US Senate's Decision To Impeach

[Odë:hgöd]

.
Former US President Donald Trump's impeachment isn't strictly Constitutional-- i.e.
by the book --which is precisely why Chief Justice Roberts is taking no part in it.

The vote to construe Mr. Trump's impeachment as Constitutional wasn't a
legislative vote, rather, it was an opinion poll. In other words, at this point in time,
the US Senate is a kangaroo court, i.e. a lynch mob, just as it was in 1876 when it
tried Secretary of War William Belknap after he resigned.

Also: the decision to impeach Mr. Trump, if successful, opens the door for
impeaching all past, out of office, US Presidents; including Mr. Richard Nixon, who
himself resigned rather than be forced out of office. In point of fact, the
impeachment process was originally designed to remove a US President from office.
Mr. Trump is already out; same as Mr. Nixon was and same as Mr. Belknap.

Normally; guilty verdicts rendered by the US Senate when impeaching a US
President cannot be appealed. But this time, the accused is a private citizen; which
means Mr. Trump may have solid legal grounds for an appeal should this fiasco go
south on him.

*In my opinion; the United States government is behaving like uneducated
hillbillies in this matter, and I can't help but wonder what the rest of the world is
thinking about our national stability right about now.
_

 

[NewCreation435]

from what I understand there is no chance he will be convicted in the senate of impeachment

 

[JRT]

from what I understand there is no chance he will be convicted in the senate of impeachment

That is almost a forgone conclusion. However if the actual vote was a secret ballot I suspect that the impeachment would pass. The problem is that twofold. First is that many GOP senators are afraid that their chances of re-election would be impaired and as a consequence they are putting their self interest ahead of the will of the people. Second is the fact that many of those same GOP senators were themselves active in aiding and abetting Trump in inciting the insurrection. The jury is not impartial.

 

[tango]

That is almost a forgone conclusion. However if the actual vote was a secret ballot I suspect that the impeachment would pass. The problem is that twofold. First is that many GOP senators are afraid that their chances of re-election would be impaired and as a consequence they are putting their self interest ahead of the will of the people. Second is the fact that many of those same GOP senators were themselves active in aiding and abetting Trump in inciting the insurrection. The jury is not impartial.

Of course some of those senators may be considering what the people think of Trump rather than simply considering their own self-interest. It's not as if "the will of the people" is a singular concept. Some people hailed Trump as some kind of Messianic figure. Others refused to acknowledge he could do anything good because orangemanbad. Many (most?) were somewhere between the silly fringes.

It seems to have been repeated often enough that it's accepted as if it were fact but this idea of Trump inciting still seems suspect. I read a transcript of what he said and didn't see anything I'd regard as inciting an insurrection.

In any event it's hard to see what impeaching will achieve. What are they going to do - force him to leave office?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.

it's hard to see what impeaching will achieve. What are they going to do - force him
to leave office?

The goal is to prevent Mr. Trump from ever again holding the office of US President
because if it can be solidly proven that the manner in which 2020's ballots were
processed was fraudulent, then Mr. Biden might end up deposed before his second
year in office is complete. And there is still the matter of some illegal activity
involving himself and his son with China. That hasn't been resolved yet.

I've no doubt that Ms. Nancy Pelosi (D) is well aware that Mr. Biden's position is
somewhat fragile; which would help explain her desperate, all-out political push to
torpedo Mr. Trump.
_

 

[tango]

.



The goal is to prevent Mr. Trump from ever again holding the office of US President
because if it can be solidly proven that the manner in which 2020's ballots were
processed was fraudulent, then Mr. Biden might end up deposed before his second
year in office is complete. And there is still the matter of some illegal activity
involving himself and his son with China. That hasn't been resolved yet.

I've no doubt that Ms. Nancy Pelosi (R) is well aware that Mr. Biden's position is
somewhat fragile; which would help explain her desperate, all-out political push to
torpedo Mr. Trump.
_

Would impeachment prevent him from holding office again? Some parts of US politics seem to be as much about theater as anything else. In any event, if Biden is removed as president wouldn't the baton be passed to Harris rather than Trump?

I can't say I've ever seen (R) following the name Nancy Pelosi. Did she switch sides or something?

 

[Odë:hgöd]

I can't say I've ever seen (R) following the name Nancy Pelosi. Did she switch sides
or something?

(chuckle) My bad.

if Biden is removed as president wouldn't the baton be passed to Harris rather than Trump?

That depends upon how Mr. Biden is dethroned. If by crime, then yes Ms Harris would
step up, but if by ballot fraud, then she'd be taken down too 'cause they were on the
same ticket together.
_




_

 

[JRT]

If massive voting fraud could be proven, it would lead to a huge constitutional crisis because the highest court in the land has confirmed that the vote was legitimate. I am convinced that the vote was honest and completely legitimate.

 

[tango]

If massive voting fraud could be proven, it would lead to a huge constitutional crisis because the highest court in the land has confirmed that the vote was legitimate. I am convinced that the vote was honest and completely legitimate.

When you refer to the highest court do you mean the Supreme Court or the certification of the Electoral College?

 

[Lamb]

What's really curious is trying to find the outcome of all those lawsuits Trump brought forth concerning the election. We only have heard about the ones that the media wants us to know about...the losses. But I read that Trump has won some of those lawsuits and I just can't find out any more information about it.

 

[tango]

What's really curious is trying to find the outcome of all those lawsuits Trump brought forth concerning the election. We only have heard about the ones that the media wants us to know about...the losses. But I read that Trump has won some of those lawsuits and I just can't find out any more information about it.

Don't be asking questions now, that's just asking for trouble. Trust the Ministry of Truth and all will be well, young Winston.

 

[JRT]

When you refer to the highest court do you mean the Supreme Court or the certification of the Electoral College?

The certification of the US Congress on January 6 --- the day of infamy.

 

[tango]

The certification of the US Congress on January 6 --- the day of infamy.

The day of infamy? Can you really not answer a simple question without throwing that tired stuff around again?

 

[Lamb]

Don't be asking questions now, that's just asking for trouble. Trust the Ministry of Truth and all will be well, young Winston.

I found a website that has a list of lawsuit cases but it's hard to get through https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/cases

 

[Origen]

The Senate vote was 57-43 and that means acquittal. Two thirds are needed to convict. Seven GOP senators voted against Trump.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
It's common practice-- within Local, State, and Federal government, and among
private citizens --to assume that if something isn't explicitly forbidden by law, then
it's okay to do it.

I just learned recently that the 10th Amendment applies in situations like this.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The key word in that is "delegated".

In a nutshell: the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the
Constitution. Seeing as how the Constitution doesn't delegate power to the federal
government to impeach a former President; then it has no right to.

In other words: the Constitution must say that it's okay for the federal government
to impeach a former public officer. The Constitution's silence on the matter is not a
green light to proceed, rather, it's just the opposite; which means that if my
understanding of the 10th Amendment is correct, then Mr. Trump's impeachment is
illegal and is no more Constitutional than a necktie party.

Also-- if my understanding of the 10th Amendment is correct --then had Chief
Justice Roberts chosen to preside over the impeachment of a former president, he
would've exceeded his authority because the Constitution only delegates him to
preside over the impeachments of presidents in office.

This is really big, and if Mr. Trump's lawyers have overlooked it; then shame on
them.
_

 

[Lamb]

Maybe now the elected members of congress can actually return to representing the people and their needs in the current crisis' we're having to endure. They wasted time and money on this impeachment sham.

 

[tango]

Maybe now the elected members of congress can actually return to representing the people and their needs in the current crisis' we're having to endure. They wasted time and money on this impeachment sham.

We don't need them to worry about jobs and getting the country reopened or anything silly like that. We need more political posturing and some more bread and circuses. If we're lucky they'll find another round of orangemanbad and try to impeach him again.

 

[Josiah]

I heard/read Trumps comments at that rally... and frankly, I don't see it as inciting to riot AT ALL. Not at all. I think he is completely innocent. Frankly, I think MANY politicians (including several Democrat senators and leaders) have been FAR more flaming in their political speech that Trumps' "fight" "peaceful" comments.

And I think doing this AFTER HE'S LEFT OFFICE is beyond silly. Do the Democrats hold he won the 2020 election and must be removed, they must try to undo that election as they tried for 4 years to undo the 2016 one, do they agree with Trump that Trump actually won? If not... if they think he's no longer president, then why this ABSURD fight to remove him from office? It's beyond silly.

But here's what I think. All the Libs have at this point is -profound, passionate, obsessive HATE for "The Orange Man." It's all they've got. It won them the 2020 election and they are trying to keep that alive for as long as they can. HATE. It IS a uniting and motivating thing (ask Hitler). "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Thing is: once the ENEMY is gone, it's hard to keep this HATE alive.

Here's my advise to Dems..... you won the election. ACCEPT THAT!!!!!! Now, DO something. Hate is an ugly thing.




.

 

[Lamb]

Hate is definitely an ugly thing as Josiah says. Hate has been spewed for over 4 years and I thought that it would finally end after the election but now there is continued hate and not just against Trump but anyone who voted for him. So much for loving thy neighbor.