Impeach Trump for the Good of the Country

[BigRed]

And Chris Wallace is a twit.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I'm lost... what was the point of contention/debate before the whole ball of yarn jumble?

 

[printcraft]

Liz Cheney was on a talking head show this morning squawking about how Republicans are the party of Lincoln.

He Liz, you might want to actually do a little history homework before you start holding that tyrannical constitution shredding son of a bitch up as your standard bearer.

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/liz-cheney-wyoming/2021/02/06/id/1008918/?utm_source=thehill

 

[jamil]

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/liz-cheney-wyoming/2021/02/06/id/1008918/?utm_source=thehill

Well. I was wondering if I ever click on a newsmax link if my phone would get cooties. So far so good, but I did use a lens wipe on the screen after.

Anyway,
“The censure in the latest example of fissures within the Republican Party between members who’ve split with the former president and those who continue to defend him.”

I think the fissures within the Republican Party extend beyond just the people who defend Trump. I don’t think a private citizen can be impeached and the more I look into it the less I think the constitution allows it. A vote for impeachment is an indicator that rule of law doesn’t matter as much as the rule of a few oligarchs, regardless of what one thinks about Trump.

 

[printcraft]

Well. I was wondering if I ever click on a newsmax link if my phone would get cooties. So far so good, but I did use a lens wipe on the screen after.

Anyway,
“The censure in the latest example of fissures within the Republican Party between members who’ve split with the former president and those who continue to defend him.”

I think the fissures within the Republican Party extend beyond just the people who defend Trump. I don’t think a private citizen can be impeached and the more I look into it the less I think the constitution allows it. A vote for impeachment is an indicator that rule of law doesn’t matter as much as the rule of a few oligarchs, regardless of what one thinks about Trump.

They are in crazy town. What's to stop an impeachment of the My Pillow guy?
He may run for office some day someday so they need to get it done.

 

[BigRed]

Well. I was wondering if I ever click on a newsmax link if my phone would get cooties. So far so good, but I did use a lens wipe on the screen after.

Anyway,
“The censure in the latest example of fissures within the Republican Party between members who’ve split with the former president and those who continue to defend him.”

I think the fissures within the Republican Party extend beyond just the people who defend Trump. I don’t think a private citizen can be impeached and the more I look into it the less I think the constitution allows it. A vote for impeachment is an indicator that rule of law doesn’t matter as much as the rule of a few oligarchs, regardless of what one thinks about Trump.

A plain reading of the Constitution makes it plain the impeachment of a former executive is not constitutuional. That said, when have "progressives" ever given a rat's ass about constitutional limits?

"Progressives" are pure scum.

 

[bwframe]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[yote hunter]

What a waste of our tax $ . Trump is a private citizen, you can’t impeach him. Geezzz

 

[bwframe]

GOP senator attempts to blame Nancy Pelosi, not Trump, for the Capitol riot as impeachment trial looms

Top Republicans attempted to flip the narrative ahead of Trump's second impeachment trial in the Senate on Tuesday.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[actaeon277]

Well, everyone knows, that's just crazy talk

 

[KG1]

What a waste of our tax $ . Trump is a private citizen, you can’t impeach him. Geezzz

This is exactly why CJ John Roberts is not presiding over the Senate "Trial" because whatever Congress is attempting to do now does not qualify as a Presidential impeachment trial.

You must have an impeachment conviction of a sitting President and removal from office first in order to reach a punitive vote such as barring from holding future public office.

Congress lost all jurisdiction when Trump left office. 45 Senators already voted that they did not even have jurisdiction to consider an impeachment verdict.

 

[phylodog]

It's almost as if the people in charge don't respect the constitution or rule of law. Funny since the oath they take says they will. Maybe they aren't lying about not coming after our guns after all.

 

[BigRed]

It's almost as if the people in charge don't respect the constitution or rule of law. Funny since the oath they take says they will. Maybe they aren't lying about not coming after our guns after all.

Kome on, man. Kut it out.

 

[BugI02]

This is exactly why CJ John Roberts is not presiding over the Senate "Trial" because whatever Congress is attempting to do now does not qualify as a Presidential impeachment trial.

You must have an impeachment conviction of a sitting President and removal from office first in order to reach a punitive vote such as barring from holding future public office.

Congress lost all jurisdiction when Trump left office. 45 Senators already voted that they did not even have jurisdiction to consider an impeachment verdict.

Have you considered that Roberts, no fan of Trump, is possibly not presiding so he might not have to recuse himself if the case comes before SCOTUS, thus preserving his ability to side with those of little faith and shiv Trump one more time

These people are past masters of back stabbing

 

[BugI02]

Kome on, man. Kut it out.

Not sure that's actually making CM wish there were more like BigRed

 

[KG1]

Have you considered that Roberts, no fan of Trump, is possibly not presiding so he might not have to recuse himself if the case comes before SCOTUS, thus preserving his ability to side with those of little faith and shiv Trump one more time

These people are past masters of back stabbing

In Article 1 Sec.3 of the Constitution it stipulates that the Chief Justice shall preside over a Senate trial of an impeached President. Therefore the fact that Roberts will not be presiding is an indicator that a Senate impeachment trial no longer jurisdictionally applies because Trump is no longer in office and as such does not require his duties as spelled out in the Constitution.

That in and of itself should speak volumes as to it's validity.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of John Roberts either.

 

[Doug]

First, the trial is illegal, but they are doing it anyway.

Second, they cannot vote to bar Trump from holding office unless he is convicted.

Third, when he is not convicted, expect them to vote to bar him from holding office, anyway.

Attempting to keep Trump from running is 2024 is the only reason for this farce.

 

[yote hunter]

Maybe the Dems are thinking Trump is still in office in a way , even if Biden was sworn in !? There are still on going fights about the recount of votes. So this may be there thinking ? Food for thought .

 

[KG1]

Maybe the Dems are thinking Trump is still in office in a way , even if Biden was sworn in !? There are still on going fights about the recount of votes. So this may be there thinking ? Food for thought .

It's a long shot and I don't think the Democrats are too concerned about that when they have Judges covering their sixes. Oh I'm sure they would like to use it as their Ace in the hole card if that were to occur though. They like to have insurance policies.

 

[NKBJ]

One good thing about this is most people who think it over can't help but conclude that it's not about dummycrats and republithugs, not about left versus right, not about US politics.