Isn't impeaching Trump where the process won't be complete until after he leaves office just sour grapes from a vengeful woman?
Trump is more than a lame duck, he is a dead duck
https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.go6UTC...pr=1.5&pid=1.7
|
Isn't impeaching Trump where the process won't be complete until after he leaves office just sour grapes from a vengeful woman?
Trump is more than a lame duck, he is a dead duck
https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.go6UTC...pr=1.5&pid=1.7
After January 20, as part of the impeachment process, the Senate can vote to prevent Trump from ever holding federal office again, thereby stopping any run for president in 2024. The Senate will then have a majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Yes that was apparent to me, but as I said a vengeful act, given his age and record of poor behaviour. In the light of day Trump is likely to think better of it anyway, he can write another book, gain fees from endorsement and the lecture circuit telling it the way he sees it and an encore performance seems unlikely
It's not just sour grapes, but accountability for his continuing CRIMINAL behavior while in office, and not just from one PO'd woman either. He ain't above the law despite the popular right wing looney belief.
If it was apparent to you, why did you omit it and call it just sour grapes? Plus what Tal said.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
what are you? the post police? the point of discussion is to mull over various aspects
You called ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
are you and athos the same? while I have your attention, why do I have to keep logging in, the "remember me" doesn't work in PC modeQuote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
NopeQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Clear cache and try again.Quote:
while I have your attention, why do I have to keep logging in, the "remember me" doesn't work in PC mode
Is that what you call it? "Mulling over various aspects"? Actually it's called making error-filled posts which you are famous for. After many corrections you may learn something and they will help you find the truth of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Have you been told today? consider yourself told!
Told what? Ranted at is becoming the new conservative discussion style. Factless and irrelevant.
That was meant for Athos but to enlighten the unenlightened, we use that when we don't want to stoop to the lower levels of discourse, usually you only get told one thing or maybe twoQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Trump
Doesn't sound like incitement to me .
This does .....
"Make the phone calls, send the emails, show up," "You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives." Ayanna Pressly Rep . Mass.
When Pelosi calls Federal agents defending government court houses in Portland "storm troopers " she is inciting by supporting the Antifa terrorists .
“Trump & his stormtroopers must be stopped.” Nancy Pelosi
This is what happened in Portland and continues to happen:
Bricks, frozen water bottles, mortars, marbles, ball bearings are fired at and thrown at the Portland police.
Police are blinded with laser lights ,car tires are slashed .
Arson to the Federal court house and to police precincts ,private homes, cars and businesses . Reporters are assaulted ;and individuals assaulted .
The Democrats and the left support the terrorism of Antifa.
I condemn the attack on the Capitol and our law makers .
If all Trump supporters are to be painted with a broad brush because the acts of a few then in fairness so should all the left who has openly supported the acts of Antifa .
Clete ,to your question ....I'm not sure an impeachment conviction after a President leaves office is constitutional . Art 2 Sec 4
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Nothing in the text says anything about after a President leaves office . So if they go through with the plan to impeach but not convict before Jan 20 then I'm sure it would go to SCOTUS for adjudication.
Also conviction alone would not ban Trump from running for office again . The Senate would have to hold a separate vote on that measure Not that it matters . His support has been sufficiently damaged since the elections . I doubt that he could rebuild it .
In other words, cast aspersions when you are not capable of answering or discussing the subject. You have now failed/erred when discussing socialism, AGW, and American politics. Time for you to meditate in your hermitage down there.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
That's because you left out what Trump ACTUALLY did.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Predictably, you reacted EXACTLY as Trump did this morning on his first trip outside since January 6 hiding in the West Wing where he gleefully watched his rioters on television for hours on end.Quote:
This does .....
Trump immediately deflected from the Capitol riots by bringing up Portland - EXACTLY as you did!!
You're not fooling anybody, tomder. If you truly condemned the attack, you would equally condemn Trump for inciting the riots. FACTS, tomder, FACTS. Don't leave home without them.Quote:
I condemn the attack on the Capitol and our law makers
Watching the riots on TV like the rest of the nation didn't lead to any rescue actions by the dufus as the lawmakers including Pence were hunkered down calling for help. The conservative and the elected repub reaction to this event defies logic which is why the cult of the dufus continues.
Let's have that impeachment vote. To not would be just as looney!
I did not "cast aspersions" or anything else for that matter. I was direct but you don't understand like so much of your discourse. I have an opinion, whether you value it or not, it is an opinion but you feel you must correct any opinion that doesn't accord with your own. As I said before, consider yourself toldQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Outstanding post, as usual.Quote:
If all Trump supporters are to be painted with a broad brush because the acts of a few then in fairness so should all the left who has openly supported the acts of Antifa .
Pot...kettle...again.Quote:
In other words, cast aspersions when you are not capable of answering or discussing the subject
I don't value an opinion that goes against the facts or reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I correct only those opinions that don't accord with reality - the FACTS! It's not a hard concept to understand.Quote:
you feel you must correct any opinion that doesn't accord with your own.
Yes, I saw that. I don't know what it means. Unlike you, I don't obsess over Australian-ese the way you obsess over America. If you translate it into American, I'll consider it.Quote:
As I said before, consider yourself told
{expletive off} I'm trying to be polite for the benefit of others. I try not to obsess over americans but they take up space and inject themselves. I don't like the culture, I don't like the foreign policy, I don't like loud mouthed braggarts, I hear the scenery is niceQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
I have no doubt Madam Mim will have her vote and the House will impeach again. I was speaking of the blatantly political games playing by the Schmuckster and Quid who plan to delay the trial until after the first 100 days of the reign of the Quid .Quote:
Let's have that impeachment vote. To not would be just as looney!
It will of course be one of those banana republic show trials the Dems are so good at conducting . It will keep those fund raising requests littering my phone ;as has happened by both sides since the election . Good thing I can block addresses . I must have blocked a hundred since the election .
The left is a joke . They are not even calling it inciting a riot (which Trump did not do . ) They are absurdly calling it inciting insurrection
Either way the standard for incitement was set in the 'Brandenburg v Ohio 'case .That case set the bar high . Speech must in FACT include intent to incite AND include specific instructions to do violence . It does not say that the speech implied that insurrection or violence should happen.
So even if Trump's speech turned out to be inflammatory(which it wasn't ) ,it is still protected speech . So all the impeachment talk is political theater . It's intent is to get Republicans on the record prior to the 2022 midterms .
a banana republic show trial, Tom, but it is fitting that a banana republic show trial be conducted in the banana republic the US has become
can't argue . The Dems set the law enforcement and intelligence apparatus of government power on an opposition candidate and then tried coup attempts against him and his administration . They are in their second attempt to unseat him even as his tenure is up in a week ,Quote:
a banana republic show trial, Tom, but it is fitting that a banana republic show trial be conducted in the banana republic the US has become
as I said elsewhere the acts of a vindictive, vengeful womanQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
The left is a joke . They are not even calling it inciting a riot (which Trump did not do . ) They are absurdly calling it inciting insurrection.
I cannot imagine any two statements that I would agree more with. The charge of "inciting insurrection" is flatly wrong and so absurd that it reflects terribly on those who are agreeing with it. And yes, Pelosi is a hate filled little woman who only thinks of getting Trump. None of this has anything to do with the good of the country. And Biden wants to speak of unity? If they keep this up, the results are going to end up being regrettable. I wish they would move on to their other equally loony but less divisive ideas.Quote:
as I said elsewhere the acts of a vindictive, vengeful woman
Apparently, you haven't heard that McConnell is in on the joke. He says Trump should be impeached. McCarthy wants him censured.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
They're calling it what it was. Trump, in a miasma of his derangement, calls it peaceful.Quote:
They are absurdly calling it inciting insurrection
Quote:
Either way the standard for incitement was set in the 'Brandenburg v Ohio 'case .That case set the bar high . Speech must in FACT include intent to incite AND include specific instructions to do violence
Trump accomplished both qualifications.
Wrong. Incitement to riot/rebel is never protected.Quote:
So even if Trump's speech turned out to be inflammatory(which it wasn't ) ,it is still protected speech
That would be a delightful by-product.Quote:
It's intent is to get Republicans on the record prior to the 2022 midterms .
Perhaps you can provide the quotes?Quote:
intent to incite AND include specific instructions to do violence
Trump accomplished both qualifications.
The right to free speech protects inflammatory rhetoric unless it’s intended to incite “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” That is a direct quote of the Brandenberg decision . The decision has not been challenged since the 1969 ruling .Quote:
Perhaps you can provide the quotes?
An interesting note is that Brandenberg who was a Klan leader had the support of the ACLU . But that was in the days when the left believed ,,,, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
One has to do some heavy parsing of language to come up with the conclusion that Trump was intentionally calling on the people at the rally to storm the Capitol .
I have no doubt that the House Dems will successfully impeach . All that will prove is that impeachment is a political tool to be used by the majority ......something that was feared by some of the framers when they debated the concept of the Legislature impeaching the President .Gouverneur Morris and Charles Pinckney were both concerned that a President would feel beholden to the branch of government that could impeach him, leading the President to become “a tool of a faction.” History has proven them right with the system broken down to factional partisanship . Every impeachment except perhaps Nixon who resigned 1st ;has been a partisan political football.
Even worse than that, it requires a claim of being able to understand the person's intent even though it was not expressed by the words. In short, the dems must possess the ability to read minds.Quote:
One has to do some heavy parsing of language to come up with the conclusion that Trump was intentionally calling on the people at the rally to storm the Capitol .
All one has to do is read the news or watch the news. There are dozens of videos starring Trump showing him in no uncertain terms inciting the flag-waving screwballs to march on the Capitol to ensure that Pence overturns the vote and results in Trump being president. He said, "...and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down ... to the Capitol".Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
As it turned out Trump never did walk down to the Capitol. Coward that he is he snuck off to safety as the rioters did their thing. He also said, "You'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength".
His intent was to overthrow the first branch of government and nullify the presidential election. In the melee that followed, five died including a policeman.
You have a bad habit of cherry picking your quotes. Trump said, "And after this, we're going to walk down there, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down ... to the Capitol and we are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women," Trump told the crowd. "And we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong."
And after that, he said these words which no doubt stirred many brave hearts to insurrection! "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Apparently, over a thousand people missed his point and spread s**t on the hallway floors, vandalized the Capitol and various offices, terrorized the senators and representatives and staff, and literally made their voices heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You mean like they did in Portland? Who was held responsible for that? Or like they did on May 31 in D.C. Who was held responsible for that? Or when Pelosi referred to Trump and his allies as "domestic enemies". Was she held responsible for that? Why the selective outrage?Quote:
Apparently, over a thousand people missed his point and spread s**t on the hallway floors, vandalized the Capitol and various offices, terrorized the senators and representatives and staff, and literally made their voices heard.
Change the subject, why doncha!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
At least the PGA was able to "gut" Trump.
I didn't change the subject. I am asking why you are so upset about the 1/6 incident, and so uncaring about the other incidents. Why is that? Why the selective outrage?Quote:
Change the subject, why doncha!
I'm upset? You don't know me very well. Now, tell me, why did you change the subject?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Possibly the dufus over estimated his ability to control and manipulation of his red meat crowd, or there were enough right wing vanilla ISIS types to take things to a far more dangerous level than even the dufus anticipated. Of course he never considered that so there goes the NY tough guy's mouth trying to scare and intimidate the congress to keep his job. 6 people died so heads must roll, and his may too.
No way this gets swept under a rug, nor should it. That would be loony logic!
All of that is fine. You're entitled to dislike America. But that's not what I asked you.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
You wrote, "As I said before, consider yourself told". That's the question you have yet to answer. Yes, I saw that. I don't know what it means. If you translate it into American, I'll consider it.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:55 PM. |