4 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

Unfortunately, Democrats won what they were trying to win. It was a horrible slugfest as predicted from the very beginning, and they narrowly squeaked out their goal. Right or wrong, they got it. 

 

Only thing left to do is allow them to govern, impeach, go after political rivals, and do what they always do, and in a few years there will be another republican government. 

 

Or Trump continues to break the GOP apart which will guarantee Democratic power for decades.

16 minutes ago, JCauto said:

I'm just glad to see that some of our Trumpeters have worked their way through to the last of the seven stages of grief! Congratulations. 

Really 12 stages for Trumpeters. The grieving is longer.

Quote

 

In an interview with BBC News to promote his new book Saving Justice, former FBI Director James Comey said President-elect Joe Biden should “consider” pardoning his predecessor Donald Trump when he takes office on Jan. 20th.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-comey-says-biden-should-consider-pardoning-trump

 

 

No fraud, just lies and conspiracy theories. Sadly, the ignorant, brain addled, and forlorn are susceptible to such idiocy and mendacity. These people are also prone to violence, as was evidenced when the terrorists stormed the Capitol.

 

"Fairest election ever"---Chris Krebs, appointed by 45, and fired by 45 when Krebs told the truth

 

THAT is reality. 45 got hammered in a free and fair election. He is the biggest loser ever.

3 minutes ago, polpott said:

You continue to repeat this assumption with no evidence. Not one person in the house, Republican or democrat has made this assertion. If it were true don't you think someone would have brought this up during yesterday's impeachment hearing. Maybe you should inform the Republican party as they seem completely unaware of this.

 

The evidence is the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution.  However, scholars are divided on the question and no court has ever ruled on it, so it cannot be regarded as settled.  The penalty of disqualification can only be applied after conviction at a Senate trial.  But since the purpose of a Senate trial is to determine whether to remove the accused from office, it would appear that that trial cannot be conducted unless the accused holds office.  

 

More to the point, I feel confident that the Roberts Court would not sustain the disqualification from office that resulted from the impeachment trial of a former president.  

 

My main point in this discussion is to dissuade my fellow anti-Trumpers from assuming that it the post-office trial is constitutionally in the bag, just because people in the news talk about it.  It isn't.  Any disqualification that resulted would be appealed to the Supreme Court.

3 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

My main point in this discussion is to dissuade my fellow anti-Trumpers from assuming that it the post-office trial is constitutionally in the bag, just because people in the news talk about it.  It isn't.  Any disqualification that resulted would be appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. There is no appeal.

4 hours ago, ExpatOK said:

The anti Trump crowd in DC has become totally unhinged and the American people see it.  An over emotional reaction to a speech where Trump said he wanted a peaceful protest.  A long trial in the Senate will only help Trump and hurt Nancy and gang. More facts will come out. Pelosi, operating on emotion only, has guaranteed Trump's exoneration and reelection in 2024.

I will wager anything you like that Donald Trump does NOT get elected in 2024. Desire alone does not constitute a valid , considered opinion.

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

 

The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. There is no appeal.

 

  I carefully did not claim that the Supreme Court could review and possible overturn the verdict of a Senate impeachment trial, which you incorrectly assume I said. 

 

If the Senate were to convict Trump after Jan. 20 and then vote to disqualify him from office, and then if during the election process of 2024 Trump tries to get himself on a ballot somewhere, the Dem lawyers would seek a court injunction to stop him using the disqualification judgment imposed by the Senate trial.  The Supreme Court could invalidate such an injunction because it was not constitutionally obtained.  In my opinion that is what the SC would do.

 

Here is one opinion by a former appellate court judge that holds that Trump cannot be subjected to an impeachment trial in the Senate after Jan. 20.  

 

J. Michael Luttig served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit from 1991 to 2006.

It appears that even if the House of Representatives impeaches President Trump this week, the Senate trial on that impeachment will not begin until after Trump has left office and President-Elect Biden has become president on Jan. 20. That Senate trial would be unconstitutional...

 

 

The sequencing of the House impeachment proceedings before Trump’s departure from office and the inauguration of the new president, followed by a Senate impeachment trial, perhaps months later, raises the question of whether a former president can be impeached after he leaves office.

 

The Constitution itself answers this question clearly: No, he cannot be. Once Trump’s term ends on Jan. 20, Congress loses its constitutional authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him — even if the House has already approved articles of impeachment.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/12/once-trump-leaves-office-senate-cant-hold-an-impeachment-trial/?itid=lk_inline_manual_29

4 hours ago, cmarshall said:

 

The impeachment is entirely constitutional, but conducting a Senate trial after he has left office is not.  

Show me the link to the constitution for that please. Opinions are not worth very much.

He's so good .....they impeached him twice ????

regards Worgeordie

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

 

 I carefully did not claim that the Supreme Court could review and possible overturn the verdict of a Senate impeachment trial, which you incorrectly assume I said. 

 

If the Senate were to convict Trump after Jan. 20 and then vote to disqualify him from office, and then if during the election process of 2024 Trump tries to get himself on a ballot somewhere, the Dem lawyers would seek a court injunction to stop him using the disqualification judgment imposed by the Senate trial.  The Supreme Court could invalidate such an injunction because it was not constitutionally obtained.  In my opinion that is what the SC would do.

 

Hard to know what the Supreme Court would do. Traditionally, the Court has been very reluctant to interfere with legislative prerogatives, particularly Constitutiobal mandated ones ones.

 

Another problem with all this that I haven't seen discussed anywhere is that if Trump's conviction were upheld by the SC, what would prevent future Congresses from impeachjng and convicting other past Presidents?

1 minute ago, FritsSikkink said:

Show me the link to that please.

 

Just above.

3 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

There was voter fraud, but not enough to sway the election. What YOU heard has no bearing on what IM saying. 

 

 

I literally gave 5-6 reasons in the post, Im not going to do it again. Maybe just read them again and carefully. 

 

 

In Pennsylvania, 3 cases have been charged. (link here – from a local news site, not a right-wing or left-wing site);

In Wisconsin, 1 case has been charged (link here);

In Michigan, 2 cases have been charged (link here).

 

Yes indeed, voter fraud in the open, 6 cases out of 150,000,000 millon votes. NASA and SpaceX launch people into space on worst failure rates than these.

Just now, placeholder said:

Hard to know what the Supreme Court would do. Traditionally, the Court has been very reluctant to interfere with legislative prerogatives, particularly Constitutiobal mandated ones ones.

 

Another problem with all this that I haven't seen discussed anywhere is that if Trump's conviction were upheld by the SC, what would prevent future Congresses from impeachjng and convicting other past Presidents?

 

I don't think it's all that hard to know what the Supreme Court would do.  Impeaching a former president, the wobbly precedents notwithstanding, would represent the large expansion of the impeachment power of the Congress.  I think the Roberts SC would nullify any legal action arising from such a decision, as I have outlined.

1 minute ago, kwonitoy said:

 

 

In Pennsylvania, 3 cases have been charged. (link here – from a local news site, not a right-wing or left-wing site);

In Wisconsin, 1 case has been charged (link here);

In Michigan, 2 cases have been charged (link here).

 

Yes indeed, voter fraud in the open, 6 cases out of 150,000,000 millon votes. NASA and SpaceX launch people into space on worst failure rates than these.

Sadly, fueled by Trump and his enablers, voter fraud has become the dog whistle for the alt right crowd.  And it's all BS.

5 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Show me the link to the constitution for that please. Opinions are not worth very much.

 

Answered above.

1 minute ago, cmarshall said:

 

Answered above.

No, it isn't. It says impeachment proceedings. The impeachment is done. He now will be prosecuted which is not the same.

7 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Sadly, fueled by Trump and his enablers, voter fraud has become the dog whistle for the alt right crowd.  And it's all BS.

Yes and a big trick they use is that it is true that in every election in history including all U.S. presidential elections there are definitely instances of irregularities. But it's a long road from that to claiming a central conspiracy plan that successfully "stole" the entire national election but they have done that with an aggressive misinformation campaign led by the doubly impeached president. Don't forget he was ginning up this game for several months BEFORE the election, saying that the only possible way for him to lose was fraud. How anyone buys this big lie is beyond me, but apparently the majority of republicans are in that dangerous camp. I say dangerous because this situation is a threat to the viability of American democracy.  

1 hour ago, FritsSikkink said:

No, it isn't. It says impeachment proceedings. The impeachment is done. He now will be prosecuted which is not the same.

 

If you had bothered to read the judge's opinion you would have encountered the paragraph below.  In this context "impeachment proceedings" refers to all of the House and Senate procedures including the Senate trial, as he makes clear." 

 

 

The Constitution itself answers this question clearly: No, he cannot be. Once Trump’s term ends on Jan. 20, Congress loses its constitutional authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him — even if the House has already approved articles of impeachment.

 

Therefore, if the House of Representatives were to impeach the president before he leaves office, the Senate could not thereafter convict the former president and disqualify him under the Constitution from future public office.

 

The reason for this is found in the Constitution itself. Trump would no longer be incumbent in the Office of the President at the time of the delayed Senate proceeding and would no longer be subject to “impeachment conviction” by the Senate, under the Constitution’s Impeachment Clauses. Which is to say that the Senate’s only power under the Constitution is to convict — or not — an incumbent president.

 

 

6 hours ago, webfact said:

"Impeaching the president in such a short time frame would be a mistake," said Kevin McCarthy, the House's top Republican. "That doesn't mean the president is free from fault. The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters."

Does he now? Well, then punish the mother ***.

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

If you had bothered to read the judge's opinion you would have encountered the paragraph below.  In this context "impeachment proceedings" refers to all of the House and Senate procedures including the Senate trial, as he makes clear." 

 

The Constitution itself answers this question clearly: No, he cannot be. Once Trump’s term ends on Jan. 20, Congress loses its constitutional authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him — even if the House has already approved articles of impeachment.

 

Therefore, if the House of Representatives were to impeach the president before he leaves office, the Senate could not thereafter convict the former president and disqualify him under the Constitution from future public office.

 

The reason for this is found in the Constitution itself. Trump would no longer be incumbent in the Office of the President at the time of the delayed Senate proceeding and would no longer be subject to “impeachment conviction” by the Senate, under the Constitution’s Impeachment Clauses. Which is to say that the Senate’s only power under the Constitution is to convict — or not — an incumbent president.

 

 

It is an opinion by a judge, which in this case is not a valid one. Show me the link of the paragraph in the constitution.

30 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

 

The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. There is no appeal.

The last Senate court of impeachment was a sham. NO witnesses allowed though there were plenty of willing volunteers.

 

Mitch has been quoted being willing to listen to evidence this time. As well, he wants to be permanently rid of the albatross-in-chief forever. This will make all the difference in the world.

18 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

He's so good .....they impeached him twice ????

regards Worgeordie

Is THAT what winning is all about?

11 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

I don't think it's all that hard to know what the Supreme Court would do.  Impeaching a former president, the wobbly precedents notwithstanding, would represent the large expansion of the impeachment power of the Congress.  I think the Roberts SC would nullify any legal action arising from such a decision, as I have outlined.

It obviously would  be a major test. If a super majority of the Senate  were to convict on standing  charges arising from impeachment  while Trump is still in  office how sound  would it be in terms of purpose of the Constitution  for the SCOTUS to overturn a Senate conviction for "inciting  insurrection"? IMO even Trump's recently appointed  "Originalist"  should have  a problem with  that.

46 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

The evidence is the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution.  However, scholars are divided on the question and no court has ever ruled on it, so it cannot be regarded as settled.  The penalty of disqualification can only be applied after conviction at a Senate trial.  But since the purpose of a Senate trial is to determine whether to remove the accused from office, it would appear that that trial cannot be conducted unless the accused holds office.  

 

More to the point, I feel confident that the Roberts Court would not sustain the disqualification from office that resulted from the impeachment trial of a former president.  

 

My main point in this discussion is to dissuade my fellow anti-Trumpers from assuming that it the post-office trial is constitutionally in the bag, just because people in the news talk about it.  It isn't.  Any disqualification that resulted would be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Thats not correct. The senate is there to find him guilty or not. They also determine the sentence, which can be in the articles of impeachment sent to the senate. Removal from office is but one sentence they can impose, but not restricted to.

27 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

I don't think it's all that hard to know what the Supreme Court would do.  Impeaching a former president, the wobbly precedents notwithstanding, would represent the large expansion of the impeachment power of the Congress.  I think the Roberts SC would nullify any legal action arising from such a decision, as I have outlined.

Scotus has no say on how the senate can vote. Separation of power. The senate is the only place to deal with it. All scotus can do is rule if the sentence is unconstitutional.

 

btw, its not impeaching a former president. He has been impeached as a current president.

1 hour ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Disagree. 

 

But the next Republican government has alot of latitude moving forward on how to attack the other party. 

 

This is the precedent thats been set, and will be used in the future. 

 

And Ill expect the same "fair and square" argument from the future losers. 

Disagree? Why?

 

What is not 'fair and square' is the systematic voter suppression engaged in by repubs for decades. repub think tanks estimate that they can 'win' by capturing just 44% of the vote. I think that is too conservative. They could 'win' with perhaps as low as 30% of the vote, owing to the EC in national elections.

 

Georgia scrubbed voter roles of around 250,000 people in 2020. Not so coincidentally, almost all of those were minority voters in heavily Dem districts. The voters would not have known their registration was scrubbed had they simply showed up to vote. Stacy Abrams engaged in an education plan that informed these voters and got them to re-register, thereby scuttling the repub plan.

 

Other repub voter suppression methods include gerrymandering (PA courts forced changes in 2020, scuttling more repub suppression efforts), closing polling stations in minority areas and heavily Dem areas (Dems got around this by offering transportation to the polls), and removing mail-in voter drop boxes, such as in Harris County in TX, where Gov abbott allowed only one drop box in a county of 1.2 million.

 

The pandemic made mail-in voting a safe alternative to the polls, and even repub-appointed judges backed up their use (plus people like 45, his family, barr and others used these exact same mail-in ballots they claim are 'unfair')

 

Dems had been weakly addressing repub voter suppression, but no longer. Many grass root groups have emerged which are aimed at obviating these repub tactics, and one of the most visible results is the runoff in GA where both Dems took the Senate seats.

 

it's a new world now, and the last remnants of racist voting measures and repub suppression measures are falling by the wayside. The US will, over time, become more democratic and reflect the actual make-up of the population. That seems to scare old white guys. Good.

Some reading to indicate its not correct to say it cannot be done.

 

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/can-president-trump-be-impeached-after-he-leaves-office

There appears to be controversy about this though. At this point it appears that the impeachment will be sent to the senate while Mr. trump is still in office and then it will be up to the democratic majority senate whether to begin a trial or not. My impression is that the trial WILL happen and will happen after Mr. trump is out of office. We'll see, huh?