Jump to content

Trump Impeachment 2: Insurrection Boogaloo

Sawbonz

By Sawbonz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Js1

Js1 85311

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I think the most likely scenario is this. House votes to impeach on Tuesday, but since the senate won’t unanimously vote to reconvene and that means the earliest they could hear it would be 24 hours after receiving the articles, so either 20th or 21st. They will get Ga Senators sworn in, and start approving Biden cabinet picks. House won’t deliver articles of impeachment until important country shit is taken care of, then they will deliver articles to Senate. Senate needs 2/3 majority to convict. by then, maybe enough Republicans will have been convinced to convict so he can never hold office again. 

This is basically what I think will happen.  The House Dems will give Biden his 100 days to get a Cabinet in place, COVID relief and vaccine distribution funding, etc.  before sending them to the Senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

immamac
immamac

Fuck everyone in the senate. Trash american government for trash americans.  If you are a longhorn and support this, you need to find another site. I'm done fucking around with this absolute garb

tx 3 putt
tx 3 putt

he needs to be punished, not rewarded 

JohnnyRage
JohnnyRage

I’m 44 years old and have never been a member of a political party nor do I have a desire. But listening to this, God damnit, If I have to pick a fucking side and wear a badge upon my sleeve, I choose

Posted Images

Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9927

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Jiggy-Z said:

I spoke with a friend of mine who is up in DC and a lifelong democrat.

His theory was that the House would move on a vote now but not send articles over to the senate until after 100 days, so as not to give Trump any more oxygen.

During that time more conspiracy evidence would become available and provide enough proof to convict.

I am not sure where he got this from or if it is already "out there" or if this even works that way.  I was skeptical.  Seems like these guys should do their damn jobs.

I would be good to get the senate to go on record, but what other avenues are available if impeachment dies in the senate.  Do it again later?  Frustrating.

...meanwhile we have whatever mayhem is going to happen between now and 1/20 or beyond.

He got it from Jim Clyburn during a Fox News interview.  They idea to wait is so it doesn't mess with Biden's cabinet nominations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17850

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

He got it from Jim Clyburn during a Fox News interview.  They idea to wait is so it doesn't mess with Biden's cabinet nominations.

Who knew that the political skill we would need most at this critical moment is . . . multitasking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
B00M

B00M 6414

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Who knew that the political skill we would need most at this critical moment is . . . multitasking.

The Senate never has multiple tabs open, unless one of them is milf porn

Edited by B00M
Fucking auto correct
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85311

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Look guys...... being impeached for a 2nd time, historically being the only President to warrant such infamy, is a bummer..... but a cancelled golf tournament?  Seething, uncontrollable anger!!!!

 

tenor.gif?itemid=14609000

Bc he's going to miss out on the sweet sweet grift. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52489

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jiggy-Z said:

I spoke with a friend of mine who is up in DC and a lifelong democrat.

His theory was that the House would move on a vote now but not send articles over to the senate until after 100 days, so as not to give Trump any more oxygen.

During that time more conspiracy evidence would become available and provide enough proof to convict.

I am not sure where he got this from or if it is already "out there" or if this even works that way.  I was skeptical.  Seems like these guys should do their damn jobs.

I would be good to get the senate to go on record, but what other avenues are available if impeachment dies in the senate.  Do it again later?  Frustrating.

...meanwhile we have whatever mayhem is going to happen between now and 1/20 or beyond.

You’ve also got Mitch playing games again saying do you want the senate to work on that or be confirming appointments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jiggy-Z

Jiggy-Z 3432

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

You’ve also got Mitch playing games again saying do you want the senate to work on that or be confirming appointments. 

Its like these guys have never heard of overtime.  They get paid time and one half, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8066

Posted
Posted (edited)

Right now there are 51 Republicans and 48 Democrats (99 total since Perdue's term expired)

on Jan 20 it will be 50/49 (No Kamala)

Removal now = 18 Republican votes if the whole chamber is present

Removal then = 17 Republican votes if the whole chamber is seated

Edit:  If Padilla is seated it would still be 17, right?  67/100 to be 2/3rds.

Edited by TexasEd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85311

Posted
Posted
Just now, TexasEd said:

Right now there are 51 Republicans and 48 Democrats (99 total since Perdue's term expired)

on Jan 20 it will be 49/50 (No Kamala)

Removal now = 18 Republican votes if the whole chamber is present

Removal then = 17 Republican votes if the whole chamber is seated

 

I'd wager Kamala will resign sometime between now and the 18th to allow Padilla to be sworn in on the 19th. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UncleSonny

UncleSonny 6572

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Js1 said:

 

Over 100 House Republicans voted to disenfranchise millions of people hours after an angry mob incited by their own president and several prominent party members stormed the capital. Now, days later, a whopping 10 House Rs are "seriously considering" impeachment (and also, they won't). 

tenor.gif?itemid=11062927

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 44020

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TexasEd said:

Right now there are 51 Republicans and 48 Democrats (99 total since Perdue's term expired)

on Jan 20 it will be 49/50 (No Kamala)

Removal now = 18 Republican votes if the whole chamber is present

Removal then = 17 Republican votes if the whole chamber is seated

 

This is a good point - Republicans have majority until Kamala's successor is seated. (unless she quits so Padilla can be seated before she becomes VP)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85311

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, The Dog said:

This is a good point - Republicans have majority until Kamala's successor is seated. (unless she quits so Padilla can be seated before she becomes VP)

She will.  With the Senate in recess until the 19th, plenty of time to resign and get Padilla to DC for swearing in next week.

Joe Biden didn't resign until January 15. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 44020

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

SIAP: I read that a vote to convict on impeachment is 2/3 BUT a vote to permanently ban from federal office is a simple majority.  So, game on. 

Yup. 

Quote

There is no question that the Constitution authorizes a ban on future officeholding as an option for the Senate as a “sentence” after an impeachment trial. Sometimes it is imposed after elected officials have been convicted of impeachable offenses, and sometimes it isn’t. Indeed, Senate rules provide that such a ban may be enacted by a simple majority vote after two-thirds of the Senate has voted for conviction in an impeachment trial. It has never happened to a president before because none has been convicted. But is is clearly a penalty severable from the primary sanction of removal from office.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/impeachment-could-ban-trump-2024-run.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-Tex Devil

A-Tex Devil 2446

Posted
Posted

If McConnel won't sit until 20th, then he isn't going to back a vote on the 25th amendment.  We are stuck with Dotard through 1/20.  It sucks, but that is reality.  So impeaching now and waiting the 100 days to convict makes much more sense.  Biden's agenda and appointees are paramount after 1/20.  And if Trump's influcence falls a bit in that 100 days, McConnel, Graham, et al may be more willing to keep him out of 2024 race. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immamac

immamac 42839

Posted
Posted

impeachment + conviction was never going to happen before the 20th unfortunately.

I have a high degree of optimism regarding conviction after the 20th because the GOP will not want to deal with Trump for 2024. If Trump announces on 20th for 2024 he will certainly be convicted. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38129

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

SIAP: I read that a vote to convict on impeachment is 2/3 BUT a vote to permanently ban from federal office is a simple majority.  So, game on. 

CNN TV screen person said they can’t have perma ban simple majority vote without conviction first. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105095

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

CNN TV screen person said they can’t have perma ban simple majority vote without conviction first. 

I think that's the correct read.  I wish it were otherwise in this particular case, but that wouldn't make sense as a sound rule across the board -- would allow for political punishment without actual conviction.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31450

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

CNN TV screen person said they can’t have perma ban simple majority vote without conviction first. 

That seems to be how the constitution reads.  Although they could omit removal from office as a moot sanction, it still depends on conviction by a 2/3 vote.

The language of the paragraph preceding the "judgment" language doesn't use the term judgment, but rather conviction.

I think the usage at the time, as it is now, is that a "judgment" follows a "conviction" and sets out the conviction and the punishment, and formally ends the proceeding.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105095

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, staboner said:

page 5 reads like shit. so Monday looks to be a pile of nothingness. lord baby jesus what is this day of rest shit!?

hqg-330.gif

What's this bullshit?  Lemme splain.  Wait, there's too much, lemme sum up.

We have two major parties, both run by cowards, but they're different kinds of cowards.

The Republican party is a group of cowards who are afraid to have any meaningful principles, because that might cost them the support of the heinous nutbars on whom they depend to get elected to office.  So, they just go along with sucking up to the nutbars, inevitably emboldening the nutbars and requiring the Republicans to go along with increasingly pathetic and insane shit.

The Dems is a group of cowards who are inexplicably afraid to stand up to the Republicans, even when they are 100% in the right.  Why?  I have no idea.  It probably has something to do with not wanting to spill their latte or something.

Tom Herman is a shitty coach who couldn't read a room.  It's good for Texas to be rid of him.

I'm not sure how that last part fits in, but it seemed important.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25944

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

This.  I think Warnock and Ossoff won't be sworn in until 1/19, then they'll need to do an organizing resolution and Schumer will finally have the keys.

 

6 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

Ga Senators aren't sworn in until 22nd. 

The dems are trying to get Republicans to bear some responsibility and admit that Trump is a lying crazy loon. In their calculus, they think a unified front might stave off more violence from the trumper cult. But the republicans just see it as rubbing their nose in it. The Trumper loons are talking about armed marches at state capitols and DC. I don't see the point on waiting for repubs to join in. The few sane ones will but fuck the rest. Maybe there is a good reason to negotiate with the republican leadership but I don't see it if they are not going to agree with Trump accountability.

Incoming U.S. Sens. Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff will have to wait until Georgia’s election results are certified later this month before they can be sworn into office.

Even though both of their Republican opponents have conceded, the election results won’t be official until each of Georgia’s 159 counties and the secretary of state finalize vote counts.

 

Georgia law gives Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger 17 days after the election, until Jan. 22, to certify the results.

 

Once Warnock and Ossoff take office, they will give the Democratic Party control of the U.S. Senate. The Senate will be evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, with incoming Vice President Kamala Harris breaking ties after she’s sworn in along with President-elect Joe Biden on Jan. 20.

Raffensperger, a Republican, can’t move much more quickly because each of the state’s 159 counties must first finalize its vote count by a Jan. 15 deadline, according to the secretary of state’s office. After counties report their results, it’s possible that Raffensperger could certify the election before Jan. 22.

 

https://www.ajc.com/politics/when-can-ossoff-and-warnock-be-sworn-in-after-georgia-senate-runoffs/PAYAJGFMCBCDZNDGGZFFQQGV2E/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dogg

Horn Dogg 3892

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, immamac said:

impeachment + conviction was never going to happen before the 20th unfortunately.

I have a high degree of optimism regarding conviction after the 20th because the GOP will not want to deal with Trump for 2024. If Trump announces on 20th for 2024 he will certainly be convicted. 

Here’s to hoping he will fuck around and find out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105095

Posted
Posted
Twice impeached sounds so good, but if (huge IF) the GOP agreed to this, you take it to neuter Donald from ever running again
 
 

You absolutely take that.

It’s not perfect, but it’s a real, tangible consequence of conspiring to overthrow the government. And...it means he can’t run again.

Also, you prosecute him after he leaves office. For EVERYTHING.
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38129

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Twice impeached sounds so good, but if (huge IF) the GOP agreed to this, you take it to neuter Donald from ever running again

 

 

How does one apply the 14th amendment without a conviction? Or if one doesn’t need a conviction, wouldn’t the 14th apply anyway? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45673

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Twice impeached sounds so good, but if (huge IF) the GOP agreed to this, you take it to neuter Donald from ever running again

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


You absolutely take that.

It’s not perfect, but it’s a real, tangible consequence of conspiring to overthrow the government. And...it means he can’t run again.

Also, you prosecute him after he leaves office. For EVERYTHING.

Yep and yep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27547

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


You absolutely take that.

It’s not perfect, but it’s a real, tangible consequence of conspiring to overthrow the government. And...it means he can’t run again.

Also, you prosecute him after he leaves office. For EVERYTHING.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
 

 

the text doesn’t say he has to be convicted of insurrection or rebellion. If both houses sign off on a resolution of censure stating he has engaged in such is that enough to enforce a ban on holding office? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45673

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Don’t cut any deals with these people IMO

Normally I would agree, but this gets you to the same, if not better result.  There's a tiny chance of him not remaining in office for the next 9 days anyway.  Barring him from running again is really the ultimate, if not most ideal, prize we can get, methinks.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
conVINCEd

conVINCEd 21469

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Normally I would agree, but this gets you to the same, if not better result.  There's a tiny chance of him not remaining in office for the next 9 days anyway.  Barring him from running again is really the ultimate, if not most ideal, prize we can get, methinks.

Steel cages in the North Atlantic would be the most ideal,  but this seems like a pretty good deal.   Then we have Seal Team 6 do the steel cages in the North Atlantic anyway.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31450

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
 

 

the text doesn’t say he has to be convicted of insurrection or rebellion. If both houses sign off on a resolution of censure stating he has engaged in such is that enough to enforce a ban on holding office? 

The conspicuous absence of the conviction language indicates that.

And the 2/3 vote to remove the "disability" indicates perhaps that a majority vote is what's required to apply the disability.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...