Scarlet Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 2 hours ago, knapplc said: trump's defense is out. Shockingly, it ignores that there's precedent for such a trial after someone's term ends, and ham-handedly declares this all unconstitutionl. Reveal hidden contents It's not unconstitutional They don't care if it's constitutional or not it's merely a ruse to provide cover for the Senate Republicans to vote against conviction. The case for conviction will be overwhelming based on what we've all witnessed to date. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 They only care about "the constitution" when it's convenient for them. Never mind anything Trump did. 3 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 2, 2021 Author Share Posted February 2, 2021 I guess Lindsey must have put his finger up in the air in coming out in support of Liz Cheney. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lindsey-graham-joins-mitch-mcconnell-in-defending-liz-cheney/ar-BB1djYnt?ocid=ientp Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 9 hours ago, knapplc said: It is not unconstitutional, and there is a precedent. These kinds of blatant lies have no place on this board. 6 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said: Since 2016, Donald Trump has declared any election result in which he didn't win fraudulent. Long story short: f#&% off, Joe. I just cannot see how these posts are helpful to the community. You are arguing a very weak legal position. And instead of quoting the US Constitution, or cases, or even the usual social media of some guy with an opinion; you are insulting me. It may be personally gratifying but it tells everyone else I have no case. 9 hours ago, teachercd said: I don't think that is what gaslighting means? Or maybe I am not as hip as I thought I was. Did you ever see it? I saw a production of the play but not the famous movie. It's very strange to hear it in the political context (as a synonym for trolling) because it has almost nothing to do with the source. Gas Light - Wikipedia 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 20 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said: You are arguing a very weak legal position. And instead of quoting the US Constitution, or cases I linked a case establishing precedent. Did you read it? You don't have to think it's constitutional. That's fine. I know it is, and more importantly, the people proceeding with the prosecution know it's legal and constitutional. 1 Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 1 hour ago, TGHusker said: I guess Lindsey must have put his finger up in the air in coming out in support of Liz Cheney. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lindsey-graham-joins-mitch-mcconnell-in-defending-liz-cheney/ar-BB1djYnt?ocid=ientp More like McConnell saw his shadow, meaning 6 more weeks of shampeachment. Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted February 2, 2021 Share Posted February 2, 2021 33 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said: I just cannot see how these posts are helpful to the community. You are arguing a very weak legal position. And instead of quoting the US Constitution, or cases, or even the usual social media of some guy with an opinion; you are insulting me. It may be personally gratifying but it tells everyone else I have no case. Well I honestly thought I was in the Shed, and the post appears to have been pulled, but my point for people who actually read the posts is that there is NO legal burden for impeachment, and Donald Trump's actions -- which I listed in some detail -- are the most dangerous and appalling in presidential history. It's an opinion shared by most sentient grown-ups and requires no Constitutional quote -- though it's pretty much textbook sedition. It's an open and shut case, as the folks who spent two years trying to prosecute Benghazi would understand if they were the slightest bit honest. Here's another word I'm comfortable using: evil. This s#!t is evil. I'm really tired pretending it isn't and I will continue to insult you if you continue to sugarcoat it. 3 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 1 hour ago, Notre Dame Joe said: 8 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said: I just cannot see how these posts are helpful to the community They are not. Just petty 2 Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 24 minutes ago, Archy1221 said: They are not. Just petty Uhm.....they are the precise opposite of petty. 3 1 Link to comment
Decoy73 Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 3 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said: I just cannot see how these posts are helpful to the community. I would imagine it’s more frustration that your posts scream ignorance to the widely held belief that Donald Trump was, as a whole, a very bad president who at the end of his term, did some very bad and un-presidential things. Things that any reasonable person who values morals and integrity would denounce. Why you continue to fight this—who knows? Maybe you just enjoy the contrary stance on Trump topics. Maybe you still support Trump? God help you if, that’s true. 5 1 Link to comment
Born N Bled Red Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 2 hours ago, Decoy73 said: 1 Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 23 hours ago, knapplc said: I linked a case establishing precedent. Did you read it? You don't have to think it's constitutional. That's fine. I know it is, and more importantly, the people proceeding with the prosecution know it's legal and constitutional. What you know is actually an opinion. The Unconstitutional opinion rests on the plain language of the Constitution. Article II Section 4 The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7: 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. It does not say 'President or former President' nor does it say 'removal from Office, OR disqualification.' The Founders were good writers and it's simply bad to say they actually meant something very different from what they wrote. The Ex-Presidential Impeachment is Constitutional opinion rarely cites the actual Constitution but rests on a 'precedent' that in 1876 a minor officer was impeached after he resigned. This is weak for any number of reasons. It isn't a 'precedent' if it wasn't ruled on by a Court. Congressmen were angry and incorrect in 1876 and 2021. That guy Belknap resigned just as the House was formally voting on Impeachment. Belknap was acquitted because enough Senators voted Nay on the grounds they had no jurisdiction over former officers; everyone agreed that he had taken a bribe. And that is just jurisdiction. There is also no legal case even if Trump was still president. 21 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said: Uhm.....they are the precise opposite of petty. pretty? 1 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 3, 2021 Share Posted February 3, 2021 14 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said: What you know is actually an opinion. The Unconstitutional opinion rests on the plain language of the Constitution. Article II Section 4 The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7: 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. It does not say 'President or former President' nor does it say 'removal from Office, OR disqualification.' The Founders were good writers and it's simply bad to say they actually meant something very different from what they wrote. The Ex-Presidential Impeachment is Constitutional opinion rarely cites the actual Constitution but rests on a 'precedent' that in 1876 a minor officer was impeached after he resigned. This is weak for any number of reasons. It isn't a 'precedent' if it wasn't ruled on by a Court. Congressmen were angry and incorrect in 1876 and 2021. That guy Belknap resigned just as the House was formally voting on Impeachment. Belknap was acquitted because enough Senators voted Nay on the grounds they had no jurisdiction over former officers; everyone agreed that he had taken a bribe. And that is just jurisdiction. There is also no legal case even if Trump was still president. pretty? If impeachment after leaving office wasn't allowed, then any official could simply resign right before an impeachment was handed down. Plus it has literally already happened before, so that is precedent as set by the Senate. Precedent does not require a court, especially since courts are for criminal and civil cases and impeachment is a political case. https://www.npr.org/2021/01/18/957866252/can-the-senate-try-an-ex-president Quote In 1876, for instance, the corrupt secretary of war, William Belknap, raced to the White House to hand in his resignation just minutes before the House voted to impeach him. But the Senate determined it had the right to try an impeached former Cabinet member and went on to try Belknap "for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office." While the trial went forward, though, in the end, their vote to convict fell short of the necessary two-thirds. And at the end of the day, the Senate gets to determine how impeachment works: Quote Ultimately it likely will be the U.S. Senate that determines whether it can try Trump on impeachment charges. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1993 that whatever rules the Senate adopts for impeachment, under the Constitution those rules are not reviewable by the Supreme Court as long as the Senate follows three requirements specified in the Constitution: that the Senators be "under oath and affirmation," that "a two-thirds vote is required to convict, and that the Chief Justice presides when the president is tried." 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts