Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: sumpnz on January 21, 2021, 01:13:03 PM
-
Soooo, why are they still going forward with the trial? Trump is out of office. They can’t impose any other penalties on him aside from barring him from running for public office again. Which is highly doubtful that he’d run, let alone win, again anyway. I mean, I get it, they want to humiliate him. But if they really want to do that why not fabricate some felony to send to prison for a few years? Or find some victimless process crime that everyone is guilty of.
-
It's about 2024:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-block-from-seeking-presidency-again
-
Maybe they're just creating an atmosphere that will explain away his future suicide . . . .
[tinfoil]
-
It's about 2024:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-block-from-seeking-presidency-again
Yeah, but first they have to get a conviction in the senate. That would require at least 16 R’s to vote along it with it, along with no Ds breaking ranks (eg Manchin, and other Ds from red or purple states that want to at least look like they want unity). I could easily see Romney, Murky, Sasse and a few others doing so, just out of spite, but even McConnell probably won’t just because Trump is already gone so there’s nothing to be gained. Even if they succeed they’ll be more likely to make Trump a martyr in the eyes of much of the country, and then he’d be the kingmaker rather than the king.
-
but even McConnell probably won’t just because Trump is already gone so there’s nothing to be gained.
I'm not even sure about McConnell, given what he said the other day about Trump blowing the coded dog whistle for his insurrectionists.
-
If Trump can get out there the fact that the riot started 12 minutes before he even finished speaking, plus the walking time from his rally to the capitol I think a lot of people will become a lot less supportive of convicting him. That may sway enough senators to vote for acquittal to end it.
Forgetting that it was planned weeks in advance by groups he had no involvement with. Or that his actual words were to peacefully (actually, not the 93% liberal peaceful) protest, not to riot.
-
Maybe they're just creating an atmosphere that will explain away his future suicide . . . .
[tinfoil]
Donald Trump did not kill himself.
-
Donald Trump did not kill himself.
Yet. Give Hillary time to work on it.
-
I simply don't see a 2024 run, and I don't think anyone else realistically is worried about one either. He'd be 80, the amount of baggage he has is incredible, and for all of his supporters they aren't going to overcome his detractors, especially as their numbers dwindle over the next four years. In terms of being discredited, pretty much everyone who is that worried about discrediting him already feels he is thoroughly discredited. So I don't think that's an issue either.
But, what it would do is bar him from holding federal office again. While I don't see another presidential run, with midterms I can see him selecting a district with a favorable demographic and suitable golf course to get a seat in the house, maybe a senate seat if he see's any that would be a sure thing. While a demotion of sorts doesn't fit his character, being a prick and maintaining relevance most certainly is in his character. Hell, being in a position to go argue with Pelosi on occasion could pretty well serve as his retirement hobby on days when the weather isn't favorable for a round of golf.
That, along with any other protections and privileges typically afforded former presidents, being barred by a conviction is I think the end goal.
-
I don't see him ever running again either. He has fanatical support among a small minority of voters, but he's lost any influence he had in the party. He strikes me as the kind of guy who would view a seat in congress as a step down, so that seems unlikely. Maybe a third party bid, but third parties don't win.
I think the impeachment is pure personal revenge. Just the Dem's final insult on his way out the door.
-
The dems wont rest till they have killed or destroyed Trump and as many of his family members and associates as they can.
-
The dems wont rest till they have killed or destroyed Trump and as many of his family members and associates as they can.
And tar anyone who dares run a Trumpist platform without the Trump.
-
Impeaching Trump now doesn't have to make sense to those who worry about coherency, reason and logic.
The vast majority of the stories we are being told in the media or by official sources are nonsense, "fake", without coherency, reason or logic.
Impeaching Trump is just reinforcing the "Trump is bad" in a double plus bad way in the minds of the moronic masses.
-
I don't see him ever running again either. He has fanatical support among a small minority of voters, but he's lost any influence he had in the party. He strikes me as the kind of guy who would view a seat in congress as a step down, so that seems unlikely. Maybe a third party bid, but third parties don't win.
I think the impeachment is pure personal revenge. Just the Dem's final insult on his way out the door.
Agree with all here. Trump wouldn't do a Senate run after being President (I doubt any former president would). And YEAH, the entrenched republican party has acted like rats on the sinking ship. The majority turned on him in the end. Cocaine Mitch, who many here (including me) were praising on his recent stances, in the last week of Trump's administration, turned right back around to being an entrenched swamp creature.
The politicians want politicians. I'm not sure that we'll see another outsider like Trump running in my lifetime. In 2024, the Rs will return to "Jebs" running for President.
-
Politicians are worried about "legacy" as well. If they convict him, in addition to never holding office again, my understanding is he wouldn't get an official presidential library, and they wouldn't have to invite him to all the things ex-presidents show up for (like future inaugurations, State Funerals, stuff like that.) It makes the erasure more permanent, and I think they want that.
-
Take heart, fellow APS denizens! The first articles of impeachment filed against President Biden! I am sure the Representative will have many colleagues signing on.
https://vt.co/news/us/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-says-she-has-filed-articles-of-impeachment-against-joe-biden?utm_source=vt&utm_medium=junglecreations&utm_campaign=post
-
Take heart, fellow APS denizens! The first articles of impeachment filed against President Biden! I am sure the Representative will have many colleagues signing on.
https://vt.co/news/us/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-says-she-has-filed-articles-of-impeachment-against-joe-biden?utm_source=vt&utm_medium=junglecreations&utm_campaign=post
Well going by what the dems declared when they filed articles of impeachment against Trump this means Biden has to step down, someone can't be president while under investigation right?
:facepalm: :rofl: :facepalm: :rofl: :facepalm: :rofl: :facepalm: :rofl:
-
Take heart, fellow APS denizens! The first articles of impeachment filed against President Biden! I am sure the Representative will have many colleagues signing on.
https://vt.co/news/us/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-says-she-has-filed-articles-of-impeachment-against-joe-biden?utm_source=vt&utm_medium=junglecreations&utm_campaign=post
Yea! A repuke has grown a pair!!!! =D [popcorn] [popcorn] ....... [barf]
-
Patrick Leahy to preside over the second impeachment trial:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/leahy-to-preside-over-senate-impeachment-trial
Yeah, I'm sure that will be fine . . .
-
I saw Rand Paul on TV the other night, and he stated that Chief Justice Roberts flatly refused to preside over the impeachment trial of a NON-President.
To proceed with a trial anyway with a very partisan Democrat presiding . . . can you say "kangaroo court?" :facepalm:
-
I saw Rand Paul on TV the other night, and he stated that Chief Justice Roberts flatly refused to preside over the impeachment trial of a NON-President.
To proceed with a trial anyway with a very partisan Democrat presiding . . . can you say "kangaroo court?" :facepalm:
Courts are NOT about rule of law with democratic socialists (communists); it is merely a political cudgel they use to bash in the brains of anyone they don't like under color of law.
-
Hmmmm . . . here's a thought.
If Patrick Leahy - a sitting senator - is to preside over a second impeachment trial, he doesn't get to vote on the verdict, does he?
In which case, a simple vote to dismiss would have 50 Republicans vs. 49 Democrats - case dismissed. (Assuming Romney and a few others don't go full retard.)
-
Highly unlikely Romney will miss an opportunity to go full retard.
-
The fact it is going forward shows the whole Senate has gone full clown world.
Honk Honk!
-
OMG! They're going to remove Trump from office!
-
Patrick Leahy to preside over the second impeachment trial:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/leahy-to-preside-over-senate-impeachment-trial
Yeah, I'm sure that will be fine . . .
How is that Constitutional? ? ? [tinfoil] Ooooops, I forgot, no one cares about that anymore ..... [tinfoil] :mad:
-
Hmmmm . . . here's a thought.
If Patrick Leahy - a sitting senator - is to preside over a second impeachment trial, he doesn't get to vote on the verdict, does he?
In which case, a simple vote to dismiss would have 50 Republicans vs. 49 Democrats - case dismissed. (Assuming Romney and a few others don't go full retard.)
A 2/3rds majority (66 votes) is required to convict an impeached president in the Senate. All Democrats, with a couple possible exceptions, will vote to convict. It will take at least sixteen Republicans voting with the Democrats to convict Trump to double-plus now-and-forever remove him from the office he no longer holds. It's possible sixteen Republicans could be rounded up to show their lack of conviction by voting for Trump's conviction.
-
Since Trump is no longer in office, isn't the article of impeachment a bill of attainder? (I know it's a kangaroo court at this point so the law doesn't matter)
-
If one were to believe that Biden was not legitimately elected it would make sense to want to dispose of the last legitimate president just in case.
-
It's not about Trump.
It's a warning to anyone who might be thinking of running for POTUS on a populist/nationalist platform
It's either accept globalism 100%, which means being cozy with the ChiComs, or what happened to Trump over the last four years will happen to you.
There's a reason that Bernie (and Liz) were frozen out on the Dem side. Both of them have some sympathy towards economic nationalist ideas. And skepticism towards the wall St/financial engineering types. Can't let them anywhere near the presidency.
-
They want to get the sedition clause in there so he can't run for office again.
-
Looks like Rand Paul has this dead in the Senate.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senators-sworn-in-impeachment-trial-start-feb-9
These five Rs think it's okie doke to impeach a private citizen:
Five GOP senators voted not to dismiss the impeachment trial of President Trump: Susan Collins, Maine, Lisa Murkowski, Alaska, Ben Sasse, Neb., and Pat Toomey, Pa. They voted with all 50 Democrat senators to table the point of order.
I'll be watching their names when commie stuff comes up for a vote that is close.
-
The only reason I can think of to vote against this is to bring in the evidence showing it was preplaned by several small groups. Make the incitement mute. But looking at that list its a no from me.
-
Pat Toomey announced in October that he isn't going to seek reelection or run for governor of PA, so no surprise there with his vote.
-
The Ds want to shred the Constitution -- selectively.
Rand Paul made an impassioned speech (which is on TouTube) about how this trial is unconstitutional because Trump is no longer the President. The Ds argument is that because one of the penalties of a conviction, in addition to removal from office, can be a ban on holding office in the future, the trial is constitutional. But the Constitution says a trial pursuant to impeachment shall be presided over by the Chief Justice.
The Ds have appointed a rabid anti-trump D to preside. So their position comes down to cherry picking: The Constitution allows the trial to proceed even though Trump is no longer President, but because Trump is no longer President the part about rhe Chief Justice doesn't apply.
Blatant hypocrisy. But ... I repeat myself.
-
The Ds want to shred the Constitution -- selectively.
Rand Paul made an impassioned speech (which is on TouTube) about how this trial is unconstitutional because Trump is no longer the President. The Ds argument is that because one of the penalties of a conviction, in addition to removal from office, can be a ban on holding office in the future, the trial is constitutional. But the Constitution says a trial pursuant to impeachment shall be presided over by the Chief Justice.
The Ds have appointed a rabid anti-trump D to preside. So their position comes down to cherry picking: The Constitution allows the trial to proceed even though Trump is no longer President, but because Trump is no longer President the part about rhe Chief Justice doesn't apply.
Blatant hypocrisy. But ... I repeat myself.
I hadn't realized they were doing that. I wonder if the Chief Justice has any comment about it?
-
I hadn't realized they were doing that. I wonder if the Chief Justice has any comment about it?
The Chief Justice refused to preside over the trial.
-
Rand Paul got 45 votes on his Constitutional point of order so hopefully the impeachment is dead cuz Dems won’t have 2/3rds to convict.
https://twitter.com/randpaul/status/1354163711917903872?s=21 (https://twitter.com/randpaul/status/1354163711917903872?s=21)
-
Patrick Leahy to preside over the second impeachment trial:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/leahy-to-preside-over-senate-impeachment-trial
Yeah, I'm sure that will be fine . . .
Leahy may not be up to the "stress" of a trial.
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/vermont-sen-patrick-leahy-returns-home-after-hospital-visit >:D
-
Leahy may not be up to the "stress" of a trial.
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/vermont-sen-patrick-leahy-returns-home-after-hospital-visit >:D
When I saw that on the news the first thing I thought was "Leahy decided he doesn't want any part of this tar baby either . . . "
We'll see if the backroom boys twist his arm a little harder.
-
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1353891692810620929