info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Ahem ...ya don't impeach an ex-President ...
176 views
Skip to first unread message
bluettes
Feb 7, 2021, 5:58:23 PM2/7/21
to
...like ya don't need to fire someone after they have quit ....except idiotic religious cult organizations like FC who ban people after they say AMF, lol.
So, why all the kerfuffle from the so-called "winners" of the 2020 election, hmm?
So, why all the kerfuffle from the so-called "winners" of the 2020 election, hmm?
Papillon
Feb 7, 2021, 6:35:23 PM2/7/21
to
On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 2:58:23 PM UTC-8, bluettes wrote:
> ...like ya don't need to fire someone after they have quit ....except idiotic religious cult organizations like FC who ban people after they say AMF, lol.
>
> So, why all the kerfuffle from the so-called "winners" of the 2020 election, hmm?
They want to impeach and convict him to prevent him from running in 2024. He fomented an act of sedition at the Capitol building. This scared the crap out of the current occupants of the Capitol Building and they don't want to face this same scenario next time around, so they ware trying to prevent the possibility of a next time around. You know the playbook: Never let a crisis go to waste. If you wait too long the news cycle changes and nobody cares what happened the day before yesterday.
> ...like ya don't need to fire someone after they have quit ....except idiotic religious cult organizations like FC who ban people after they say AMF, lol.
>
> So, why all the kerfuffle from the so-called "winners" of the 2020 election, hmm?
I am not sure what AMF stands for so I translated it in my head as "Aloha, motherfucker." Was I at least close?
bluettes
Feb 7, 2021, 7:54:35 PM2/7/21
to
But this : "...He fomented an act of sedition at the Capitol ..." I understand the definition of 'foment'. He did nothing of the sort and I wonder on which side you stand. I also see that every. single. thing. they accuse is precisely what they are and do ...and I wonder ...am I the only one?
Papillon
Feb 7, 2021, 8:33:46 PM2/7/21
to
I voted for Trump in 2016 because I didn't want Hillary as president. I still don't.
I voted for Trump in 2020 because I didn't want dementia Joe as president. I still don't.
Before the votes were even counted Trump declared that the election was rigged. At that moment I rejected him and an irreparable break occurred which erased any and all support I may have extended to this man. He went from being the lesser of two evils to being the primary evil.
We all saw the speech on Television or on the 'net and it looked like fomenting sedition to me. I can't think of a better way to express it. The rioters themselves are using that fact as their defense. So clearly they saw the same message from Trump that I saw... or certainly interpreted it the same way as I did.
At this point in time I don't believe the senate will actually convict Trump, so it is all pretty much just mental masturbation for the talking heads now. In the end I just want our Republican party back and I don't want to see Trump as part of that future.
I don't care where anybody is on the political spectrum in their free speech expression as long as they respect and obey the constitution. And you are family to me even if we don't feel the same way about Trump.
Papillon
Feb 7, 2021, 8:35:22 PM2/7/21
to
bluettes
Feb 7, 2021, 11:47:34 PM2/7/21
to
On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 6:33:46 PM UTC-7, Papillon wrote:
> On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 4:54:35 PM UTC-8, bluettes wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 4:35:23 PM UTC-7, Papillon wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 2:58:23 PM UTC-8, bluettes wrote:
> > > > ...like ya don't need to fire someone after they have quit ....except idiotic religious cult organizations like FC who ban people after they say AMF, lol.
> > > >
> > > > So, why all the kerfuffle from the so-called "winners" of the 2020 election, hmm?
> > > They want to impeach and convict him to prevent him from running in 2024. He fomented an act of sedition at the Capitol building. This scared the crap out of the current occupants of the Capitol Building and they don't want to face this same scenario next time around, so they ware trying to prevent the possibility of a next time around. You know the playbook: Never let a crisis go to waste. If you wait too long the news cycle changes and nobody cares what happened the day before yesterday.
> > >
> > > I am not sure what AMF stands for so I translated it in my head as "Aloha, motherfucker." Was I at least close?
> > Yes, close if Aloha can also mean 'screw this fukkin BS I'm outta here.'
> > But this : "...He fomented an act of sedition at the Capitol ..." I understand the definition of 'foment'. He did nothing of the sort and I wonder on which side you stand. I also see that every. single. thing. they accuse is precisely what they are and do ...and I wonder ...am I the only one?
> I'll state where I stand...
>
> I voted for Trump in 2016 because I didn't want Hillary as president. I still don't.
> I voted for Trump in 2020 because I didn't want dementia Joe as president. I still don't.
>
> Before the votes were even counted Trump declared that the election was rigged. At that moment I rejected him and an irreparable break occurred which erased any and all support I may have extended to this man. He went from being the lesser of two evils to being the primary evil.
>
> We all saw the speech on Television or on the 'net and it looked like fomenting sedition to me. I can't think of a better way to express it. The rioters themselves are using that fact as their defense. So clearly they saw the same message from Trump that I saw... or certainly interpreted it the same way as I did.
>
What all did you see o the telly? That which was framed and edited to give you an opinion based on what the programmers want you to believe. I saw all that and more ....the stuff they wouldn't publish broadcast on the radio or any so called major media network. Only thing that was and is clear to me (and my people) was the manipulation of your interpretation.
> On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 4:54:35 PM UTC-8, bluettes wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 4:35:23 PM UTC-7, Papillon wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 7, 2021 at 2:58:23 PM UTC-8, bluettes wrote:
> > > > ...like ya don't need to fire someone after they have quit ....except idiotic religious cult organizations like FC who ban people after they say AMF, lol.
> > > >
> > > > So, why all the kerfuffle from the so-called "winners" of the 2020 election, hmm?
> > > They want to impeach and convict him to prevent him from running in 2024. He fomented an act of sedition at the Capitol building. This scared the crap out of the current occupants of the Capitol Building and they don't want to face this same scenario next time around, so they ware trying to prevent the possibility of a next time around. You know the playbook: Never let a crisis go to waste. If you wait too long the news cycle changes and nobody cares what happened the day before yesterday.
> > >
> > > I am not sure what AMF stands for so I translated it in my head as "Aloha, motherfucker." Was I at least close?
> > Yes, close if Aloha can also mean 'screw this fukkin BS I'm outta here.'
> > But this : "...He fomented an act of sedition at the Capitol ..." I understand the definition of 'foment'. He did nothing of the sort and I wonder on which side you stand. I also see that every. single. thing. they accuse is precisely what they are and do ...and I wonder ...am I the only one?
> I'll state where I stand...
>
> I voted for Trump in 2016 because I didn't want Hillary as president. I still don't.
> I voted for Trump in 2020 because I didn't want dementia Joe as president. I still don't.
>
> Before the votes were even counted Trump declared that the election was rigged. At that moment I rejected him and an irreparable break occurred which erased any and all support I may have extended to this man. He went from being the lesser of two evils to being the primary evil.
>
> We all saw the speech on Television or on the 'net and it looked like fomenting sedition to me. I can't think of a better way to express it. The rioters themselves are using that fact as their defense. So clearly they saw the same message from Trump that I saw... or certainly interpreted it the same way as I did.
>
> At this point in time I don't believe the senate will actually convict Trump, so it is all pretty much just mental masturbation for the talking heads now. In the end I just want our Republican party back and I don't want to see Trump as part of that future.
>
> I don't care where anybody is on the political spectrum in their free speech expression as long as they respect and obey the constitution. And you are family to me even if we don't feel the same way about Trump.
MOSES
Feb 8, 2021, 2:10:33 AM2/8/21
to
ned756
Feb 8, 2021, 2:44:53 AM2/8/21
to
bluettes
Feb 8, 2021, 3:03:16 AM2/8/21
to
David B
Feb 8, 2021, 5:54:11 AM2/8/21
to
The strongest argument against the Senate’s authority to try a former officer relies on Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which provides: “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.” The trial’s opponents argue that because this provision requires removal, and because only incumbent officers can be removed, it follows that only incumbent officers can be impeached and tried.
But the provision cuts against their interpretation. It simply establishes what is known in criminal law as a “mandatory minimum” punishment: If an incumbent officeholder is convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, he is removed from office as a matter of law. If removal were the only punishment that could be imposed, the argument against trying former officers would be compelling. But it isn’t. Article I, Section 3 authorizes the Senate to impose an optional punishment on conviction: “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”
That punishment can be imposed only on former officers. That is because Article II, Section 4 is self-executing: A convicted officeholder is automatically removed at the moment of conviction. The formal Senate procedures for impeachment trials acknowledge this constitutional reality, noting that a two-thirds vote to convict “operates automatically and instantaneously to separate the person impeached from the office.” The Senate may then, at its discretion, take a separate vote to impose, by simple majority, “the additional consequences provided by the Constitution in the case of an impeached and convicted civil officer, viz: permanent disqualification from elected or appointed office.”
Thus a vote by the Senate to disqualify can be taken only after the officer has been removed and is by definition a former officer. Given that the Constitution permits the Senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification only on former officeholders, it defies logic to suggest that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former officeholders.
Some have argued in the alternative that the trial is unconstitutional because Chief Justice John Roberts won’t be presiding. Article I, Section 3 provides that “when the president of the United States is tried, the chief justice shall preside.” This argument is mistaken, and the definite article is why: Mr. Trump is no longer the president. Section 3 excludes the vice president from a trial of a sitting president because they would accede to the office if he were convicted.
But the provision cuts against their interpretation. It simply establishes what is known in criminal law as a “mandatory minimum” punishment: If an incumbent officeholder is convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, he is removed from office as a matter of law. If removal were the only punishment that could be imposed, the argument against trying former officers would be compelling. But it isn’t. Article I, Section 3 authorizes the Senate to impose an optional punishment on conviction: “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”
That punishment can be imposed only on former officers. That is because Article II, Section 4 is self-executing: A convicted officeholder is automatically removed at the moment of conviction. The formal Senate procedures for impeachment trials acknowledge this constitutional reality, noting that a two-thirds vote to convict “operates automatically and instantaneously to separate the person impeached from the office.” The Senate may then, at its discretion, take a separate vote to impose, by simple majority, “the additional consequences provided by the Constitution in the case of an impeached and convicted civil officer, viz: permanent disqualification from elected or appointed office.”
Thus a vote by the Senate to disqualify can be taken only after the officer has been removed and is by definition a former officer. Given that the Constitution permits the Senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification only on former officeholders, it defies logic to suggest that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former officeholders.
Some have argued in the alternative that the trial is unconstitutional because Chief Justice John Roberts won’t be presiding. Article I, Section 3 provides that “when the president of the United States is tried, the chief justice shall preside.” This argument is mistaken, and the definite article is why: Mr. Trump is no longer the president. Section 3 excludes the vice president from a trial of a sitting president because they would accede to the office if he were convicted.
MOSES
Feb 8, 2021, 8:10:25 AM2/8/21
to
David B
Feb 8, 2021, 8:23:38 AM2/8/21
to
On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 7:10:25 AM UTC-6, MOSES wrote:
> DAVID IS JUST WRONG ON EVERYTHING HE STATES. DAVID IS A DOCTOR, A LAWYER, A CHURCH TEACHER BUT MOST OF ALL DAVID IS A WEAK MINDED COCKSUCKER.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg
> DAVID IS JUST WRONG ON EVERYTHING HE STATES. DAVID IS A DOCTOR, A LAWYER, A CHURCH TEACHER BUT MOST OF ALL DAVID IS A WEAK MINDED COCKSUCKER.
MOSES
Feb 8, 2021, 10:46:30 AM2/8/21
to
David B
Feb 8, 2021, 2:01:37 PM2/8/21
to
ned756
Feb 8, 2021, 8:24:15 PM2/8/21
to
geraldkrug
Feb 10, 2021, 12:54:39 AM2/10/21
to
But never the less, an ex president was tried for high crimes in the past so there. The trial is on.
David B
Feb 11, 2021, 5:00:21 AM2/11/21
to
On Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 11:54:39 PM UTC-6, geraldkrug wrote:
> But never the less, an ex president was tried for high crimes in the past so there. The trial is on.
The eldest son of John Adams, Founding Father of the Constitution and our 2nd President said, "I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office" - John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States of America
> But never the less, an ex president was tried for high crimes in the past so there. The trial is on.
0 new messages