Page 9 of 9
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:28 pm
by lpm
Witnesses!
Voting now.
Romney & Co will support.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:39 pm
by dyqik
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:13 pm
by Woodchopper
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:48 pm
by Vertigowooyay
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:03 pm
by lpm
What the f.ck is going on.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:07 pm
by lpm
I think the words "pre-emptive surrender" are the only explanation for this.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:18 pm
by headshot
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...
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:23 pm
by lpm
Who? Who do you think? Who always folds whoever the other side threatens to play dirty?
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:34 pm
by headshot
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:48 pm
by Vertigowooyay
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:54 pm
by dyqik
Unless they now think they can get a criminal conviction, this is pathetic.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 7:05 pm
by headshot
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...
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 8:48 pm
by Woodchopper
Lost it, as expected.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 9:04 pm
by Little waster
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?".
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 11:00 pm
by tenchboy
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?
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 11:15 pm
by dyqik
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:11 am
by Herainestold
Trump's 2024 campaign will start on Monday.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2021 6:53 am
by Millennie Al
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:39 pm
by JQH
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:11 pm
by dyqik
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2021 7:51 pm
by Woodchopper
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.
Re: Impeachment 2: Higher Crimes and Misdemeanors
Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:44 am
by Millennie Al
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.