Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:28 pm
Witnesses!
Voting now.
Romney & Co will support.
Voting now.
Romney & Co will support.
Open to critical enquiry
https://scrutable.science/
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.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:13 pmYes, 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.
That he clearly didn’t give a sh.t about his own people is key.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.
So the question to ask every Repug who voted to acquit in every interview from now to 2022 even 2024 is:-
Seems more like arm stroking whilst sitting on the pavement than getting out the jack and changing the wheel but, there y'go.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."
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.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 6:53 amThat would be a bill of attainder, which is unconstitutional.
I was wrong. Seven voted to impeach:Woodchopper wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:57 pmI disagree. A maximum of five senators will vote to impeach Trump: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey.Cardinal Fang wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:56 pmIsn'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 abstainersVertigowooyay wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 8:12 pmI 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.
CF
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.
Section 3 says:dyqik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:11 pmNo, 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.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 6:53 amThat would be a bill of attainder, which is unconstitutional.
The 14th Amendment expressly gives Congress the power to enforce section 3.
And section 5 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.
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.The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.