Trump Impeachment # 2

[Scarlet]

4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

I will be amazed if trump actually does this. My suspicion is he's about to have a horrible relapse of bone spurs. 

But this is what Trump wants remember?  @Notre Dame Joe said as much above.  Trust the plan.

 

Another called bluff.  Another 7-2 off

[knapplc]

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

11 hours ago, ScarletRevival said:

Maybe they should get moving on doing something for their constituents.

 

But nah,  Orange Man hurt their feels..... gotta make the people pay for voting for him.

 

I've been told that we're in the middle of a worldwide pandemic or something. Maybe that whole pandemic thingy ended a couple of weeks ago,  who knows?

 

Honest question: what would you consider an impeachable offense?

 

Less honest question: should a pedophile avoid legal consequences if he resigns as a scout troop master? 

[Archy1221]

32 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

I will be amazed if trump actually does this. My suspicion is he's about to have a horrible relapse of bone spurs. 

Does Raskin still support his own choice of objecting to electors that stoked political dissent to Republican wins?  

[Scarlet]

4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Does Raskin still support his own choice of objecting to electors that stoked political dissent to Republican wins?  

That's about the deepest dig of whataboutism you've pulled up yet.  Putin would be proud.  Well done.

[Archy1221]

29 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

That's about the deepest dig of whataboutism you've pulled up yet.  Putin would be proud.  Well done.

ahhh, more Russia Russia Russia from my man Scarlet. It never fails to provide a chuckle. 

 

Seems relevant, no?  I mean his whole theory, as an impeachment manager, is that Trump whipped everyone into a frenzy because he disputed the election results and wanted Congress to object to certifying the EC.  
 

Didn’t Raskin dispute the Presidential election results, don’t he actually object to certifying the EC?   Seems like his last behavior gives the ok for Trump to ask other members of Congress to do the same.   Unless he says he was wrong in his prior life of just a Congressman and not a member of a congress who is an Impeachment Manager.  
 

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

11 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

That would be must-see TV. Could you imagine that train wreck? After he's been kicked off twitter for so long? He would be absolutely frothing up there.

Maybe Trump would rack up a lot of fines from ignoring Pelosi's mask mandate.

10 hours ago, Enhance said:

You've been claiming for some time now this impeachment is unconstitutional but Belknap's situation proves this to be categorically false.

 

Belknap was impeached after he left office. He was later acquitted in the Senate. Trump has been impeached. His trial will take place after he has left office.

 

Your posts disregard basic facts simply because they don't fit your opinion.

 

Likewise, every one of my detractors here has ignored the US Constitution.  That is the law of the land, not the wikipedia, not what some guy on social media or even what 55 Senators say the law should be.

 

No Court has adjudicated Belknap's or Trump's or any other former-federal officer's impeachment, so people can only opine on how they would rule.

 

It is not even close to a 50:50 decision.  We have the plain language of the Constitution and the fact that Chief Justice Roberts made an affirmative action to avoid the question.

 

 

[knapplc]

3 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

That is the law of the land, not the wikipedia, not what some guy on social media or even what 55 Senators say the law should be.

 

You mean... our elected lawmakers?

 

6 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

No Court has adjudicated Belknap's or Trump's or any other former-federal officer's impeachment

 

Because no court has jurisdiction. Impeachment is an act by the House.

 

 

[Archy1221]

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Because no court has jurisdiction. Impeachment is an act by the House.

And in the grand schemr of things means next to nothing without a conviction in the Senate. 

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

And in the grand schemr of things means next to nothing without a conviction in the Senate. 

 

History won't forget any of this. trump's fate is sealed, as is that of the Republicans who enabled him.

[Notre Dame Joe]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

History won't forget any of this. trump's fate is sealed, as is that of the Republicans who enabled him.

Mr. History remembers that Andrew Johnson was Impeached by vindictive radical Republicans who were dead wrong on the law.  And that Bill Clinton was impeached by vindictive moderate Republicans stretching petty laws as a pretext to get Clinton.  It may be 50 years before Mr H can think calmly enough to realize that the Trump Impeachment(s) was just one of many illegal attempts by the elected lawmakers of the political establishment to depose the upstart winner of the 2016 election. 

[Notre Dame Joe]

22 hours ago, Scarlet said:

Would love, love, love to see that..lol.  Would he be up there playing four-d chess?

Not happening.  Trump won't testify at impeachment trial, rejecting calls from Democrats - CBS News

 

As we transition to why this isn't even a real crime.  

Raskin said that if Mr. Trump declines to testify, the House impeachment managers "reserve any and all rights, including the right to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and your inaction) on January 6, 2021."

 

 

If Trump had committed a real crime then of course the jury is absolutely not permitted to infer guilt from the right to remain silent. 

 

[ZRod]

11 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Mr. History remembers that Andrew Johnson was Impeached by vindictive radical Republicans who were dead wrong on the law.  And that Bill Clinton was impeached by vindictive moderate Republicans stretching petty laws as a pretext to get Clinton.  It may be 50 years before Mr H can think calmly enough to realize that the Trump Impeachment(s) was just one of many illegal attempts by the elected lawmakers of the political establishment to depose the upstart winner of the 2016 election. 

Clinton rightly should have been impeached for lying under oath, and the Senate should have censured him, not gone after removal from office. 

 

With hindsight of #metoo he probably should have been impeached for sexual harassment/misconduct as well, and voted on for removal.

[BigRedBuster]

11 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

It may be 50 years before Mr H can think calmly enough to realize that the Trump Impeachment(s) was just one of many illegal attempts by the elected lawmakers of the political establishment to depose the upstart winner of the 2016 election. 

Oh good lord.  What a bunch of BS.

[knapplc]

That's some very small-hand energy from trump not testifying. I know his lawyers aren't completely incompetent and they know they have to protect their client from himself, because that would be the most wrecked train in the history of train wrecks.

 

But that's gotta be an ego blow to the folks who think the sun rises & sets on trump. Hillary testified for 11 hours in the Benghazi nonsense. Womp womp.