Politics Thread

[94GRAD]

I prefer the Know-Nothings.

Is Sergeant Schultz their Party head?

[Strange Brew]

Is Sergeant Schultz their Party head?

We would have been aligned with the Socialist Left.

[bjf123]

Finally, the Senate is more than capable to walk and chew gum at the same time.

You have way more faith in them than I do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[94GRAD]

We would have been aligned with the Socialist Left.

Based on all his actions, he was more of a centrist.

[noteggs]

You have way more faith in them than I do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Always get a chuckle when either side uses that line. About 6 or 7 months ago, Democrats were blaming Republicans/Trump for not focusing on just covid. Response from Republicans, “we can walk...”

Agree with you, highly unlikely!

[boozehound]

I see two reasons that is should move forward, one pro-Trump one anti-trump.

First, despite what our resident constitutional scholar MoR has stated, Trump has already been impeached. So now we have an impeachment standing out there for all of time that was never tried. If I was on the Trump side I would want the trial as a chance to clear my name by being able to state that I was acquitted of the charges by the Senate. The only way that can happen is a trial. The bad analogy is if the DOJ charged Boozehound with treason and then just shelved the issue without ever giving Boozehound a right to a trial (in criminal court it would be dismissed for lack prosecution, hence the bad analogy) I am sure Boozehound would not be happy to wear that scarlet letter the rest of his life.

But nobody in Trump's camp seems to care about his good name being cleared, nor does anybody really think that him being acquitted in the Senate means he is innocent. I do agree that impeaching without even voting on conviction would be strange.

On the other side of the Aisle, there was an insurrection, allegedly fueled and encouraged by the president of the United States, that caused control of the capitol to be lost for the first time since 1812. This could be the greatest security breach in the history of the United States as a period of 3-4 hours insurgents had full access to the offices, network, computers, desks, and floor of both houses of US Capitol. If you believe that the President played a part in this, to now say, "no harm, no foul" would be a dereliction of duty. It would set a precedent that any losing President could attempt a coup against the US and the only two outcomes are: 1. It is successful and he remains in power or 2. it fails and there really is no penalty. An acknowledgement that this is not normal and should not be accepted by either party is needed, if for nothing more to show future generations that what happened on January 6 should never happen again. Or, if members of the Senate believe the action of the President leading up to the insurrection were fine, then they should be forced to put that vote on the record for all of history.

I understand the point here, but does it really accomplish anything? The Democrats will vote to convict, along with maybe a small handful of Republicans, and he will get acquitted again. I guess the Democrats can then use that against Republicans in future races, but will it have any effect? The only way I think it would make sense to pursue this is if Mitch wants Trump banished from Politics and has already committed to push them to vote to convict.

We've all seen the evidence in this case. It happened on twitter and that National Mall. It's not like the discovery process or presentation of evidence is going to change anyone's mind.

I'm all for barring Trump from future office, tarring and feathering him, or whatever else we want to do if we can actually make it happen. I just don't want to keep dragging this out when we have real problems fix.

Finally, the Senate is more than capable to walk and chew gum at the same time.

I'm not sure I agree here. There is a finite amount of time in the day for them to get things done. Unless they are going to work extra hours or something it's hard to see this not delaying 'real work' getting done.

[Masterofreality]

I see two reasons that is should move forward, one pro-Trump one anti-trump.

First, despite what our resident constitutional scholar MoR has stated, Trump has already been impeached. So now we have an impeachment standing out there for all of time that was never tried.

I never stated anything of the sort. Find it.
You do understand the difference in an "Impeachment" (which actually is Articles of Impeachment to be considered by the Senate, and an actual conviction right? Just submitting Articles, done by a bunch of partisan hacks, has zero consequence (just like the first one against Trump). The fact that the hearing won't even be presided over by the Chief Justice, makes it even more of a sham, and based upon the strict words of the Constitution, invalid.
US Constitution- Article1, Clause 6- Trial of Impeachment:
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.

How much more clear can it be? No Chief Justice to preside? No validity. Roberts has already said he's not in. For good reason.

Performative only.
"

[bobbiemcgee]

"The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents. When presiding over an impeachment trial, the president pro tempore takes an additional special oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws," Leahy said. "It is an oath that I take extraordinarily seriously."

[paulxu]

I fail to see the confusion you keep trying to introduce.
Trump has been impeached...while he was in office.
The Chief Justice presides over the activity when, as you note, the President of United States is tried in the Senate.
Trump is no longer president, so the Chief Justice is no longer required.
(He could however preside if he wanted, as was the case of William Belknap, who was impeached, tried, and not convicted all after he left office.)
There is precedent as I noted before for trying a federal officer holder, even after he's out of office.
Generally conservatives like constitutional precedence.

https://www.justsecurity.org/74226/h...leaves-office/

It's not "performative." It's precedence.

[Masterofreality]

Performative.
No chance of conviction.
Move on to real important business.

https://apple.news/AS4P6cD-zQLiikCTFhbpO6w