Mojo Hand

I thought they already lost the pulitzer, after Derschowitz wrote a letter the Pulitzer committee demanding that it not win.

You can't be pro-life without dealing out a little death, amirite?

But, as you can see, it's aimed at stupid people who eat it up.

This "omg exonerate is impossible" stupidity is hilarious after months of "complete and total exoneration!!" from Trump and his cultists.

Eddie Murphy was fucking hilarious. Makes me even more pissed he doesn't use it anymore. Ricky Gervais cracked my shit up too.

Isn't the title based on a previous similar thread about Paul Ryan, who was also a major disappointment? Seems fitting.

A joint statement is a brilliant idea, if you could get one. Carter and Clinton would be in for sure, but I don't know if you could get W or Obama to come out publicly.

Looking around online, I do see some solid support for your position, so I'll retract that argument from my list of reasons to impeach. But my other arguments are ironclad! 😁

Are you saying that (1) an official who is impeached cannot be pardoned for their federal criminal offenses, or (2) the clause means that the president cannot grant a "pardon from impeachment," only a pardon from criminal offenses?

Why would a pardon prevent an impeachment? Isn't impeachment independent of whether one is guilty of a crime under a criminal statute?

So what do you think the exception clause means? Who can the president not pardon?

So "Madison was making up something in the Constitution that didn't exist, and nobody else apparently noticed he was lying," is a more persuasive explanation to you than "Madison interpreted the exception clause as suspending the president's power to pardon during the prosecution of an impeachment case against him"? I mean, I admit, I don't know more about this issue than from the handful of articles I've read pointing out what I've mentioned. And you seem very confident the other way. What is the support and rationale for the alternative reading that the president can pardon every federal crime except as to officials who were impeached?

I took the suspension to mean the exception to the impeachment power. That is, impeachment suspends his power to impeach by virtue of that clause. What else do you think he could have been referring to?

I take your question.

Clinton was re-elected like two years before he was impeached.

Yeah, this is angry Trump, not winning Trump.

I don't know, Pelosi sounds stronger on impeachment than I've ever heard her. Could be bullshit, of course.

I don't know how Schiff is getting him to actually answer these non-report questions. He's like a Mueller whisperer.

So if he moves on, that time is essentially lost?

@Bateshorn — when a rep yields his or her remaining time to the chair at the end of talking (not yielding specifically to someone else), does that time just get added up for the chair to use or give to someone else later?

As far as I know, it's never been decided. And certainly the language can be read that way. But I don't see a real purpose to the exception read that way — every crime can be pardoned, no matter how serious, except for an official who was impeached? Even though that official can resign 5 minutes before being impeached and can then be pardoned for the exact same crime? I think it makes much more sense to read the clause as depriving the president of the pardon power while he is subject to an impeachment case, in order to stop him from corruptly using that power while essentially under trial for corruption. At the very least, lay that marker down with Trump and let a court decide.

Well, that's up for debate. And there's evidence showing that the framers designed the exception to "suspend" the president's pardon power while he is being tried during an impeachment case: https://www-brookings-edu.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/07/25/the-pardon-power-and-original-intent/amp

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: "The President…shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment."

I disagree. Even without removal, impeachment would have significant consequences. First, while the Dems impeaching Trump wouldn't convince everyone that he is guilty, the failure to impeach sends the message that even Dems didn't think his conduct was bad enough to impeach over. That moves public opinion, and is a big reason why Trump is hitting all-time polling highs since the Dems didn't respond to the damming allegations in the Mueller report. It was the impeachment hearings in Watergate that moved public opinion too, the other way. Second, "impeachment hearings in the matter of Donald J. Trump" would have brought massive ratings and attention to his crimes. Third, Trump loses his pardon power in cases of impeachment. The failure to impeach allows him to continue to obstruct justice by dangling pardons, and maybe even pardon himself. Fourth, Trump's defense in various lawsuits seeking documents is in part, "they can't get this unless it's pursuant to impeachment hearings." Even if that defense fails, it's helping him run out the clock.