Trump Impeachment 2: Insurrection Boogaloo

[NAVY 6747]

McConnell - Yeah, Trump did all that bad shit, but someone else will need to do something about it because my R senators are too vulnerable to the dangerous and deranged Trump cult we empowered and continue to empower. 

The republican party is dead and replaced by the national socialists of Trump. Fuck you cowardly R senators and fuck your trump nazi base. 

 

[FOXHOUND 1034]

This democracy likely won't survive another Republican presidency, the party has gone over the deep end and is now an extremist party. Thank God Trump was a bumbling idiot that telegraphed his every move, but he STILL did a tremendous amount of damage. What if someone even more craven, yet smarter and more disciplined gets in there? They are even more emboldened now that we know that a President can't be impeached for inciting an insurrection. The fact that it wasn't a unanimous conviction following the events of 01/06/21 where members of Congress were fleeing for their lives (because make no mistake, there would have been lynchings on live TV) is a disgrace. 

Edited February 14, 2021 by FOXHOUND

[Fudge Nuggets 19209]

11 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Ivanka-- now I can see her rising to power. Would be hard to marginalize her as a woman, as easily, too.

GOP are freaking first ballot HOF'ers at marginalizing women.  If she starts to get in the way of a Rafael or HitlerHawley, she'll be marginalized.

[Slacks 6829]

Are you mental?  Conviction with no penalty, or perhaps a ban on further office are absolutely alternatives.   Mitch is wrong.

So... Make up a penalty or follow the Constitution? Got it.

[Slacks 6829]

Where does it say he has to be sitting to be convicted? It just says he shall be removed if he is.

Is he a civil officer right now?

[Slacks 6829]

disappointing take, dude. 
so i guess we can just let office holders do whatever the fuck they want as the clock runs out? 
fuck outta here with that take.

I'm not saying I agree with the outcome. I don't.

What would you make up and add to the Constitution at this moment?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Dennison is the most annoying troll. 
 

ETA: sometimes

Edited February 14, 2021 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Dahobbs 17627]

Just now, Snacks said:

I'm not saying I agree with the outcome. I don't.

What would you make up and add to the Constitution at this moment?

Nothing. Convicting him is constitutional as is. Why are you trying to read in a requirement that isn't there?

[Slacks 6829]

Why are Trump defenders so fucking stupid and misinformed? Is it a requirement of being a Trump supporter?

Not a Trump supporter at all. Not close.

Just reading the rule.

[hobbes2702 13049]

8 minutes ago, Snacks said:

3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Where does it say he has to be sitting to be convicted? It just says he shall be removed if he is.

Is he a civil officer right now?

He was when his crimes were committed. You realize you’re just wrong on this don’t you? Not sure why you continue 

[hobbes2702 13049]

6 minutes ago, Snacks said:

Not a Trump supporter at all. Not close.

Just reading the rule.

Your reading comprehension is apparently pretty terrible.

Edited February 14, 2021 by hobbes2702

[Slacks 6829]

Nothing. Convicting him is constitutional as is. Why are you trying to read in a requirement that isn't there?

Show from me where in the Constitution you get that interpretation.

Just so everyone knows, I am not a partisan. Don't care about politicians in general.

I do care about people and I am *highly* concerned that a more talented, power hungry person, or set of persons, will be much more effective at taking the learnings from this and take over our country and do very bad things.

I've never been a fan of "strict Constitutionalism" because when it was written, people like me were considered property.

But since that is how the country likes to roll, by the letter of the law, the words are the words.

If it were up to me, there would be people in front of firing squads... Just like if it were up to others, I would have been hanged years ago for whatever they believe is "right".

We have a system. I want it to apply equally to everyone. Including those I don't agree with.

[Slacks 6829]

He was when his crimes were committed. You realize you’re just wrong on this don’t you? Not sure why you continue 

Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't make the caveat you make with regard to impeachment.

It doesn't say, "When the occurrence happened..."

Maybe we should change it.

[Slacks 6829]

Your reading comprehension is apparently pretty terrible.

Read me the part you think I don't comprehend that states (not implies) otherwise.

[hobbes2702 13049]

Just now, Snacks said:

Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't make the caveat you make with regard to impeachment.

It doesn't say, "When the occurrence happened..."

Maybe we should change it.

It also doesn’t say anything about not being able to impeach someone out of office. So why are you reading extra into the constitution. Seriously this isn’t hard 

[hobbes2702 13049]

1 minute ago, Snacks said:

11 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Your reading comprehension is apparently pretty terrible.

Read me the part you think I don't comprehend that states (not implies) otherwise.

The part where you read in extra and seem to think impeachment isn’t constitutional.

[StassneyHorn 6624]

19 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Dennison is the most annoying troll. 
 

ETA: sometimes

I’m putting on a clinic in the Ewers or Bust thread if you want to compare

[Slacks 6829]

It also doesn’t say anything about not being able to impeach someone out of office. So why are you reading extra into the constitution. Seriously this isn’t hard 

It also doesn't explicitly say Elin Musk can't be King.

Wtf? When did it become ok to just make shit up and claim the Constitution allows for it because it doesn't address it.

[TwiceHorn 31512]

3 hours ago, Snacks said:

Article II, Section 4 reads:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

Which one of those is Donald Trump today?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You and what you are reading are leaving something important out.  

Art. I, S. 3, states:

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.

That does seem to indicate that there is another penalty upon conviction when removal is "moot."  An argument could be made that disqualification only attaches if removed, but I have no clue where you would find a basis for that argument.

Edited February 14, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Slacks 6829]

The part where you read in extra and seem to think impeachment isn’t constitutional.

Show me the part where it mentions impeaching someone who isn't a civil officer.

[TwiceHorn 31512]

1 minute ago, Snacks said:

9 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

The part where you read in extra and seem to think impeachment isn’t constitutional.

Show me the part where it mentions impeaching someone who isn't a civil officer.

There's the part where he was impeached while in office.

[Slacks 6829]

You and what you are reading are leaving something important out.  
Art. I, S. 3, states:
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.
That does seem to indicate that there is another penalty upon conviction when removal is "moot."  An argument could be made that disqualification only attaches if removed, but I have no clue where you would find a basis for that argument.

That is the part after the first part, right?

Make a flow chart...

Is the party a civil officer?
Yes
No

What comes after No?

[Slacks 6829]

There's the part where he was impeached while in office.

Best argument thus far, imo.

Unfortunately, again, the Constitution doesn't have a "back then" clause... Strictly speaking.

[hobbes2702 13049]

9 minutes ago, Snacks said:

18 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

The part where you read in extra and seem to think impeachment isn’t constitutional.

Show me the part where it mentions impeaching someone who isn't a civil officer.

That’s a Strange hill to die on.

You realize he was a civil officer when impeached right? God damn dude

Edited February 14, 2021 by hobbes2702

[TwiceHorn 31512]

1 minute ago, Snacks said:

That is the part after the first part, right?

Make a flow chart...

Is the party a civil officer?
Yes
No

What comes after No?

The portion you cited, in Article II, which deals with the powers of the executive, states the only way by which the President can be removed.

The portion in Article I, which deals with the powers of Congress, states how impeachment shall proceed.

[hobbes2702 13049]

1 minute ago, Snacks said:

Best argument thus far, imo.

Unfortunately, again, the Constitution doesn't have a "back then" clause... Strictly speaking.

Holy shit just stop. You’re just plain wrong.

[TwiceHorn 31512]

9 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Holy shit just stop. You’re just plain wrong.

Being just plain wrong requires a definitive answer.  There isn't one and the language of the Constitution is vague and somewhat contradictory.

I think he has the wrong end of the argument, though.

As stated, the provisions of Article (( are limited in import to the sole way in which a President, or Vice President, and some other officers, can be removed from office.  It doesn't purport to prescribe the impeachment procedure or limitations on it.

The provisions of Article I define the procedure, such as it is, and what Congress can do.  Prior precedent uses the procedures against various officers no longer in office.  I'm not sure how valuable that precedent really is, but it certainly establishes a willingness on the part of Congress to proceed when the main remedy of removal is no longer available, and that's got some persuasive value.

There probably will never be a definitive answer as I think this is a political question that won't be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.  The various applicable House and Senate rules could change it up within the Constitutional framework however they want to do it.  Which means the right answer could change, depending on when  you ask.

Edited February 14, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Bullneck 19185]

8 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

That’s a Strange hill to die on.

You realize he was a civil officer when impeached right? God damn dude

Narrator: In Act 3, a new character appears.  His name: Snacks.  

[TexArcher 37989]

I wonder how an anonymous vote would've gone.  I'm guessing at least 75% to convict, i.e. at least half the Republicans.  Buncha fucking cowards.

[Dahobbs 17627]

23 minutes ago, Snacks said:

It also doesn't explicitly say Elin Musk can't be King.

Wtf? When did it become ok to just make shit up and claim the Constitution allows for it because it doesn't address it.

The constitution empowers congress to impeach and then establishes that procedures exist to remove and disqualify from future office. Those powers aren't otherwise limited. If we read that portion of the Constitution the same way we read the other portions, it is difficult to make an argument that the power is limited if a conviction occurs after the President leaves office. See, e.g., the commerce clause. You're out of your element here. 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Dahobbs

[hobbes2702 13049]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

The constitution empowers congress to impeach and then establishes that procedures exist to remove and disqualify from future office. Those powers aren't otherwise limited. If we read that portion of the Constitution the same way we read the other portions, it is difficult to make an argument that the power is limited if a conviction occurs after the President leaves office. See, e.g., the commerce clause. You're out of your element here. 

The accusing others of reading in things that aren’t there is particularly rich as he tells us why this is unconstitutional while reading in things that aren’t there.

[LW Goatman 1124]

33 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Holy shit just stop. You’re just plain wrong.

Lulz

[Brisketexan 105178]

Some of y’all are wrong. The republic didn’t die today. Today is just when more people noted the stench of its rotting corpse. Once you had one of the three branches of government at least tacitly supporting authoritarianism, fascism, including violent seizure of power - and that’s where the Senate has been for a long time - then it was over.

Our system has an Achilles heel; in the end, it counts on the Senate to protect the Republic. The GQP and its senators have shown us that was a serious design flaw. We are already in a civil war. That’s what you call it when a faction of the country engages in violent warfare to change the government, as oppose to winning elections and using the rule of law. We’re there. We’ve been there.

We have a violent insurgency that has attacked our government and will do so again, and again, until it succeeds (again, read a history book). And the GQP protects and enables that insurgency....it IS that insurgency. “The violent attack is coming FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE,” so to speak.

The republic has fallen, and we are already in a hot civil war over who gets to rule what comes next. And the GQP caused it all. If we (the opposition) come out of this the victor - and that is very much in doubt - we have to, we MUST, exact consequences. Terrorists should go to Gitmo, etc.

But as you know, that doesn’t matter. The next coup will be successful. Just like the GQP wants.

[Wanker Bob 379]

35 minutes ago, Snacks said:

Best argument thus far, imo.

Unfortunately, again, the Constitution doesn't have a "back then" clause... Strictly speaking.

If they aren't going to be allowed to hold impeachment trial after the president is no longer in office as long as the impeachment began when in office then two things need to change. 

1) any resignation of office means the person is banned for running for office again. 

2) the transfer of power occurs at the exact moment a victor is declared in the election. 

Without those two there's a giant loop hole where a person can incite an insurrection to overthrow the government and receive zero punishment as long as they either resign or their term runs out as long as they have cover from the Senate to not complete the impeachment process. Due to such a massive hole in my opinion you cannot interpret the Constitution the Way you are. It has to be the other way in order for that loophole to not exist. 

[Ted Lange 16110]

[staboner 4984]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Some of y’all are wrong. The republic didn’t die today. Today is just when more people noted the stench of its rotting corpse. Once you had one of the three branches of government at least tacitly supporting authoritarianism, fascism, including violent seizure of power - and that’s where the Senate has been for a long time - then it was over.

Our system has an Achilles heel; in the end, it counts on the Senate to protect the Republic. The GQP and its senators have shown us that was a serious design flaw. We are already in a civil war. That’s what you call it when a faction of the country engages in violent warfare to change the government, as oppose to winning elections and using the rule of law. We’re there. We’ve been there.

We have a violent insurgency that has attacked our government and will do so again, and again, until it succeeds (again, read a history book). And the GQP protects and enables that insurgency....it IS that insurgency. “The violent attack is coming FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE,” so to speak.

The republic has fallen, and we are already in a hot civil war over who gets to rule what comes next. And the GQP caused it all. If we (the opposition) come out of this the victor - and that is very much in doubt - we have to, we MUST, exact consequences. Terrorists should go to Gitmo, etc.

But as you know, that doesn’t matter. The next coup will be successful. Just like the GQP wants.

all the political chatter getting me all hot and bothered on this page.

IMO I think its wrong to say the GQP caused anything, more like "capitalising on it". "It" being the flawed system being corrupted by flawed people. and B) obviously, every system fails so really this is about failed people, as it always is.

You hear that Mr Anderson? Gavrilo Princip will show soon enough to claim his fame, if hasn't already. 

Keep those nukes down my Gs. We will always come out the victor, the issue is the in between time. 

put another way - fuck every republican anyone right now. wankers. all of em

 

 

 

 

[David Dennison 18940]

2 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Yes. Undemocratically.

Which is why the Senate needs to go the way of the House of Lords.

[Eskimohorn 5642]

Some of y’all are wrong. The republic didn’t die today. Today is just when more people noted the stench of its rotting corpse. Once you had one of the three branches of government at least tacitly supporting authoritarianism, fascism, including violent seizure of power - and that’s where the Senate has been for a long time - then it was over.

Our system has an Achilles heel; in the end, it counts on the Senate to protect the Republic. The GQP and its senators have shown us that was a serious design flaw. We are already in a civil war. That’s what you call it when a faction of the country engages in violent warfare to change the government, as oppose to winning elections and using the rule of law. We’re there. We’ve been there.

We have a violent insurgency that has attacked our government and will do so again, and again, until it succeeds (again, read a history book). And the GQP protects and enables that insurgency....it IS that insurgency. “The violent attack is coming FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE,” so to speak.

The republic has fallen, and we are already in a hot civil war over who gets to rule what comes next. And the GQP caused it all. If we (the opposition) come out of this the victor - and that is very much in doubt - we have to, we MUST, exact consequences. Terrorists should go to Gitmo, etc.

But as you know, that doesn’t matter. The next coup will be successful. Just like the GQP wants.

Reading the Fall of the Roman Republic. Well before the Caesars, you had family and class struggles that led to one side consistently murdering and inciting violence on the other. Even in the open Senate.

The playbook of inciting a riot to storm the Senate was done. Full-scale massacre.

[Slacks 6829]

Narrator: In Act 3, a new character appears.  His name: Snacks.  

Smirk of approval.

[Slacks 6829]

If they aren't going to be allowed to hold impeachment trial after the president is no longer in office as long as the impeachment began when in office then two things need to change. 
1) any resignation of office means the person is banned for running for office again. 
2) the transfer of power occurs at the exact moment a victor is declared in the election. 
Without those two there's a giant loop hole where a person can incite an insurrection to overthrow the government and receive zero punishment as long as they either resign or their term runs out as long as they have cover from the Senate to not complete the impeachment process. Due to such a massive hole in my opinion you cannot interpret the Constitution the Way you are. It has to be the other way in order for that loophole to not exist. 

Um...

[washparkhorn 9939]

Snacks - 

Trump was impeached while in office.

There are two punishments available, if convicted:

1. removal from office (mandatory if convicted)
2. disqualification from office (discretionary if convicted).

Remedy No. 1 was rendered moot by expiration of term after defeat.

Remedy No. 2 remained available to Congress, if Trump was convicted.

Hope that helps.

[brakeman 28401]

if insurrection is cool then we will definitely need a bigger fence or maybe a wall and a moat. 

[tx 3 putt 77234]

1 hour ago, Eskimohorn said:

The playbook of inciting a riot to storm the Senate was done. Full-scale massacre.

 

the next time they will be met with an armed response 

[WhatTheBuck 28794]

2 hours ago, TexArcher said:

I wonder how an anonymous vote would've gone.  I'm guessing at least 75% to convict, i.e. at least half the Republicans.  Buncha fucking cowards.

Probably not. Maybe they would’ve gotten enough votes for a conviction. Maybe not. But what would happen if we had 25 Republican votes to convict and 45 Republican Senators insisting publicly that they voted to acquit? That and the conviction of a Republican President on impeachment would surely hurt the GOP in the next election(s). It would be bad for the party. Never mind what’s best for the country. That’s not their priority. 

[Biff Tannen 45695]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

If we (the opposition) come out of this the victor - and that is very much in doubt - we have to, we MUST, exact consequences. Terrorists should go to Gitmo, etc

I think this is highly unlikely to happen, which is a fucking problem. It’s an interesting consequence of becoming “more civilized “ and combined with the snowflake culture. We want to believe that people will change or that we can deal with civil issues in nicer, less violent means. 

[Gatorubet 30274]

Not a Trump supporter at all. Not close.

Just reading the rule.

So what about the precedent of a prior impeachment proceeding on a former official after he left office convinced you that this one is different?

[washparkhorn 9939]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

So what about the precedent of a prior impeachment proceeding on a former official after he left office convinced you that this one is different?

My guess: intentional misinformation from unreliable sources. There are some intelligent Americans stuck in compromised media silos. 

_____________________________________________________________________

The utter inability to discern fact from opinion is a fact for more than a quarter of the nation. The data is awful. (good news - the regulars at the CR would score well on the test - the top group is a amalgamation CR elements). Here's the data in long form - not on a Saturday night before V-day. https://www.journalism.org/numbers/news-organizations-fact-vs-opinion/ It shows what it takes to have an informed electorate. time is a flat circle in action.

_____________________________

For anyone with offense - none was intended. We just need to be on the same news cycle and a common news silo that features facts. AP or Reuters are reliable and up to date - always the first place to start: https://apnews.com/  https://www.reuters.com/world

Those two may refocus the mind to fact-finding rather than shortcutting it to the opinion media - which are mere opinions, not facts or news.

• For instance, Tucker is not news. He is opinion. That is a Fact. 
• Tucker latched on the Trump Brand his followers are being taken on a ride. Opinion (mine).

TLDR: Adjust your news feed to Reuters and AP first every time you see display news. And Tucker is suss.

 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by washparkhorn

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

On 2/9/2021 at 8:28 AM, Mrs Whiggins said:

This is going to be a repeat of early 2020; I may have to sit this one out. The first one was bad enough, but knowing that the videos that will be broadcast will never cross the eyeballs of those who need to be smacked upside the head with reality is just damned depressing.

Quoting myself from five days ago.

Not sorry I skipped most of it and sat on the ledge with hot cocoa. Keeping sane is going to be a challenge.

 

 

[Brisketexan 105178]

Quoting myself from five days ago.
Not sorry I skipped most of it and sat on the ledge with hot cocoa. Keeping sane is going to be a challenge.
 
 

Yep. I didn’t watch any of it. Saw a couple of clips, read a few short recaps.

Why would I? We all knew the outcome before it started - just like the trial in To Kill a Mockingbird. The trial of a man was a proxy for a trial of our system and society. And just like in that one, our society was truly found guilty.

When an organized criminal movement controls a body politic, this, and January 6th...all of it...is exactly what happens.

It’s a cancer.

And when 74 million citizens cheer it, it’s terminal.

There are no surprises here, there are no surprises left to reveal. Everything has been entirely predictable. And the next phases are predictable, too. For a few years, maybe as few as 2, we’ll lie to ourselves and say we survived this, we’re stronger for it. But eventually, the authoritarian fascists will win, because they are not bound by laws, rules, or even basic notions of humanity. The wrestler who comes into the ring swinging knives, chairs, and baseball bats will always win. Always. In every history book, there are chapters that look exactly like this. They always end the same way. Fascist/right wing dictatorships, no more free elections, and a hellish nightmare for whatever “groups” are demonized by the autocrats. Straight up murders, extermination camps, being “disappeared” and tossed out of a helicopter, etc. Varying recipes and degrees of the same shit sandwich.

Get your plates ready. That sandwich is headed your way.

[SquishMitten 10421]

This is the Senate working exactly as designed.

Everybody talks about combining the smaller states, but we know they wouldn’t be on board with doing so as it would be ceding power. But splitting California into multiple states seems like it would be easier to accomplish since the populace would be gaining power.