This is the Republican Party

[astonmartin708]

Elected officials unconstitutionally removing a candidate of the opposing party off the ballot is a whole lot more than a political troll. It’s banana republic stuff.

Tell me where in the constitution it says they can’t ? Republicans have loved pulling those kinds of end around for decades and then they cry when they get bit by it.

The really funny thing is that Trump isn’t even arguing about the constitutionality of the issue. He’s making the Nixon argument of immunity “if the president does it then it’s not illegal”

It’s not a banana republic it’s the fall of the Roman Republic type stuff, where corruption and the lust for power trumps the government‘s architecture.

 

[astonmartin708]

I believe his second impeachment should have resulted in a conviction. Again that's a political process. And Trump's allowing the riot to continue for hours without comment is all I need to say he was derelict of duty.

The only reason it didn’t is because his party was complicit in it. It’s like if you chose jurors in a murder trial who sold the defendant the weapon.

 

[astonmartin708]

the president has no authority over Capital Security

Funny that he had no problem calling the national guard when it was black folks protesting.

 

[astonmartin708]

An impeachment is not a criminal charge or a substitute for a criminal trial. It is a political process where a legislative body exerts the constitutional authority to hold an office holder accountable for alleged failures to meet minimum standards in office, including committing conduct that may constitute crimes while in office. The legislative branch intentionally lacks the authority and ability to gather and admit evidence of crimes against individuals, including office holders. It is remedial in nature and not appealable. Double jeopardy does not attach. The right to present evidence and confront witnesses is not guaranteed. An impeachment is not a criminal charge even if it alleges criminal conduct.

While President Trump continues to face 40 counts of wrongdoing amongst multiple federal indictments, as well as state criminal charges, those are the only times he has been charged with a crime. One of those indictments is notable because it contains multiple allegations of fact that conflict with the “facts” contained in the hasty rough shod impeachment passed by the House in 2021.

Say what you will…. If the results of an impeachment trial are a literal “conviction” I would argue that it’s not far off. No president has ever been impeached for being bad at their job. It has always been related to alleged criminal conduct.

P.S. He is not “President Trump” anymore. That title is reserved for the current president. Using it just makes you sound like a MAGA idiot. Either call him Trump, or Former President Trump…. Or maybe even the Cheeto faced, child rapist befriending, riot inciting, former president of the United States…..

 

[Gmoney4WW]

the president has no authority over Capital Security

The Highest Office in the Land. He could control and/or influence any organization he desired. Do you think a call from him would be ignored? He had control over the crowd with any statement he made. What an ignorant attempt to throw his responsibilities on the Democrats. Brainless shill for the right wing of the party. What a lemming.

 

[aTUfan]

The president has authority over the National Guard. Trump didn't send them into help the capital.

he offered the ng and was turned down

 

[Gmoney4WW]

he offered the ng and was turned down

Kash Patel and Christopher Miller, members of Trumps administration have stated the opposite on this. Aide Patel said the Mayor of DC delayed them. Secretary of Defense Miller said the order b4, and during the situation, was never given by Trump. Get your facts right. Nor was the order to prepare them given, such that they could be deployed on quick notice.

 

[aTUfan]

Tell me where in the constitution it says they can’t ? Republicans have loved pulling those kinds of end around for decades and then they cry when they get bit by it.

The really funny thing is that Trump isn’t even arguing about the constitutionality of the issue. He’s making the Nixon argument of immunity “if the president does it then it’s not illegal”

It’s not a banana republic it’s the fall of the Roman Republic type stuff, where corruption and the lust for power trumps the government‘s architecture.

its OK for one political party to dig up dirt on opposition party candidates; that's what they do.

it's not ok for them to use their government office and taxpayer money to do it.

 

[astonmartin708]

its OK for one political party to dig up dirt on opposition party candidates; that's what they do.

it's not ok for them to use their government office and taxpayer money to do it.

Congratulations Fonzie you've officially jumped the shark.

 

[astonmartin708]

he offered the ng and was turned down

Bullcrap.

 

[lawpoke87]

Tell me where in the constitution it says they can’t ? Republicans have loved pulling those kinds of end around for decades and then they cry when they get bit by it.

The really funny thing is that Trump isn’t even arguing about the constitutionality of the issue. He’s making the Nixon argument of immunity “if the president does it then it’s not illegal”

It’s not a banana republic it’s the fall of the Roman Republic type stuff, where corruption and the lust for power trumps the government‘s architecture.

As I stated above….the actions of Maine and Colorado will be determined to be unconstitutional. You are arguing the opposite. Let’s see who is ultimately correct. This question will be decided shortly.

 

[astonmartin708]

As I stated above….the actions of Maine and Colorado will be determined to be unconstitutional. You are arguing the opposite. Let’s see who is ultimately correct. This question will be decided shortly.

Only because the Republicans in the Senate end-arounded the constitution to install their own Justice instead of letting Obama appoint his, based on no precedent whatsoever.

What it reminds me of is playing Monopoly with a cheater. He bends the rules to benefit him, but if you try to bend the rules to make things more even, he throws a fit and flips the board.

 

[lawpoke87]

Only because the Republicans in the Senate end-arounded the constitution to install their own Justice instead of letting Obama appoint his, based on no precedent whatsoever.

What it reminds me of is playing Monopoly with a cheater. He bends the rules to benefit him, but if you try to bend the rules to make things more even, he throws a fit and flips the board.

It will be 6-3 not 5-4. The moderates will find the political hacks in both states acted unconstitutionally as well. Somehow I’m not surprised you would ignore the precedent being set and support political figures in states preventing its citizens the ability to vote for a candidate who hasn’t been criminally convicted of any crime.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

It will be 6-3 not 5-4. The moderates will find the political hacks in both states acted unconstitutionally as well. Somehow I’m not surprised you would ignore the precedent being set and support political figures in states preventing its citizens the ability to vote for a candidate who hasn’t been criminally convicted of any crime.

Some of the senators voting on whether to remove him from office over Jan 6 were voting partisan instead of their conscience by the rule of law. Hard to know whether he would have been convicted or not if they had voted by rule of law instead of abdicating their responsibilities for partisanship. Some of their statements immediately afterwards belie this when they later voted nea.

 

[lawpoke87]

Some of the senators voting on whether to remove him from office over Jan 6 were voting partisan instead of their conscience by the rule of law. Hard to know whether he would have been convicted or not if they had voted by rule of law instead of abdicating their responsibilities for partisanship. Some of their statements immediately afterwards belie this when they later voted nea.

It’s all political. House votes along party lines to impeach. Senate clears by party lines. Dem judges in Colorado and Dem SOS remove Pub from the ballot. I remember a time when things weren’t this politicized. Miss those day.

 

[HuffyCane]

It will be 6-3 not 5-4. The moderates will find the political hacks in both states acted unconstitutionally as well. Somehow I’m not surprised you would ignore the precedent being set and support political figures in states preventing its citizens the ability to vote for a candidate who hasn’t been criminally convicted of any crime.

I will be very surprised if it is not an opinion by the Chief Justice and its not 9-0 in favor of President Trump.

There might be a special concurrence by Kagan but I doubt it.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

It’s all political. House votes along party lines to impeach. Senate clears by party lines. Dem judges in Colorado and Dem SOS remove Pub from the ballot. I remember a time when things weren’t this politicized. Miss those day.

When you have several prominent Republicans making public statements and several making private statements, statements that predict he might be convicted...

Then a week or two passes, and they start going back on their previous statements.

It was obvious Trump shouldn't have been convicted on Russian collusion with the evidence they had.(or restated, that they didn't have) The first impeachment should have never happened, or happened after they had better evidence. Not so with Jan 6.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I will be very surprised if it is not an opinion by the Chief Justice and its not 9-0 in favor of President Trump.

There might be a special concurrence by Kagan but I doubt it.

Edited

Just because you make the first error, doesn't excuse the second one, to cover for the first error. The slippery slope becomes an avalanche. I wish they would take him off all 50 ballots, but I wouldn't advocate it. What I would like to happen is he gets convicted on the classified issue before the primary, and then gets taken off all the ballots. In my heart of hearts, what I'd really wish is Haley would just beat his ass.

 

[HuffyCane]

She’s taken too much money from Democratic sources/bundlers already. And that was after her wishy washy sometimes left leaning answers. The faithful and the apparatus won’t support her. She might beat Trump or be the de facto nominee if he is sent to prison or taken off the ballot, but she has as much chance of winning as guys who were clearly right about everything like John McCain, Mitt Romney and John Kasich*.

 

[TulsaRulzOSUdrools]

The court is going to have to tell us that it was not an insurrection.

How often does the Supreme Court argue facts? That isn't usually there role, right ? It seems like it might have to given that trump is arguing as such though. That should be the real question.

It is clear they have the right to remove him from their ballot. Gorsuch said as much while he was in the CO Supreme Court.

It's patently obvious the ding dong was trying to overturn the election and it wasn't through legal means. Does that constitute an insurrection? The court is really going to have to embarrass itself to describing that BS.

 

[astonmartin708]

It will be 6-3 not 5-4. The moderates will find the political hacks in both states acted unconstitutionally as well. Somehow I’m not surprised you would ignore the precedent being set and support political figures in states preventing its citizens the ability to vote for a candidate who hasn’t been criminally convicted of any crime.

That’s not the point. The point is, you have no problem with one party subverting or publicly manipulating the constitution’s intent for their own purposes. You just get annoyed when someone does the same thing against the party you lean toward.

Trump avoided conviction via the votes of people complicit in his crime. If you don’t think that is a major flaw in our political system then there’s something seriously wrong with you. You just abide corruption because you think that the ends justify the means.

 

[astonmartin708]

She’s taken too much money from Democratic sources/bundlers already. And that was after her wishy washy sometimes left leaning answers. The faithful and the apparatus won’t support her. She might beat Trump or be the de facto nominee if he is removed from society or the ballot, but she has as much chance of winning as guys who were clearly right about everything like John McCain, Mitt Romney and John Kasich*.

Want to get in some lip service to Bush Jr., Bob Dole, Bush Sr. Reagan, Ford , and Nixon while you’re at it?

You can’t see the forest through the trees.

I’m not saying that any single one of those people was bad individually, but the odds that the guys you liked were right about everything is just ludicrous.

 

[lawpoke87]

The court is going to have to tell us that it was not an insurrection.

How often does the Supreme Court argue facts? That isn't usually there role, right ? It seems like it might have to given that trump is arguing as such though. That should be the real question.

It is clear they have the right to remove him from their ballot. Gorsuch said as much while he was in the CO Supreme Court.

It's patently obvious the ding dong was trying to overturn the election and it wasn't through legal means. Does that constitute an insurrection? The court is really going to have to embarrass itself to describing that BS.

Disagree with almost every word.

1). The Supreme’s won’t determine if Trump participated in an insurrection. They will likely state he has not been found criminally guilty of the same and it’s not their role to determine criminal guilt

2). Gorsuch said a person who is not a natural born citizen cannot run for office. That is an undisputed fact. This is not.

Without a criminal finding of a crime this will be a slam dunk decision…and rightfully so. I know some of you partisan wackos want to set a precedent that members of one party can bar another for running for a public office because they believe that candidate committed a crime. Something which just might be the worst politcal precedent of all time. Next time it will be the Pubs doing it.

 

[lawpoke87]

That’s not the point. The point is, you have no problem with one party subverting or publicly manipulating the constitution’s intent for their own purposes. You just get annoyed when someone does the same thing against the party you lean toward.

Trump avoided conviction via the votes of people complicit in his crime. If you don’t think that is a major flaw in our political system then there’s something seriously wrong with you. You just abide corruption because you think that the ends justify the means.

The partisanship is certainly a problem. He was impeached entirely by partisan Dems and acquitted entirely by partisan Pubs. The fact the Dems voted to impeach the first time around is evidence of how partisanship has taken over the process. It is a flawed system. I will go a step forward. The entire impeachment process is flawed. Whether it’s Clinton, Trump or Biden. The process is far too important not to implement the rules of evidence and due process rules found in federal court. We need to change the process as it creates even more partisanship during the process.

I personally wouldn’t vote to impeach any President simply as a protest of the system as I see as flawed. Guess it’s good I’m not in the House or Senate. Now would have Trump been convicted by the Senate on the insurrection charge if the Dems hadn’t done their Kangaroo Court first go around? Probably not but I do believe they would have gained a few Pub votes

 

[astonmartin708]

Disagree with almost every word.

1). The Supreme’s won’t determine if Trump participated in an insurrection. They will likely state he has not been found criminally guilty of the same and it’s not their role to determine criminal guilt

2). Gorsuch said a person who is not a natural born citizen cannot run for office. That is an undisputed fact. This is not.

Without a criminal finding of a crime this will be a slam dunk decision…and rightfully so. I know some of you partisan wackos want to set a precedent that members of one party can bar another for running for a public office because they believe that candidate committed a crime. Something which just might be the worst politcal precedent of all time. Next time it will be the Pubs doing it.

I personally don’t want it upheld because I do believe it is against the intent of the constitution, but I also believe that a jury filled with accomplices is not a fair jury. There are probably 20-30 representatives and senators who deserve to be withheld from ballots for what they did as well, but we can’t convict them because their accomplices and the people who gain privilege by holding a majority get a vote too.

I don’t think this will be the last time we see this sort of thing either (could very well be Dems next time). It’s just a product of a flawed set of mechanics in our constitutional architecture. We really need a series of amendments to modify how elected office holders are held accountable for misdeeds.

 

[lawpoke87]

I personally don’t want it upheld because I do believe it is against the intent of the constitution, but I also believe that a jury filled with accomplices is not a fair jury. There are probably 20-30 representatives and senators who deserve to be withheld from ballots for what they did as well, but we can’t convict them because their accomplices and the people who gain privilege by holding a majority get a vote too.

I 100% support anyone convicted of insurrection being barred from running for office. Hopefully no one on this board disagrees with that statement.

 

[astonmartin708]

I 100% support anyone convicted of insurrection being barred from running for office. Hopefully no one on this board disagrees with that statement.

The problem is, no one is ever going to be convicted when the jurors have a vested interest (and sometimes possibly a criminal interest) in the person being “acquitted“

I don’t think this will be the last time we see this sort of thing either (could very well be Dems next time). It’s just a product of a flawed set of mechanics in our constitutional architecture. We really need a series of amendments to modify how elected office holders are held accountable for misdeeds.

I would be for introducing the rules of evidence into the process but I think you have to take the jury responsibility out of the hands of the elected officials. There is too much at stake and very few representatives are actually willing to do the right thing…. And we‘ve shown the ones that are wiling can be punished for it (like Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney)

 

[lawpoke87]

The problem is, no one is ever going to be convicted when the jurors have a vested interest (and sometimes possibly a criminal interest) in the person being “acquitted“

I don’t think this will be the last time we see this sort of thing either (could very well be Dems next time). It’s just a product of a flawed set of mechanics in our constitutional architecture. We really need a series of amendments to modify how elected office holders are held accountable for misdeeds.

I would be for introducing the rules of evidence into the process but I think you have to take the jury responsibility out of the hands of the elected officials. There is too much at stake and very few representatives are actually willing to do the right thing…. And we‘ve shown the ones that are wiling can be punished for it (like Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney)

Agree in taking the jury process out of hands of elected politicians

Why wouldn’t it be just as likely to have a jury with a vested interest in convicted the individual of insurrection ? We have a DA in NY who made a campaign promise to convict Trump of a crime. She’s not a jury but she sure as hell as a vested interest in prosecuting him. A jury in a blue state is far more likely to have a vested interest in convicting a Pub and reverse it for a Red state

 

[astonmartin708]

Agree in taking the jury process out of hands of elected politicians

Why wouldn’t it be just as likely to have a jury with a vested interest in convicted the individual of insurrection ? We have a DA in NY who made a campaign promise to convict Trump of a crime. She’s not a jury but she sure as hell as a vested interest in prosecuting him. A jury in a blue state is far more likely to have a vested interest in convicting a Pub and reverse it for a Red state

I completely agree. It just becomes gridlock and because of that gridlock corruption can thrive.

No one is watching the henhouse when the hens can’t stop pecking at each other long enough to warn the others about the fox.

I would give the responsibility in the trial of Federal elected officials to the SC and / or Circuit Courts. They tend to be less political and more impartial. (Though things still need to be leveled with their appointments). Their lifetime appointments help and I think for a verdict in these cases I would rather have a secret ballot than public opinions. I don’t want to give people the opportunity to grandstand. The verdict should speak for itself based upon the evidence as it is shared with the public. Of course they could give their reasoning if asked later in, but precedent in criminal actions should be determined by laws made by the people’s representatives, not by judges.

 

[HuffyCane]

This isn’t some random state Supreme Court where all the justices are re-appointed by reliably Democratic governors. As is the case in Colorado. They must vote the party line to keep their jobs.

This is the U.S. Supreme Court.

They think about the separation of powers, the 10th Amendment, and insulation from political influence in ways your average Harvard law school graduate with 30 years of appellate judicial experience can’t even dream of.

The ruling is going to be swift and severe and consistent with all the other decisions at the trial level in other states that threw this lawsuit into the waste paper basket where it belongs - along with all the junk election contest and recount litigation from 2020.

Don’t believe me? President Trump waived the right to oral argument today on the merits. He’s spent hundreds of millions of dollars running for the most powerful office in the world, and he isn’t going to argue in person for something that could disqualify him. It is arguably the most important constitutional decision before the Court since Reconstruction. And he doesn’t want his day in court. He doesn’t think he needs it. And he’s right.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Want to get in some lip service to Bush Jr., Bob Dole, Bush Sr. Reagan, Ford , and Nixon while you’re at it?

You can’t see the forest through the trees.

I’m not saying that any single one of those people was bad individually, but the odds that the guys you liked were right about everything is just ludicrous.

Missed the point of the post incredibly. It's like you are arguing that the forest is blue, not green. Or that you don't agree with McCain, Romney, & Kasich's foreign policy views. He was talking about their views on the direction the party was going towards, and being against the majority of Trump's dumb apolitical policies for all the wrong reasons. He wasn't speaking of every single policy issue they held, but of those that they shared.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Don’t believe me? President Trump waived the right to oral argument today on the merits. He’s spent hundreds of millions of dollars running for the most powerful office in the world, and he isn’t going to argue in person for something that could disqualify him. It is arguably the most important constitutional decision before the Court since Reconstruction. And he doesn’t want his day in court. He doesn’t think he needs it. And he’s right.

He hasn't spent any of his money, only other people's. Grafter. He also didn't wish to get himself into trouble with his testimony, as much as he thought it would go his way if he stayed out of the fray.(He's at least subconsciously aware that his own words can hang himself.) It's similar to him not entering the debates.

 

[astonmartin708]

This isn’t some random state Supreme Court where all the justices are re-appointed by reliably Democratic governors. As is the case in Colorado. They must vote the party line to keep their jobs.

This is the U.S. Supreme Court.

They think about the separation of powers, the 10th Amendment, and insulation from political influence in ways your average Harvard law school graduate with 30 years of appellate judicial experience can’t even dream of.

The ruling is going to be swift and severe and consistent with all the other decisions at the trial level in other states that threw this lawsuit into the waste paper basket where it belongs - along with all the junk election contest and recount litigation from 2020.

Don’t believe me? President Trump waived the right to oral argument today on the merits. He’s spent hundreds of millions of dollars running for the most powerful office in the world, and he isn’t going to argue in person for something that could disqualify him. It is arguably the most important constitutional decision before the Court since Reconstruction. And he doesn’t want his day in court. He doesn’t think he needs it. And he’s right.

We shall see….

 

[HuffyCane]

He hasn't spent any of his money, only other people's. Grafter. He also didn't wish to get himself into trouble with his testimony, as much as he thought it would go his way if he stayed out of the fray.(He's at least subconsciously aware that his own words can hang himself.) It's similar to him not entering the debates.

He wouldn't be appearing in front of the Supremes. His lawyers would be doing that. I get what you are saying, but its different with this.

Washington never ceases to amaze me, but nobody with a lick of legal sense, without a dog in the hunt, or that isnt being paid for their commentary thinks this case has any legal merit whatsoever.

It hurts their political argument that only Republicans engage in groundless lawsuits relating to elections. And perpetuates the view on mainstreet that folks in DC are just in it for themselves - which drives frustrated and disinterested moderates into the opposing column. In this cycle, it benefits Republicans.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

It hurts their political argument that only Republicans engage in groundless lawsuits relating to elections.

 

[HuffyCane]

I’m not saying that any single one of those people was bad individually, but the odds that the guys you liked were right about everything is just ludicrous.

I use asterisks at the end of my sentences like that one to reflect sarcasm. You should try it. In the case of McCain, Romney, and Kasich, they were all very capable leaders that took money on a bi-partisan basis during the primary. The base stayed home during the general election and they lost. Really smart and capable leaders do desperate things and betray their own strategic instincts during primaries. Which means they really weren't as smart as we thought they were. And they weren't right about everything like they told us they were.

Which is good. That we know how they think under stress and pressure. How they might take the money rather than vote on principle. It vets their thinking under stress and pressure. Its why gaffes matter whether its on the history of slavery or some other issue. Otherwise you get Presidents who struggle to compose themselves when they are told in front of school children that we are under attack or can't complete cogent sentences in front of girl scouts, our allies, our competitors and our enemies.

 

[HuffyCane]

I completely agree. It just becomes gridlock and because of that gridlock corruption can thrive.

No one is watching the henhouse when the hens can’t stop pecking at each other long enough to warn the others about the fox.

This is very dangerous thinking.

Our entire constitutional system is rooted upon the idea that gridlock preserves and promotes liberty. None of the three branches can have primacy and therefore tyranny if there is gridlock and tension that forces consensus and public assent. The same with the relationship between the federal government, the states, tribes, and localities.

Whether it is locking up Asian people during WWII, suppressing labor unions and free speech during WW1, attempting to pack the Supreme Court, or Nixon talking about how what the President does to protect the country cannot be illegal, this country has a long list of really dangerous people, most of them Democratic politicians, trying to maximize their power on the grounds of reducing "gridlock."

 

[astonmartin708]

This is very dangerous thinking.

Our entire constitutional system is rooted upon the idea that gridlock preserves and promotes liberty. None of the three branches can have primacy and therefore tyranny if there is gridlock and tension that forces consensus and public assent. The same with the relationship between the federal government, the states, tribes, and localities.

Whether it is locking up Asian people during WWII, suppressing labor unions and free speech during WW1, attempting to pack the Supreme Court, or Nixon talking about how what the President does to protect the country cannot be illegal, this country has a long list of really dangerous people, most of them Democratic politicians, trying to maximize their power on the grounds of reducing "gridlock."

I agree on its face that there is value in some governmental inertia, but that's not what I'm talking about in terms of gridlock. You say that gridlock promotes liberty, which to some degree it does, but it also incubates corruption and constitutional subversion.

If you think the 3 branches are still nearly equal in their relative powers as they were 200+ years ago, you are insane.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Its why gaffes matter whether its on the history of slavery or some other issue.

Thought that was a bit odd coming out of you, "right about everything ". Took it as a straight statement anyway.

I don't think that was a gaff. It was her trying to thread the needle with an ambiguous statement that wouldn't upset the middle terribly. She was attempting to keep a few of the far right from going against her if she got past the primaries. The Democrats just wouldn't let go of it.

It still might work for her if she get's past the primaries. She should have worked on the language and finessed it a little better than the time she made a similar statement before. I don't buy that she seriously believed that statement. That was meant for a segment of the audience. One that the rest of the republicans have been battling with through this whole affair of Trump.

 

[aTUfan]

term limits would help freeup more by-partican efforts.