Jump to content

Trump Impeachment # 2


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Just because you really wanted another impeachment doesn't mean it was constitutional.

Just because you keep saying it isn't constitutional, doesn't make you any more right.

 

For argument's sake, let's say you're right.


Congratulations.  You have just set the precedent that makes it virtually impossible to remove or punish a President for doing anything he wants.

 

I'm pretty sure that's not what the founding fathers wanted.  I'm pretty sure they didn't want the President to be able to do whatever he wants, including mounting a terrorist attack against our government to have congress say.....oh well....there's nothing we can do.

 

But, that's where we're at.....thanks Republicans.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is not unconstitutional, and there is a precedent. These kinds of blatant lies have no place on this board.    

You're not that misinformed. You're just gaslighting.  It's what you do.  You know full well that an impeachment trial is not the same as a criminal trial.  The requirements for conviction are not eve

to be fair...trumps lawyers could have sang baby shark for 3 hours and you and the rest of the trumpers would have said the same thing.  

Posted Images

On 2/10/2021 at 7:21 AM, Scarlet said:

@Notre Dame Joe can you post your legal credentials as they relate to your JD please?  Because you keep repeating the opposite interpretation of what the majority of constitutional scholars state.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2021/01/21/legal-scholars-federalist-society-trump-convict-461089

 

“We differ from one another in our politics, and we also differ from one another on issues of constitutional interpretation,” wrote the signatories, which include the co-founder and other members of the conservative Federalist Society legal group. “But despite our differences, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents.”

 

Thanks in advance

:dunno

Link to post

Maybe we should let tempers cool, slow down and reappraise Donald Trump from an evidentiary and constitutional perspective. And from there we can decide if it's a waste of time and energy  to pursue someone no longer in office, or if like Benghazi we should continue to bring constant heat and redundant Congressional hearings on the human she-beast who inflamed a fatal riot, knowing s/he intended to run for President again. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Maybe we should let tempers cool, slow down and reappraise Donald Trump from an evidentiary and constitutional perspective. And from there we can decide if it's a waste of time and energy  to pursue someone no longer in office, or if like Benghazi we should continue to bring constant heat and redundant Congressional hearings on the human she-beast who inflamed a fatal riot, knowing s/he intended to run for President again. 

 

Disagree; this puts things in dangerous territory of just glossing over what he did and what he's responsible for. 

 

At the very least, use the 14th Amendment and bar him from receiving daily intelligence reports. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to post

I take some measure of solace knowing that history will ultimately be unkind to DJT, whose two impeachments and foot-meet-mouth style of leadership will likely overshadow the majority of his tenure. Open any presidential history book 50 years from now and you probably won't make it more than a couple of paragraphs without seeing the words 'impeachment,' insurrection,' and/or 'lying.' That's a Hell of a legacy.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post

11 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

Disagree; this puts things in dangerous territory of just glossing over what he did and what he's responsible for. 

 

At the very least, use the 14th Amendment and bar him from receiving daily intelligence reports. 

ex presidents getting the daily briefings is a courtesy.    thankfully trump isn't getting those reports from Joe.   trump would be selling those as fast as he got them without ever reading them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Cdog923 said:

 

Disagree; this puts things in dangerous territory of just glossing over what he did and what he's responsible for. 

 

At the very least, use the 14th Amendment and bar him from receiving daily intelligence reports. 


This was meant as a snarky retort equating the Republican response to Hillary Clinton and Benghazi to how they -- and NDJ -- want Dems to back off Trump and move on with their lives. 

  • Plus1 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, Cdog923 said:

 

Disagree; this puts things in dangerous territory of just glossing over what he did and what he's responsible for. 

 

At the very least, use the 14th Amendment and bar him from receiving daily intelligence reports. 

The danger is when government officials use their power to go after their political opponents.  We used to recognize this as 3rd World Banana Republic garbage.  Now it seems to a popular idea on the left. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post

Regardless of motivations, most Americans understand that Trump should never again be POTUS, or be involved in high levels of government in any capacity. This is was the most bi-partisan impeachment vote of a POTUS in U.S. history.

 

And most top-level Republicans know this is true; many are just too afraid to go all-in on it because they don't want to jeopardize Trump's fanatic support base, their re-election and their standing in the Republican party. 

2 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Now it seems to a popular idea on the left. 

I get that it's the fun thing to do around here to say 'the left' this or 'the right' that in just about every other post, but the left and right have both had politicians guilty of abusing their power to go after political opponents. Most whataboutisms like this are just lazy.

  • Plus1 2
Link to post

5 hours ago, Enhance said:

Regardless of motivations, most Americans understand that Trump should never again be POTUS, or be involved in high levels of government in any capacity. This is was the most bi-partisan impeachment vote of a POTUS in U.S. history.

 

And most top-level Republicans know this is true; many are just too afraid to go all-in on it because they don't want to jeopardize Trump's fanatic support base, their re-election and their standing in the Republican party. 

I get that it's the fun thing to do around here to say 'the left' this or 'the right' that in just about every other post, but the left and right have both had politicians guilty of abusing their power to go after political opponents. Most whataboutisms like this are just lazy.

Anyone predicting 2024 is just blowing smoke.  No election has been transparent 4 years removed. 

 

That is just a false equivalence.  No D POTUS has suffered the equivalent of the Russia Hoax, fake Impeachment, ex post facto Impeachment, or DAs harassing the family; not for lack of pretexts.  When Biden nominates someone for SCOTUS, there will be no sudden emergence of  sexual assault allegation from a somewhat crazy person.  Need I go on?

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
Just now, knapplc said:

They impeached him (correctly) for the evidence they had. So, no.

 

So if they correctly impeached him, wouldn't an investigation yield more evidence they could potentially use to do it successfully?

Link to post
Just now, Redux said:

 

So if they correctly impeached him, wouldn't an investigation yield more evidence they could potentially use to do it successfully?

 

Depends who or what they're investigating. You mention trump's second record-setting impeachment - but was he the only person with exposure? 

 

It's one of the bigger political scandals of our time. It warrants a full investigation.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...