Discussion in 'Politics' started by sculptor, Jan 27, 2021.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Nothing in the Constitution says that an impeachment must cease when a politician leaves office. So constitutional.
Why would you even ask that?
And why would it be?
You are aware of the recent vote in the senate on this subject?
No, really, what the hell are you on about?
Think of it this way: For all your political pronouncements over the years, and whatever wisdom you might pretend, you present this manner of ignorance?
It's either unbelievable, or not, Sculptor, but not necessarily unexpected compared to your history of blithe ignorance suiting right-wing causes.
Of course. And a great many of the senators who supported impeaching Clinton for lying about a blowjob now think that inciting an insurrection that ended up killing six people including a cop isn't all that bad. Funny, that.
what ... are you on about?
as previously mentioned in another thread
as/re The house voting to impeach
smoke and mirrors
It doesn't really matter
It's a tempest in a teapot.
(hell, an 8 year old could have seen this coming)
then we come to the position of Sen. Patrick Leahy
will he be both judge and a juror?
I still don't get why you would ask:
Which, in turn, is still a sepraate question from the opinion you reiterate:
As I understand it, yes.
I asked for your thoughts on the subject of the senate vote
which may not stop the trial but certainly indicates an acquittal.
which then brings up the question if the trial will take place, and if so, why so?
Could there be any sane/rational reason beyond divisive posturing, pandering, and/or grandstanding as entertainment?
Will the senate vote to have the trial?
Do we cancel trials after half an hour if the jury looks like it will decide that a murderer is innocent? Is any murder trial where the outcome isn't a guaranteed "guilty" just divisive posturing, pandering and/or grandstanding? Why not just let the murderer go free, rather than waste everyone's time if the jury is probably going to say that they are innocent?
Which really had nothing to do with whether or not the impeachment was constitutional or not, but was more of an attempt to wriggle out of having Republican senators force to vote for or against conviction by the party. It the same thing McConnell tried to make happen with the electoral vote confirmation. He urged his fellow senators not to support the objection from the House in order to prevent a forced vote. The 45-55 vote is not necessarily an indication of how the trial vote will go. There will be some Republican senators which will have a hard time choosing between voting against Trump and risk losing in the primaries, or voting for Trump and having it being used against them in the general election. The constitutional argument could have been an out for them. (If pressed on it later, they would just claim they just voted on the validity of holding the trial, not on the guilt or innocence of Trump.)
Can't he be arrested and put on trial for inciting a riot by D.C. authorities?
Brandenburg v. Ohio ?
Given that it was the republicans that facilitated and encouraged Trumps call for insurrection they no doubt have a really screwed idea about what is constitutional and what is not...
Is it unconstitutional to reject hard evidence of guilt on Trumps part?
Supporting a coup - "well, Trump himself never told them directly to loot, vandalize and murder, so that's fine."
Supporting the Proud Boys - "well, he never DIRECTLY supported them. So telling them to stand by is also fine."
Supporting Nazis - "Look, he said this other thing five minutes earlier which means he wasn't supporting them directly. He meant lots of people were fine, but not Nazis. So that's OK."
Impeachment for inciting an insurrection - "TOTALLY OUT OF LINE! UNCONSTITUTIONAL! How could ANYONE support THAT?"
my question not being answered. I'll repeat it
Will the senate proceed to trial?
It would be unconstitutional if they do not...
How do you propose the situation be confronted?
Trump should not have been impeached because it was too dangerous?
Are we talking appeasement here? Or prudence?
Separate names with a comma.