auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas
15 Feb 2021, 3:46 pm
kokopelli
Veteran
Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,395
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind
15 Feb 2021, 6:16 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,726
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
15 Feb 2021, 7:07 pm
15 Feb 2021, 8:18 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
15 Feb 2021, 8:29 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
44 Republicans said it was unconstitutional to convict a former president.
It wasn't unconstitutional.But allowing this would mean that a president can commit all sorts of crimes on his last day and avoid being impeached.
So he then gets away with what he did once he's out of office? That's an interesting take on accountability.
The impeachment process simply removes the president from office, it doesn't hold the president accountable for crimes.
Obviously the democrats knew otherwise, or else why bother impeaching him a second time?
There are two penalties. If convicted, he is removed from office. That didn't apply in this case.
Also, if convicted, they can vote to ban him from holding future federal offices of certain types. It seems like it could have kept him from ever running for election again, but there is a strong argument to be made that the offices he is banned from holding are those to which one is appointed and do not include elective office.
No impeachment trial puts the defendant in danger of losing his life, property, and liberty. I think that information that comes out during the trial, however, can be used against him.
As for this impeachment, Pelosi seems to be senile. The first impeachment was done without taking the effort to fully investigate the charges. They didn't come close to talking to their witnesses. They rushed it through and left little chance that it would ever succeed. It was nothing but idiocy. The House never had a chance of convicting Trump and they did it to themselves.
The second impeachment was done in an even bigger hurry. They didn't talk to the witnesses. Of course, they were in a hurry to get the impeachment before Trump was out of office. There was never any real chance of success. Once again, the blame for that failure goes to the House.
So purely to humiliate him...nothing else?
Had Trump been found guilty, his pension as President could have been denied him, as well as secret service protection. Considering how badly Trump's businesses are doing, he might very well have to depend on the pension to live.
Thanks, others here were giving the impression it was purely a witch hunt
I wasn't one of them, but it was a political exercise, yes.
It was definitely a desire, by the Democrats, to humiliate Trump since nothing was ever going to come of it and he was out of office anyway.
I am not suggesting Trump didn't deserve 'the blowtorch to the belly' treatment, however.
His 'brain fart' was extraordinary.
But ultimately, both sides of politics did themselves no favours in terms of integrity.
On reflection, it was obvious that my belief there would be no impeachment, would have been actualised.
The same would have applied if a Democratic President was involved.
Political buggery loyalties trumps everything/k.
Considering that a lynch mob had invaded the capitol, I think this went beyond just trying to humiliate Trump. There was a legitimate reason for the impeachment.
Agreed. Wtf Pepe? This wasn't some witch hunt like trump would have you believe. He invited nutters to a riot, spun them up, then gleefully watched on tv as they terrorized his political opponents and killed people.
He deserved to not only be impeached, but convicted and barred from ever running for public office again.
He ALSO deserves to be criminally charged for any criminal offences committed related to the insurrection, and tried for those crimes. IMO.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.15 Feb 2021, 9:02 pm
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
15 Feb 2021, 9:25 pm
cyberdad wrote:
As with 20th century lynch mobs the authorities seem to be curiously lukewarm at best and complicit at worst.
This.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,726
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
15 Feb 2021, 9:33 pm
16 Feb 2021, 12:10 am
16 Feb 2021, 12:21 am
16 Feb 2021, 12:32 am
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
16 Feb 2021, 2:19 am
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay, but how many voters are are in their total? For example when they say 57 to 43, how many voters are there total?
100.
_________________
No
for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas
16 Feb 2021, 2:34 am
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,721
Location: Long Island, New York
16 Feb 2021, 4:20 pm
16 Feb 2021, 4:27 pm
16 Feb 2021, 4:35 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
44 Republicans said it was unconstitutional to convict a former president.
It wasn't unconstitutional.But allowing this would mean that a president can commit all sorts of crimes on his last day and avoid being impeached.
So he then gets away with what he did once he's out of office? That's an interesting take on accountability.
The impeachment process simply removes the president from office, it doesn't hold the president accountable for crimes.
Obviously the democrats knew otherwise, or else why bother impeaching him a second time?
There are two penalties. If convicted, he is removed from office. That didn't apply in this case.
Also, if convicted, they can vote to ban him from holding future federal offices of certain types. It seems like it could have kept him from ever running for election again, but there is a strong argument to be made that the offices he is banned from holding are those to which one is appointed and do not include elective office.
No impeachment trial puts the defendant in danger of losing his life, property, and liberty. I think that information that comes out during the trial, however, can be used against him.
As for this impeachment, Pelosi seems to be senile. The first impeachment was done without taking the effort to fully investigate the charges. They didn't come close to talking to their witnesses. They rushed it through and left little chance that it would ever succeed. It was nothing but idiocy. The House never had a chance of convicting Trump and they did it to themselves.
The second impeachment was done in an even bigger hurry. They didn't talk to the witnesses. Of course, they were in a hurry to get the impeachment before Trump was out of office. There was never any real chance of success. Once again, the blame for that failure goes to the House.
So purely to humiliate him...nothing else?
Had Trump been found guilty, his pension as President could have been denied him, as well as secret service protection. Considering how badly Trump's businesses are doing, he might very well have to depend on the pension to live.
Thanks, others here were giving the impression it was purely a witch hunt
I wasn't one of them, but it was a political exercise, yes.
It was definitely a desire, by the Democrats, to humiliate Trump since nothing was ever going to come of it and he was out of office anyway.
I am not suggesting Trump didn't deserve 'the blowtorch to the belly' treatment, however.
His 'brain fart' was extraordinary.
But ultimately, both sides of politics did themselves no favours in terms of integrity.
On reflection, it was obvious that my belief there would be no impeachment, would have been actualised.
The same would have applied if a Democratic President was involved.
Political buggery loyalties trumps everything/k.
Considering that a lynch mob had invaded the capitol, I think this went beyond just trying to humiliate Trump. There was a legitimate reason for the impeachment.
Hyperbole noted.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Why ABC News settled with Donald Trump for $15 million |
18 Dec 2024, 11:39 pm |
| Donald Trump Asks The SCOTUS To Block Sentencing In His Hush |
08 Jan 2025, 9:46 pm |
| Trump pardons nearly all Jan. 6 rioters |
07 Feb 2025, 4:10 pm |
| Trump's Inaugural address |
27 Jan 2025, 11:50 pm |
