What's new
By:
Filters

So let's say they don't get a conviction on DJT.

So let's say they don't get a conviction on DJT.

  • Yes the orange man will try and get back to the big chair.

    Votes: 45 46.4%

  • No, the orange man will not try and get back to the big chair.

    Votes: 52 53.6%
  • Total voters
    97
Pony_Driver said:
It's political theater. The D's will run clips of this unConstitutionmal bullshit in their reelection campaigns. Hopefully the Rs that go along get thrown out on their keisters.
Click to expand...

It should say hopefully all the D's and R's get thrown out and we get non career politicians who don't belong to either party elected instead.
 
Trump has some good ideas but his arrogant ego driven NYC mouth got in the way...Win or lose in the Senate, he will be hounded by criminal and civil charges from other courts..
 
92 Green YJ said:
My money is on Ivanka making the run in 24. Donny Jr. is kind of soft when it boils down to it. Ivanka is a strong presence and personality and she doesn’t take shit from people at all. She is also more tactful and well spoken. Between the two Ivanka would get my vote.
Click to expand...

Whether it’s Ivanka or not, the R’s need to start looking for a solid female candidate now. Their only hope is to find someone that can beat Harris in a girl fight election.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
We really haven't had a "great" candidate since Reagan. I know he wasn't perfect, but he's what this country needed at the time.
Click to expand...

no one worth a damn wants it. its a martyrdom and a "death sentence" because the President sacrifices his life as he knew for something that is an open book. which would then lead that to flow down to everyone around them.

The Demcrats and the media have shown they will destroy anyone they deem not worthy. Look at Herman Cain. He would have been an incredible president, but they couldnt have a smart, conservative black man running for President for the Republicans.

it goes back even further to Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, then more recently Brett Kananaugh. Luckily Amy Barrett was squeaky clean or they'd have destroyed her. Look at the character assassination of Sara Palin.

sadly our system and the powers that be lend itself that people running for president are long time politicians or very rich celebrities who are used to the daily witch hunt of the media.

the media is the problem in this country because they galavanize and shape what the public thinks about politics and that is assuredly in the Democrat light and has been for many years.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
IMO they need a conviction to use that.
Click to expand...

Do they though? Making shit up hasn't slowed them down yet, why would that change? Probably one of the few times "Trumped up charges" is accurate and ironic.
 
Texas97 said:
Look at Herman Cain. He would have been an incredible president, but they couldnt have a smart, conservative black man running for President for the Republicans.
Click to expand...

I can't predict how he would have been but I was certainly interested in hearing more from him, a lot more and then poof, gone. WTF?
 
Texas97 said:
no one worth a damn wants it. its a martyrdom and a "death sentence" because the President sacrifices his life as he knew for something that is an open book. which would then lead that to flow down to everyone around them.
Click to expand...


Like pissing on a campfire. It lets the smoke out but stinks like hell and won't extinguish anything.


Texas97 said:
the media is the problem in this country because they galavanize and shape what the public thinks about politics and that is assuredly in the Democrat light and has been for many years.
Click to expand...


The Donald fixt that right up with his daily Twitter show. :cookie:
 
Even if he tries, he will not have the backing.
 
Last edited:
Texas97 said:
even if you didnt know much about Herman Cain, you would certainly agree he would have been a better president than Mittens.
Click to expand...

And many others. All I know is every time he had something to say, he came across as smart, honest and genuine. Admirable qualities in a human, maybe not so much in a politician.
 
It would have to be third party. I wouldn't be shocked if he is convicted. There are plenty of Republicans that couldn't amass their wealth with Trump watching, ready to call them out. Thank goodness we are back to normal.
I also predict the Keystone pipeline will be back as soon as everyone is able to line their pockets. Imho that's the only reason the project was shut down.
 
mrblaine said:
And many others. All I know is every time he had something to say, he came across as smart, honest and genuine. Admirable qualities in a human, maybe not so much in a politician.
Click to expand...

i loved listening to him when he filled in for Neil Bortz. smart guy, genuine, great speaker. Media hated him.
 
Eman Resu said:
Another goal of impeachment 2.0 is maximum damage to the Trump brand. If/when either Trump offspring runs for office, they'll be referred to as son/daughter of the disgraced, twice-impeached President DJT, and countless other slanderous variations.
Click to expand...

Surely they know that all this foolishness is doing nothing but solidifying the support he's got...
 
Saloon65 said:
Surely they know that all this foolishness is doing nothing but solidifying the support he's got...
Click to expand...

Maybe that's by design. Maybe if they solidify it, they can hammer it down as domestic terrorist group instead
 
Texas97 said:
Maybe that's by design. Maybe if they solidify it, they can hammer it down as domestic terrorist group instead
Click to expand...


The Dems would like nothing else but to have DJT as a boogie man for the rest of time. They were able to manipulate the emotions of their followers to hate everything he did in a knee jerk fashion and to believe he was the Devil incarnate.

Now they are trying to transfer that feeling towards anyone who even considered voting for DJT and it is working...
 
The goal has never been to convict DJT. The goal is political grandstanding. Making one side look good at the expense of the other side.

In the long run, I foresee it playing out like this; House Dems impeach. Senate votes it's constitutional (already happened). Senate votes to convict, fails to get enough votes. Senate then votes to censure. This only needs 50/50 in favor with Harris as the deciding vote. This passes. Republicans and conservatives get their panties in a bunch, because, how can an innocent ex-potus be censured? Doesn't matter, the vote already happened. DJT appeals to the SCOTUS. SCOTUS agrees to hear the case. Reps and Cons are happy. SCOTUS rules in favor of DJT and THAT ruling gives enough credence to the idea that we need to expand the court, which the Dems push thru in 2023 or 2024 before Biden's term ends. The whole goal, from the beginning wasn't to punish DJT but to use this political firestorm to change the SCOTUS.
 
https://www.cnet.com/how-to/14th-am...umps-impeachment-how-it-works-why-it-matters/

14th Amendment is the cornerstone of Trump's impeachment. How it works, why it matters


What you need to know about how lawmakers are using the 14th Amendment to hold Trump and his political supporters accountable for the Jan. 6 riots on the US Capitol.
Shelby Brown

Jan. 14, 2021 1:30 p.m. PT



Update, Feb. 9: Trump's second impeachment trial is happening now. Here's how to watch the hearing live.
Failing to remove President Donald Trump from office through the 25th Amendment, the House of Representatives impeached Trump for a second time Wednesday night after a heated debate. In a 232 to 197 vote, which included a historic 10 Republicans voting to impeach their party's president -- the House adopted an article of impeachment (PDF) that charged Trump with "incitement of insurrection" for his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capitol.

The foundation of the article of impeachment is the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which the House used to justify its case again Trump. We'll explain exactly why below.

Since it's so close to the end of Trump's term (President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated next week), Democrats and some Republicans hope to use the 14th Amendment as grounds for the Senate to convict Trump of causing the deadly riot, and further bar him from holding public office in the future. Trump has hinted at running for president again in 2024.

Here's how the 14th Amendment enters into the conversation.




The 14th Amendment -- added to the Constitution in 1866 -- has a total of five sections. Section 1, for example, says that anyone born or naturalized in the US are citizens in the state they live in.

But it's specifically Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that's been getting attention lately. In simple terms, Section 3 says that if a person has engaged in an "insurrection or rebellion" against the US, they cannot hold office.



The full section reads:
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.​

The House uses the 14th Amendment as the base of its case. "Further, section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any person who has 'engaged in insurrection or rebellion against' the United States from 'hold[ing] any office . . . under the United States,'" the impeachment article (PDF) says.

What it would take to enact the 14th Amendment


The 14th Amendment has never been used to oust a sitting president before, so is less in the conversation of removing Trump from office and more focused on preventing him from running for political office in the future. The Amendment also requires significantly less legwork than the 25th Amendment -- a simple majority in both chambers, but no vice-presidential support.

Since the 14th Amendment doesn't have language regarding removal, impeachment -- and a two-thirds majority of Senators voting to convict in a trial -- is how Trump would be removed from office. But with just a week left in office, it's unclear if a conviction without the additional disqualification from office would have much material effect.

Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University, told Reuters that the amendment's fifth section language suggests that taking action would require a mix of legislation and litigation.

Trump could potentially argue semantics, and that his comments are protected by the First Amendment, but this argument might not hold much water.

In short, Congress has the power to expel members, but it would have to come by way of legislation, in this case, the impeachment trial in the Senate, and a further vote to bar Trump from future office. The two-thirds majority required to convict would not progress without Republican support.

Has the 14th Amendment ever been used before?


Yes and no. In its infancy, the 14th Amendment was used to expel several lawmakers for supporting the Confederacy at the onset of the Civil War. Congress also invoked the 14th Amendment in 1919 to block elected official Victor Berger from joining the House after opposing US intervention in World War I.

While the Amendment hasn't been used to remove a sitting president, it has been a focal point in multiple Supreme Court cases throughout history. The 14th Amendment has been cited in racial injustice cases like Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 and Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, as well as Bush v. Gore in 2000, in which former President George W. Bush's lawyers argued that recounting votes in Florida violated the amendment's Equal Protection Clause. More recently, the 14th Amendment was cited in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 by Justice Anthony Kennedy to argue in favor of gay marriage.
Click to expand...
 
Lil'John said:
From what I read not in the article I provided, it was presented that if this regular impeachment fails, they will use Amendment 14 section 3 and no conviction was needed just a simple majority.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm, interesting. A punishment without any finding of guilt. Doesn't sound too legal to me. That would make an interesting court case.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
Hmmmmm, interesting. A punishment without any finding of guilt. Doesn't sound too legal to me. That would make an interesting court case.
Click to expand...

And, the entire proceeding is political. It doesn't even have any criminal penalty. If you truly incited a riot with the intent to overthrow the government then wouldn't that carry some jail time? It's all grandstanding with the intent to get him removed from the running for another presidency and possibly to ignite support for changing of the Supreme Court.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
Hmmmmm, interesting. A punishment without any finding of guilt. Doesn't sound too legal to me. That would make an interesting court case.
Click to expand...

A case that would never see the inside of a courtroom isn't that interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh