Politics Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Masterofreality

In answer to your slam at me above, the boldened words in your post above prove my point. “Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall extend no further than to removal from Office.... Trump is not in office. He cannot be removed. He’s already gone. Without a person in office to be removed there is nothing. Nothing after that matters. It’s all irrelevant and performative. That is why John Roberts wants nothing to do with this travesty.

---

Belknap wasn't in office either:
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...gain.%E2%80%9D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulxu

I'm guessing you never read that article, or actually know what they are doing.
They are talking about retiring decades old news about people who have reformed their lives. Not censorship of someone saying something.
Read the article.

---

You guess wrong. I read it and vehemently disagree with it. People are responsible for their actions and that responsibility extends forever. No story of fact should ever be scrubbed. NEVER. How would you feel if Josef Goebbles was in Argentina 20 years after WW2 and has “reformed his life” and was feeding homeless people. Should the horrors of his time in Germany be “retired”? If Donald Trump, your favorite guy to rail on, “reformed his life” and donated millions of dollars to, say, Child Cancer Cures, and it succeeded, should all past stories about Trump be “retired” I would believe you would think not so your position is totally falsely premised and disingenuous.
And this is becoming a trend in “news” providers. For example:
Reason (which actually does real journalism) found that the Washington Post had scrubbed a story that painted Kamala Harris in an unfavorable light, but it was “updated” for later editions to make it more favorable to Harris even though the original story was factually true. It should be a scandal, just like scrubbing stories in the Plain Dealer is a scandal. Facts are facts and what people have done in the past don’t just disappear.
This whole movement is BS. Period. The “Right to be Forgotten” is not a “Right”. It’s a created crock of crap. I don’t think that felonies are “forgotten” on criminal records. It. Is. Trash.

Finally. Google is actually giving cash to newspapers to help fund this mess. The Boston Globe is involved with this too.
I don’t think you or anybody else wants Google being the arbiter of who or what stories are left in and what is “forgotten”.
Especially when Google are actively canceling and censoring free speech. That can play both ways.,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee

Belknap wasn't in office either:
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...gain.%E2%80%9D

---

“Belknap won acquittal” (Shoulder shrug)
As a result the case and the verdicts was never challenged in the Supreme Court. The Constitution provision stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Masterofreality

“Belknap won acquittal” (Shoulder shrug)
As a result the case and the verdicts was never challenged in the Supreme Court. The Constitution provision stands.

---

yes. He was acquitted as trump may be. The point being he was impeached after leaving office. it has happened. Precedent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee

yes. He was acquitted as trump may be. The point being he was impeached after leaving office. it has happened. Precedent.

---

There is no “precedent” because it was never adjudicated in front of a court. It was and this IS a partisan waste of time that does zero. But the Dems can’t move on. How’s that for moving on to “Unity”?
And you’ve never answered why John Roberts wants no part of this sham. It’s Unconstitutional and will be found so.
Stop this performance and actually do your job in the middle of a pandemic.

The Constitution states that 'When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside.'

https://youtu.be/rW8OKtSGjMg

Long live Justin Amash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STL_XUfan

No need to reread as my post you quoted had the provision in it.

Here it is again: Art. I Sec. 3.: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

---

Tough to try the President who is no longer President. He’s a private citizen. There’s the issue. Also, the CJ has indicated he will not preside over/hear the case. And not likely to get 2/3 of Senate to convict.

So, again. Another waste of time by morons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee

Orthodox Church of America suspended him.

---

Talk about a reading comprehension problem.

MOR, thanks for reading. Your examples make some sense.
But you are wrong about some crimes, even felonies.
They can be "sealed" records, whereby no public access is allowed to the records.
And, they (felonies in some instances, as well as juvenile records) can be "expunged" and completely erased. (after sentences are completed and some time certain has passed).
https://www.dfm-law.com/blog/2019/09...u-should-know/

It sounds to me on reading the article, they are endeavoring to apply the same approach, but I could be wrong.
Changing an old news article if facts are dropped, I would agree as in your example, would be wrong.

As to "impeachment," the former president has already been impeached. Noting the Senate does will change that.
Whether he will be tried/convicted/acquitted remains to be seen. The "and" wording would seem to be the sticking point.
For sure I hope he's held accountable for his actions.
Mitch having the trial delayed may work against him, as more information comes out about him trying to illegally change the election results.