Hawaiian

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

No. 

Just stop it.

An impeachment trial in the SENATE is a POLITICAL trial. PERIOD.

Wow!  Look at who is triggered now.

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Pot kettle black.

The funny thing I find about your POV is that you pose as fair and objective while your bias is totally obvious.

I always prefer when people don't play such transparent games.

Get a life!

7 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Read his statement.  He says it's "political," not legal.  Of course it's political, but you can hardly say it's not a "legal" action. It's part and parcel of the constitutional impeachment process and very much "legal."

He means legal consequences.  The purpose of impeachment is usually to remove someone from office, thus a political action.  However,  it does not preclude legal consequences. 

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The majority of the activities in Washington D.C. like any other American city do not revolve around partisan politics. 

For example it's the best place out of Addis Ababa for Ethiopian food.

You've lost touch with reality. 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Cheap disingenuous deflection from the facts about impeachment. If convicted there are no legal consequences different from a trial in the justice system.

It was meant to be a facetious remark, but evidently you thought I was challenging your statement.  Whatever.

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

What???

 

Trump was "impeached" two times.  That just means a vote was taken to go ahead with a trial in the Senate.  While you may call the vote in the Senate following the trial a "political" move, it was nonetheless a crucial part of a legal proceeding and part of the Constitutional framework for the proceedings. 

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The impeachment grounds were legitimate. The Senate not convicting was a political action not a legal one. Trump's two impeachments will stand forever in history. Fact.

What move in D.C. is not "political"? 

31 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

The Supreme Court sidestepped the issue of the insurrection. Their decision limited a state's ability to keep people off a ballot for national elections such as the presidency. They said only the (hopelessly divided) Congress could exclude someone from being on the ballot. The BBC article you supplied also points to:

The SCOTUS decision avoided the key elements of the 14th Amendment, already built in. That being a 2/3rds vote by both the House and Senate to absolve the taint of insurrectionist which otherwise would allow such a person to hold office. The 14th Amendment added a disqualification clause to the three qualifications initially listed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Donald Trump referred to the above constitutional qualification when he said he wasn't worried about Elon Musk becoming president because Musk was born in S. Africa.  i.e. he accepts rules and refers to them as authority WHEN IT SERVES HIM.
He had previously tried to disqualify first Obama, then Ted Cruz on such grounds - except they did have requisite document as to their being citizens.  He also accepts that elections were fairly conducted - when the results favor him. The CONGRESS CERTIFIED - IN 2021 AND NOW IN 2025, that the elections were properly run and counted, but Trump only acknowledges this one.

The 2024 election proceeded without settling the issue of the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause prohibiting an insurrectionist from holding office. The Federal and state trials were successfully delayed by Trump's attorneys, the election was held and now the legal question remains. Just like age, citizenship and residency, the 14th Amendment separates who is and who is not eligible to be president.
Rules and Laws should matter in a society. The storming of the capitol on Jan 6th, 2021 was by people called to the capitol by Trump, and roused to march on to the capitol by Trump, and aroused further by speeches and Tweets as to actions by Pence. Trump lost that election and evidence presented in the congressional proceedings and court cases since then indicate he conspired in Obstruction of an Official Proceeding; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States; Conspiracy to Make a False Statement and "Incite," "Assist" or "Aid and Comfort" an Insurrection.

By the letter of the law, unless and until Congress absolves Trump of his actions, he is not legally eligible to be president.
I again state that I expect the charade to continue. The nation is poised to be run like a circus, with Trump as the ringmaster and the rule of reasoned laws a matter of history. How fast the transition is the question the remains to be seen.

 

And I expect you to continue talking to yourself. 

1 hour ago, jimmybcool said:

Is it the fact Clinton wasn't removed from office you think he was found innocent?  Love to hear what part you disagree with.

 

After nearly 14 hours of debate, the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, charging him with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. Clinton, the second president in American history to be impeached, vowed to finish his term.

It's senseless to have any further discussion with you.  Good bye.

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

Trump has an unlimited ego.

 

Musk has unlimited money.

 

Which means more to Donald, money or his ego?

 

We are perhaps in uncharted waters.

I'll think Trump's ego will get the best of him.  He doesn't need any more campaign contributions and his enemies will be watching very closely for any questionable business deals involving Musk.

9 minutes ago, rasg said:

Trump is having his celebt

I have no doubt they are planning something to prevent Trump's inauguration. Jamie Raskin has been talking about using the 14th Amendment but it won’t work. For some strange reason I cannot fully fathom, Trump is having is having his celebration party on the 19th January, the day before the inauguration.   

Could it have anything to do with who the federal holiday commemorates?

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

It because of opinions like that that Trump became popular enough to win, IMO. Soooo you helped him win

You got that right.  Karma works in mysterious ways.

36 minutes ago, jimmybcool said:

 

Not really.  You seem to confuse what it means to be impeached.  But hey the internet is replete with people who don't understand things. 

You must be referring to yourself. 

29 minutes ago, kwonitoy said:

 

So, OwlSeesAll has a new account after being banned for all his COVID nonsense. Start the clock on this account

You going to start up your Issan blog again?

Are you an unlicensed detective?  Only kidding.  If true, job well done.

Where I live there are strict rules for service charges and they are enforced.

https://lannanlegal.com/regulation-of-service-charges-in-hawaii-and-other-jurisdictions/

14 minutes ago, jimmybcool said:

Yes - by the impeachment committee. 

It's quite obvious you are TOTALLY confused and have no idea what you are talking about. 

9 minutes ago, jimmybcool said:

 

Reading comprehension is a good skill.  Learn it.  No where did I say he was found guilty in a court of law nor that he was removed from office.  In fact I said the opposite. 

You wrote "Clinton was found guilty"......."He committed perjury and was caught."

7 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

There was a court ruling atop the initial votes of the House and Senate:
A majority of the Colorado Supreme court held that:  "Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,”
Trump engaged in insurrection, court says: "The top Colorado court upheld the trial judge’s conclusions that the January 6 assault on the US Capitol was an insurrection and that Trump “engaged in” that insurrection. These are key legal hurdles that the challengers needed to clear before Trump could be removed from any ballot, largely because the text of the 14th Amendment doesn’t actually define an “insurrection” or spell out what it means to “engage in” insurrection."  https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/colorado-trump-14th-amendment-12-19-23/index.html
Then back to my original post, this was not the only adjudication. The House and Senate each voted by a majority vote to the same offenses. The federal case was successfully stalled from going to trial, but the evidence gathered exceeded what the House Select Committee had the ability to gather.

Quoting the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

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.

The disqualification is real, I've underlined the key words (no mention of conviction) and Americans saw Trump's past and ongoing "support for, comfort to" while putting the remedy Congress can supply in bold print.
Congress is likely to duck their responsibility. My point is that until this is resolved, the ceremony planned for January 20th will be in violation of the law. I don't expect anyone to enforce it. ... A sad day for the rule of law.

On March 4,2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Colorado cannot ban Trump from the presidential ballot.  While specifically naming Colorado it applies to all states.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68280062

2 hours ago, RPCVguy said:

WILL CONGRESS SUPPLY THE CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED REMEDY?

January 6th Election Certification might academically agree that the election was won by DJ Trump, BUT he can not legally be sworn into office UNLESS AND UNTIL both the House and the Senate by a 2/3rds majority vote to remove this disability. (I suspect that Congress will duck their mandated role, just as SCOTUS ducked its role last year.)

Consider Trump's own recent acknowledgement of constitutional requirements: "Musk can't be president because he wasn't born in the USA"
By the words of the 14th Amendment, how can someone who supported an insurrection be sworn into office? Even if the election is certified?

Note the adjudication so far:

♦ The House voted the 2nd impeachment (bipartisan)

♦ The Senate voted 57-43 for conviction (bipartisan)

♦ The House Select Committee voted unanimously to indict (refer Trump for potential criminal prosecution) DJ Trump for 4 charges: Obstruction of an Official Proceeding; Conspiracy to Defraud the United States; Conspiracy to Make a False Statement and "Incite," "Assist" or "Aid and Comfort" an Insurrection. (bipartisan)

♦ Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says candidates are disallowed if they've "engaged in insurrection." Both the Colorado justices and Maine Secretary Bellows said Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, which ended with an attack on the U.S. Capitol, fit that description. Significantly. the Colorado Supreme Court heard an appeal, but upheld that decision.

♦ Then the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that individual states cannot remove former President Donald Trump from their ballots based on the 14th Amendment.
BUT SCOTUS DID NOT RULE ON TRUMP'S ELIGIBILITY TO AGAIN HOLD OFFICE.

Of note by former Federal Prosecutor Glenn Kirschner:

https://youtu.be/5OCN-OvYsW0

Since when has Congress the power given to the Judiciary.  AFAIK, no court has ruled that Donald Trump has committed an act of INSURRECTION or REBELLION.

22 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

What is hilarious? The letter of the law as written in the constitution? Or the part where I wrote that "I suspect that Congress will duck their mandated role, just as SCOTUS ducked its role last year."
The election results are in but the ineligibility mars his right to hold office until the constitutional remedy is completed. I suspect that if attempted, a third of the Democrats would go along, just to preserve the peace. Sad days ahead as the dismantling of reasoned systems typically unfolds into chaos, and dismantling is a high priority of those coming into power.

The sky ain't falling,  although it seems as if you are wishing for it to happen.

14 minutes ago, EveryG said:

And no matter how bigly he fails, you will find your scapegoats in the boogeymen that you have created in your imagination. Right now we have 2 parties playing the same game, which is counting on their sycophants to tow the party line. Democrats will scream at Trump's every move and MAGAs will defend him despite the fact that he has no vision other than staying out of prison. I dare say between the two of you, the US future looks bleak. 

Dirty politics at work.  Nothing new.

46 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

The voice of authority with none.  You need to refresh/reread what impeachment means in the US.

He still hasn't found anyone to agree with his flawed definition.

1 hour ago, b17 said:

What "benefits" are you MAGA cult members anticipating?  As history instructs, the only people who benefit under authoritarian or fascist regimes are the most wealthy, and yet you persevere in insisting that your MAGA boy will bring shiny and wonderful things to the middle class. Clearly, you are delusional, and about to receive the most shocking lesson of your own life. 

What is your definition of a Maga cult member?

24 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It would be foolish to offer detailed predictions. However, overall it's completely obvious that his priority is helping billionaires over everyone else including his core base who will likely get the opposite of what they voted for in things like food prices.

As far as deportations he will be obligated to make a big fascist show of doing something cruel and dramatic and may even include civil war inciting actions such as sending national guards to cross state lines under protest of the invaded state's governors, but overall the billionaire class does NOT want actual mass deportations as promised. Bad for business. Also the COST of what he has promised is not even close to being realistic. 

My bad. Should have said desires and not expectations.  I did not expect you to make any detailed predictions.  However, you did give a hint of what you think is coming down the road.  IMO, I think Trump will do both good and bad for the country with the hope the bad not causing too much damage.  

And I wouldn't give too much credence that Musk will be the de facto president.  They will soon tire of each other.  Trump has too big of an ego to share the spotlight with him.