Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
lpm
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2785
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by lpm » Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:28 pm

Witnesses!

Voting now.

Romney & Co will support.
What ever happened to that Trump guy, you know, the one who was president for a bit?

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by dyqik » Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:39 pm

Lindsay Graham supported it, meaning that there's a plan to make it a circus.

And congratulations to Senator Sullivan (R) who said live on TV that he didn't know what he was voting against, but did so anyway because the Democrats were voting for it.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Woodchopper » Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:13 pm

lpm wrote:
Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:28 pm
Witnesses!

Voting now.

Romney & Co will support.
Yes, supported by Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse and Graham. They’ll vote to impeach. But the other Republicans won’t. So Trump will get away with it.

User avatar
Vertigowooyay
Fuzzable
Posts: 374
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:25 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Vertigowooyay » Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:48 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:13 pm
lpm wrote:
Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:28 pm
Witnesses!

Voting now.

Romney & Co will support.
Yes, supported by Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse and Graham. They’ll vote to impeach. But the other Republicans won’t. So Trump will get away with it.
Probably, but there’s going to be an awful lot of dirty laundry aired - likeTrump refusing to call off the mob even when aides and senators begged him to - that could damage the Trumpers far more with the general population than they expected.
CNN wrote: In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the Capitol was under attack, then-President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did.

"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.

McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump's supporters and begged Trump to call them off.
That he clearly didn’t give a sh.t about his own people is key.
Calm yourself Doctor NotTheNineO’ClockNews. We’re men of science. We fear no worldly terrors.

User avatar
lpm
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2785
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by lpm » Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:03 pm

What the f.ck is going on.
What ever happened to that Trump guy, you know, the one who was president for a bit?

User avatar
lpm
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2785
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by lpm » Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:07 pm

I think the words "pre-emptive surrender" are the only explanation for this.
What ever happened to that Trump guy, you know, the one who was president for a bit?

User avatar
headshot
Snowbonk
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:40 am

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by headshot » Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:18 pm

lpm wrote:
Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:07 pm
I think the words "pre-emptive surrender" are the only explanation for this.
By whom?! I’ve not followed the proceedings today and The Graun isn’t much help...

User avatar
lpm
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2785
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by lpm » Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:23 pm

Who? Who do you think? Who always folds whoever the other side threatens to play dirty?
What ever happened to that Trump guy, you know, the one who was president for a bit?

User avatar
headshot
Snowbonk
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:40 am

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by headshot » Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:34 pm

lpm wrote:
Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:23 pm
Who? Who do you think? Who always folds whoever the other side threatens to play dirty?
Ugh.

User avatar
Vertigowooyay
Fuzzable
Posts: 374
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:25 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Vertigowooyay » Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:48 pm

lpm wrote:
Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:03 pm
What the f.ck is going on.
Sounds like recess has taken priority over prosecuting insurrection.

So, basically, pathetic.
Calm yourself Doctor NotTheNineO’ClockNews. We’re men of science. We fear no worldly terrors.

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by dyqik » Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:54 pm

Unless they now think they can get a criminal conviction, this is pathetic.

User avatar
headshot
Snowbonk
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:40 am

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by headshot » Sat Feb 13, 2021 7:05 pm

I’m reading that, because they knew that it wouldn’t succeed, they didn’t want to take up senate time with this as it will block Biden’s legislation in the very important first 100 days.

The plan is to let the criminal courts deal with Trump.

Sound a bit like wishful thinking...

User avatar
Woodchopper
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Woodchopper » Sat Feb 13, 2021 8:48 pm

Lost it, as expected.

User avatar
Little waster
Dorkwood
Posts: 1323
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Little waster » Sat Feb 13, 2021 9:04 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Sat Feb 13, 2021 8:48 pm
Lost it, as expected.
So the question to ask every Repug who voted to acquit in every interview from now to 2022 even 2024 is:-

"So as the Law'n'Order candidate, what part of Trump's defense convinced you of his innocence?".
It's meta, so it is allowed.

User avatar
tenchboy
Catbabel
Posts: 710
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:18 pm
Location: Down amongst the potamogeton.

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by tenchboy » Sat Feb 13, 2021 11:00 pm

From BBC live blog
McConnell continues his criticism of the former president.

"Trump is still liable for everything he did while in office," McConnell notes.

"He didn't get away with anything he did, yet. Yet. We have a criminal justice system in this country.

"We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one."
Seems more like arm stroking whilst sitting on the pavement than getting out the jack and changing the wheel but, there y'go.
Don't hold yer breath hmm?

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by dyqik » Sat Feb 13, 2021 11:15 pm

There's also the option of passing a bill finding that it was an insurrection and declaring him ineligible for future office under the 14th Amendment.

Herainestold
Catbabel
Posts: 722
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Herainestold » Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:11 am

Trump's 2024 campaign will start on Monday.

Millennie Al
Snowbonk
Posts: 536
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Millennie Al » Sun Feb 14, 2021 6:53 am

dyqik wrote:
Sat Feb 13, 2021 11:15 pm
There's also the option of passing a bill finding that it was an insurrection and declaring him ineligible for future office under the 14th Amendment.
That would be a bill of attainder, which is unconstitutional.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
JQH
Dorkwood
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by JQH » Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:39 pm

I've already seen a conspiracy theory to the effect that they didn't allow witnesses because it would come out that Nancy Pelosi and the Capitol police had been warned in advance about the attack but refused assistance.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3423
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by dyqik » Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:11 pm

Millennie Al wrote:
Sun Feb 14, 2021 6:53 am
dyqik wrote:
Sat Feb 13, 2021 11:15 pm
There's also the option of passing a bill finding that it was an insurrection and declaring him ineligible for future office under the 14th Amendment.
That would be a bill of attainder, which is unconstitutional.
No, it wouldn't. The 14th Amendment section 3 specifically forbids insurrectionists from holding office, and the mechanism for doing so is a congressional bill/resolution under powers given by section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment expressly gives Congress the power to enforce section 3.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Woodchopper » Sun Feb 14, 2021 7:51 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:57 pm
Cardinal Fang wrote:
Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:56 pm
Vertigowooyay wrote:
Sun Jan 31, 2021 8:12 pm
I would have put money on it being because they’re demanding upfront payment and he’s refusing, but turns out it’s because he still wants to use the “but the election was stolen from me” defence, which any lawyer of any stripe knows means eventual disbarment.
Isn't using that defence going to prevent a lot of more moderate Republicans from voting to acquit? If he argued that his speech that was interpreted to tell supporters to go and storm Congress was covered under the 1st Amendment, or that he didn't intend anyone to storm the building, or even that it's unconstitutional to impeach him now he's left office (although he was impeached before the inauguration, when he was still president, so that wouldn't fly), then they'd have just enough cover to acquit. But putting them in a position where they're basically going to have to agree that a fair election was fraudulent. Something tells me there will be a lot of abstainers

CF
I disagree. A maximum of five senators will vote to impeach Trump: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey.

The rest will vote against. It doesn’t matter what Trump’s defence is or isn’t. The other 45 will probably lose a primary if they vote to impeach. Supporting Trump is what most Republicans are going to have to do if they want to get elected.

Of the five, Collins, Murkowski and Toomey are so liberal they are probably to the left of some democrats. Presumably they need to court lots of voters who might vote Democrat. Romney hates Trump more than he likes being a senator, and the Utah electorate is different so he may get away with it. I can’t figure out Sasse, maybe he has principles.
I was wrong. Seven voted to impeach:

Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Burr and Cassidy are the additions. Burr stated years ago that he wouldn’t stand for re-election.

Millennie Al
Snowbonk
Posts: 536
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors

Post by Millennie Al » Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:44 am

dyqik wrote:
Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:11 pm
Millennie Al wrote:
Sun Feb 14, 2021 6:53 am
dyqik wrote:
Sat Feb 13, 2021 11:15 pm
There's also the option of passing a bill finding that it was an insurrection and declaring him ineligible for future office under the 14th Amendment.
That would be a bill of attainder, which is unconstitutional.
No, it wouldn't. The 14th Amendment section 3 specifically forbids insurrectionists from holding office, and the mechanism for doing so is a congressional bill/resolution under powers given by section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment expressly gives Congress the power to enforce section 3.
Section 3 says:
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.
And section 5 says:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
I take "appropriate" to mean that the legislation is subject to the usual restrictions on legislation such that this section does not grant an overriding exemption from it being otherwise unconstitutional.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

Post Reply