consequences. In fact, I will entertain bets on him winning the 2024 GOP primary. My prediction is the non-Trump Republicans will divide their vote among a wide field.

Anyway, can we agree the whole thing pits the letter of the Constitution to the spirit of it?

I agree with that to a certain extent. One key thing to note is that, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," in the Constitution doesn't necessarily have to refer to codified criminal acts, even though it sometimes can. They chose to go with a criminal act on this occasion---which I think was kind of a mistake.

The, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," can also refer to acts that are not necessarily criminal because they can only be done owing to one's position of power and responsibility. In an instance such as that (where no actual criminal tort was committed), Impeachment is the sole means of redress.

I don't think someone could really use the argument of the voters, otherwise, there would be no reason to even have it in there that a person can be barred from future Federal positions of trust or profit.

I basically agree that it puts the letter of the Constitution against the spirit of it, but that's really a problem with the Constitution itself---it doesn't actually say very much. There are a few areas where it gets into some degree of specifics, but it mostly doesn't, yet we (by law) hold it up as THE prevailing legal document for the entire country.

Quote: SOOPOO

As far as Mission saying Trump has a chance of being re-elected, someone offer me what odds they want and I will take the no! He lost this time, and probably 5-10% of people who voted for him would not next time, and ZERO% of those that voted against him would change their vote TO him. Plus the overall demographics favor the Dems... anchor babies reaching age, old white Trumpers dying, etc....

In addition to being averse to taking the long side of odds, I should also clarify my statement in case I misspoke:

I didn't mean to imply that Trump has any meaningful chance of being reelected. I simply meant to say that Trump has a greater chance of being reelected than Nixon would have. Also, since Nixon already had been elected to two terms, I'm not certain that he could even be elected again and tend to think not, even though he served fewer than six total years.

Another thing is that Nixon was lambasted by the better part of the Republican Party for his actions, which didn't exactly happen with Trump. The vote to convict Trump, for example, went 57-43 (seven Republicans) and Nixon would almost certainly have been convicted by the Senate, which by definition, means more Republicans would have voted to convict.

Furthermore, 40% of Republicans in a recent Gallup poll said that they would vote for Trump in the Republican Primary if he were to run for nomination in 2024. That's obviously not automatically sufficient to win, but if you end up with a crowded field, it would almost certainly be enough. I think he would win the Republican Nomination if he ran in 2024, which gives him a shot at winning the General.

How would he win in the general? I'd say either Biden dying and the Democrats producing a very disliked candidate (as they did in 2016) OR the economy is completely in the toilet at that time. The POTUS really doesn't have much to do with the overall state of the economy, but people sure seem to think he does, so the economy being in the crapper gives any non-incumbent a chance pretty much by default.

Quote: Mission146

That's my opinion on it...

Good post. I don't disagree with any of it.

Quote: fleaswatter

Trump 2.....................Nancy Pelosi and the idiot house impeachment managers 0

I watched most of the losers’ press conference after Trump was acquitted. They are completely clueless. They seem to fail to understand that they LOST.

Nancy will go down in history as the only Speaker of the House to bring two failed impeachments.

I have read here many comments here concerning the constitutionally of the senate trial. I believe this issue has yet to be determined. Just because a majority of the senate voted to hold the trial, that vote DOES NOT make the trial constitutional. Many, many times throughout our countries’ history, laws voted on and passed by elected officials including the US senate have been determined to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. I wish that there would be some way for the US Supreme Court to actually rule on the issue.

(Quote clipped, relevance)

That's actually an excellent point. I suppose the precedent that it sets is that it hasn't been declared (by The Senate) to be Unconstitutional, but that doesn't automatically make it Constitutional.

However, on that note, I'm not certain that the impeached has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court (if he/she doesn't like the result). That itself would be a Constitutional question, whether or not an appeal could even be made, because the Constitution itself says:

Quote:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

"Sole Power," being the operative words. At no point does it mention any check by the Supreme Court other than the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS must preside over the Impeachment of an acting POTUS. In other words, my conclusion would be that this process exists entirely outside of the SCOTUS.

If that's correct, then the Senate does decide whether or not an Impeachment effort is Constitutional, as they have sole power over Impeachment.

Quote: Wizard

Good post. I don't disagree with any of it.

Thanks for saying so!