Declaring Impeachment unconstitutional.

[Gmoney4WW]

That would declare open season on a Presidency to wait till the last month of it's term to commit whatever acts they feel like. No matter whether they are illegal, unconstitutional, or impeachable. Some Presidents would dare to commit crimes, and not think they would be brought up on charges after they left office. It needs to be declared impeachable, even if he is not impeached. The president pulled one of the worst acts he could pull in this instance. To try to incite a riot that would keep him in office is as bad as it gets. It doesn't really matter whether he had intent, he should have known it would happen that way. You don't incite a group of people as volatile as Trumps base without knowing what likely could happen over that.

Most Republican Senators are being very short sighted on declaring this unconstitutional. It works for Democrats to wait till the last month as well. Not allowing Trump to run again, stops him from starting a new party. It also stops him from getting in the middle of the next presidential primary election. They don't want to have him as their candidate in 2024. They would likely lose that race just like they lost it in 2020. Either one of those instances causes the Republican party to take a chance on losing in 2024 again. Total ignorance and/or lack of foresight on the Republican parties part.

The real risk is he runs as an independent. The Republicans are playing a dangerous game, being appeased by Trump not starting an independent party. He leaves it to them to start a party virtually in his name. With Trump's need for vengeance, I doubt he runs as a Republican in 2024. He would love to stick it to the republicans, and 'decide' to run as a Patriot in 2023,. He figures he can do this long after everybody had given up on impeachment, acquitted him in impeachment, or voted not to stop him from running again. It's not even that hard, or unforeseeable for him to do this.

 

[shon46]

The 5 Republicans who voted to impeach just ended their political careers 😂 These politicians will soon be reminded on their way out of the door, they represent the will of their constituents, not their personal feelings or political agendas.

 

[TUMe]

67 votes to impeach. 50 to stop him from ever being a candidate again. Assuming they can't impeach, they cand still keep him from running again. I think he is also overestimating the demand for him to run four years from now. He will not get a pardon from Biden and he will be investigated by Federal and State agencies. He is toast.

 

[shon46]

60 votes to impeach. 50 to stop him from ever being a candidate again. Assuming they can't impeach, they cand still keep him from running again. I think he is also overestimating the demand for him to run four years from now. He will not get a pardon from Biden and he will be investigated by Federal and State agencies. He is toast.

I argued this point the other day with one of my buddies. They will try to make an example out of him. He had every avenue at his disposal to go a different route. I think he has something up his sleeve because when you evaluate his behavior historically, he never just quits.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

60 votes to impeach. 50 to stop him from ever being a candidate again. Assuming they can't impeach, they cand still keep him from running again. I think he is also overestimating the demand for him to run four years from now. He will not get a pardon from Biden and he will be investigated by Federal and State agencies. He is toast.

I thought stopping him from running again was dependent on his removal from office. Didn't think the vote to stop him from running would even happen if he wasn't impeached & removed.

Stopping him from running again is the most important thing. He doesn't have to win to cause the republicans problems. Running as an independent will gain him enough votes from his base, to cause the Democrats to win, unless he is stopped from running again based on those Federal and State investigations. His base won't give up on him in four years.

 

[TUMe]

I done messed up. First it takes 67 not 60 which I said. Second it requires he be convicted. Then come the 50 vote, which is easy if you just had 67.

As always, I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I done messed up. First it takes 67 not 60 which I said. Second it requires he be convicted. Then come the 50 vote, which is easy if you just had 67.

As always, I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

I thought about mentioning the 67, but I thought it might irritate you, after the last time. I wish they could just vote on not running again, without the removal. At this point not running again is the only thing of any import. Removal from office would just be a stick in his eye, and unimportant. I hope the federal cases against him take care of this, and give him a felony on his record. There is more than one way to skin a cat. The damage done economically to him will hopefully be a deterrent to the next jkass who considers going where he has gone.

 

[lawpoke87]

Not sure how a precedent of not being able to impeach a past president would allow the person to commit whatever acts they choose? An impeachment proceeding offers no criminal penalties to my knowledge. Nor does not being able to impeach bar civil and criminal actions from being brought after one’s presidency ends. Wouldn’t a better path be a federal criminal prosecution where the wrongdoer faces actual jail time? Wouldn’t this be a far greater deterrent to criminal acts in the last days of one’s term?

 

[TUMe]

I thought about mentioning the 67, but I thought it might irritate you, after the last time. I wish they could just vote on not running again, without the removal. At this point not running again is the only thing of any import. Removal from office would just be a stick in his eye, and unimportant. I hope the federal cases against him take care of this, and give him a felony on his record. There is more than one way to skin a cat. The damage done economically to him will hopefully be a deterrent to the next jkass who considers going where he has gone.

Nah, the last time I was correct. This time I was jumble headed. I have found on crossfire you win some and lose some.

 

[shon46]

Not sure how a precedent of not being able to impeach a past president would allow the person to commit whatever acts they choose? An impeachment proceeding offers no criminal penalties to my knowledge. Nor does not being able to impeach bar civil and criminal actions from being brought after one’s presidency ends. Wouldn’t a better path be a federal criminal prosecution where the wrongdoer faces actual jail time? Wouldn’t this be a far greater deterrent to criminal acts in the last days of one’s term?

Something tells me this is the last thing they want to do bc of a certain top lawyer sitting at one of the agencies

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Nah, the last time I was correct. This time I was jumble headed. I have found on crossfire you win some and lose some.

Yeah, but I handled it in a much more polite way. It still came out that you were incorrect, by me simply asking a question.

 

[TUMe]

Yeah, but I handled it in a much more polite way. It still came out that you were incorrect, by me simply asking a question.

Absolutely. I always admit to my mistakes. Mistakes need to be immediately corrected and the person who tells you should be thanked. I am a lab guy. So thank you for pointing it out.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Not sure how a precedent of not being able to impeach a past president would allow the person to commit whatever acts they choose? An impeachment proceeding offers no criminal penalties to my knowledge. Nor does not being able to impeach bar civil and criminal actions from being brought after one’s presidency ends. Wouldn’t a better path be a federal criminal prosecution where the wrongdoer faces actual jail time? Wouldn’t this be a far greater deterrent to criminal acts in the last days of one’s term?

Edited

As far as I know, many if not most things you do in office are excluded from prosecution on a federal level by anything other than impeachment. That's why the cases against Trump are mostly state cases, or for actions before he came into office.

 

[lawpoke87]

Edited

As far as I know, many if not most things you do in office are excluded from prosecution on a federal level by anything other than impeachment. That's why the cases against Trump are mostly state cases, or for actions before he came into office.

Aren’t most of the cases being brought in the Southern District of NY?

 

[aTUfan]

Why do the dems keep beating a dead horse. Don't they have important issues to decide instead of this partisan political party sham.

The guy lost, he is gone, give it a rest.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Aren’t most of the cases being brought in the Southern District of NY?

Yes, but aren't they for actions before he was in office? My understanding was it couldn't(in many instances) be a federal charge unless it was for actions before or after you were in office. That would possibly preclude the riot speech.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Why do the dems keep beating a dead horse. Don't they have important issues to decide instead of this partisan political party sham.

The guy lost, he is gone, give it a rest.

So you want the next guy to pull this sort of crap? It's not party crap.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Aren’t most of the cases being brought in the Southern District of NY?

There could be a case for damages brought by some of the people who died, but I don't see that as going very far. And it probably wouldn't include jail time. The government will never bring forth a case for damages to property and/or personal mental injury on the Senators or capital property.

 

[rivalcane]

what is the point at this time? he's gone. Lets get on the running the country and unity.

 

[shon46]

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Deterrence, period.

 

[Gold*]

what is the point at this time? he's gone. Lets get on the running the country and unity.

In this country, we prosecute people who break the law. Trump and his sycophants, including a mob he organized, broke the law. They need to be prosecuted. It’s called the rule of law. At a minimum, if you don’t support a full investigation on all issues, you just don’t belong in our system. Russia would be a good place for you — they just don’t have laws other than whichever mob boss in control at given time says.

 

[shon46]

In this country, we prosecute people who break the law. Trump and his sycophants, including a mob he organized, broke the law. They need to be prosecuted. It’s called the rule of law.

View embedded media

Ok, let’s talk about that. From a purely legal perspective, going back and listening to his speech on the 6th, it doesn’t reflect that he said anything to start the riot. I have heard some people say that he should be tried on the aggregate of months of speeches that eventually led to the riot but how do you file a criminal case for an aggregate?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Oh, my. He didn't say 'hey rioters', ready, set, go kill senators and tear up the capital building.

Let him be free. Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya.

 

[Gold*]

Oh, my. He didn't say 'hey rioters', ready, set, go kill senators and tear up the capital building.

Let him be free. Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya.

In the end, I don’t think it will be far from that.

Like a lot of things, you have to sort out the facts and law. Impeachment is a political issue. They have more than enough to convict if they want. The Republicans mostly won’t do it and the party will have problems for decades as a result.

That’s distinct from the legal issues. There are chargeable crimes related to the tampering in Georgia, all the other garbage he pulled with DOJ, pardons for money, and lots of other financial type crimes. And then you have the issues of all these other guys. It will go on a long time. If the Republican senators had done the right thing a year ago, we would be further removed from this.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

The Republicans mostly won’t do it and the party will have problems for decades as a result.

That's what I regret. We look like a bunch of bumbling idiots, letting him take over our party and following him over the cliff. The stuff he got away with is astounding.

 

[Gold*]

Change can be good. They just need to move on past the KKK, QAnon, American ISIS wing of the party. Get that group out of politics. It needs to go back to its fundamentals in early 80’s, when it didn’t give any lip service to White nationalism.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Change can be good. They just need to move on past the KKK, QAnon, American ISIS wing of the party. Get that group out of politics. It needs to go back to its fundamentals in early 80’s, when it didn’t give any lip service to White nationalism.

That issue is harder said than done. If I have a large number of relatives, (which I do, 10+ relatives) who followed him down every road he took... Then there are a lot more out there. Likely a small # would be 10m that are like that, probably closer to 30 or 40m. That's a huge voting bloc that will keep his followers electing politicians like Greene, and causing this to last much longer than it should have.

They have all become conspiracy theorists and don't listen to mainstream news now. Not even Fox. All my convert relatives listen to OANN & Newsmax now. It's amazing how quickly they switched. At least half of them are on parler, and won't go near facebook. So they won't be won over very easily with all those bs sources in their lives.

The Republicans are having to fight this segment of their voters. That segment is going to cause them to lose elections in the immediate future. I imagine they won't even have a chance in 2024, if it goes like I think it will. That election will dwarf the Trump loss, if they all split their voting for Trump or someone like him. There will likely be an independent that causes havoc with the Republicans in that election. If they were to really analyze it they would vote for the leading candidate, but I don't think they will do that. It will be the independent that elects the next President by stealing votes.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Actually I lied, it's closer to 15 maybe 20 family members who are pro OANN, Qanon, etc. I have a large extended family. Our family is split down the middle on this issue. There are probably another 15+ who are Democrats. I'm kind of alone in my family, because they are either Democrats or Far right republicans. I'm about the only sane republican in the whole bunch.

 

[shon46]

In the end, I don’t think it will be far from that.

Like a lot of things, you have to sort out the facts and law. Impeachment is a political issue. They have more than enough to convict if they want. The Republicans mostly won’t do it and the party will have problems for decades as a result.

That’s distinct from the legal issues. There are chargeable crimes related to the tampering in Georgia, all the other garbage he pulled with DOJ, pardons for money, and lots of other financial type crimes. And then you have the issues of all these other guys. It will go on a long time. If the Republican senators had done the right thing a year ago, we would be further removed from this.

From a prosecution perspective, you can throw out the Georgia tampering stuff. If that existed, that would have been the easiest slam dunk impeachment trial ever. The fact that this was never pursued says everything we need to know. Regarding the other issues you addressed, why do you think litigation hasnt been pursued yet?

 

[rivalcane]

That's what I regret. We look like a bunch of bumbling idiots, letting him take over our party and following him over the cliff. The stuff he got away with is astounding.

I think his original message "drain the swanp" and that he was a political outsider connected with many people tired of gov as usual. The problem is that the radical fringe groups have taken over the party, So now moderate Republicans have no voice and are considered deplorables.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I think his original message "drain the swanp" and that he was a political outsider connected with many people tired of gov as usual. The problem is that the radical fringe groups have taken over the party, So now moderate Republicans have no voice and are considered deplorables.

If anybody thinks Trump did anything but made the swamp worse? He put in a bunch of criminals and incompetents. Moderate voices in the republican party have no voice, but it's not because they are considered deplorables. It's the idiots that Trump helped elect like Greene that are considered deplorables.

Are you talking about rational people like Liz Cheney, V.P. D. Cheney's daughter as a deplorable. She is speaking out and the deplorables are trying to oust her from the party. Her father used to be considered the right wing of the party. He now seems mild in comparison. Dick would've torn a bunch of these guys a new a$$ 0.

 

[astonmartin708]

If anybody thinks Trump did anything but made the swamp worse? He put in a bunch of criminals and incompetents. Moderate voices in the republican party have no voice, but it's not because they are considered deplorables. It's the idiots that Trump helped elect like Greene that are considered deplorables.

Are you talking about rational people like Liz Cheney, V.P. D. Cheney's daughter as a deplorable. She is speaking out and the deplorables are trying to oust her from the party. Her father used to be considered the right wing of the party. He now seems mild in comparison. Dick would've torn a bunch of these guys a new a$$ 0.

The funny thing is, Cheney isn’t that far off ideologically from guys like Trump in terms of far right policy proposals. She just supports it without supporting overthrowing the government entirely. It’s kind of like conservative bowling with her and Gaetz, Jordan, etc.... they’re all using the same lane, but Chaney bowls with the bumpers up whilst the Trumpists bowl with no bumpers and inevitably fall into the gutter of extremism.

 

[URedskin54]

Liz Cheney is significantly to the right of Trump by any traditional measure. He has never had any coherent ideology, which is why you saw him fluttering back and forth between "Mitt Romney's immigration position is too harsh" and "Build the wall" and "I want healthcare for everyone" to "repeal Obamacare." Now, most policies that came out of the Trump administration were pretty standard conservative stuff, including one of the only significant pieces of legislation that he passed (tax cuts), because Trump was co-opted by the Republican party at least as much as it was co-opted by him. The only consistent positions Trump has maintained over the years are being a free trade skeptic and disliking China.

These days being on the right basically means grievance politics(copied from the left) and "owning teh libs" so I guess in that sense Trump could be to the right of her.

 

[drboobay]

The Georgia tampering attempt is the most obvious crime of them all, right there on tape.

It should be prosecuted in criminal court.

 

[Clong83a]

I kind of think that the final impeachment vote should be a secret ballot for the Senators. I think he'd probably be convicted if it were, and there will still be plenty of "No" votes so that individual Senators have political cover, unless they choose to go public. If not convicted, I'd bet there are more than the 55 vote ceiling that is currently expected. Thoughts?

 

[shon46]

I kind of think that the final impeachment vote should be a secret ballot for the Senators. I think he'd probably be convicted if it were, and there will still be plenty of "No" votes so that individual Senators have political cover, unless they choose to go public. If not convicted, I'd bet there are more than the 55 vote ceiling that is currently expected. Thoughts?

The Senators represent their constituents. They are not there for any other reason. If their vote doesn’t represent what their constituents want, they need to be replaced period.

 

[URedskin54]

The Senators represent their constituents. They are not there for any other reason. If their vote doesn’t represent what their constituents want, they need to be replaced period.

LOL no. Reps and Senators do not owe their constituents their obedience. They owe them their good judgement and to more or less follow through on campaign promises. It is not a senator's job to do what 51% of their state wants on every issue. At any given time a majority of people can be in favor of things that are completely insane.

 

[shon46]

LOL no. Reps and Senators do not owe their constituents their obedience. They owe them their good judgement and to more or less follow through on campaign promises. It is not a senator's job to do what 51% of their state wants on every issue. At any given time a majority of people can be in favor of things that are completely insane.

Our constitution says otherwise!

 

[URedskin54]

Our constitution says otherwise!

No it doesn't. It says nothing about that. However, if you read the federalist papers there is a good bit about the role of the Senate as a brake pedal against dumb majorities.