Trump Impeachment # 2

The Democrats f#&%ed up both impeachments.

These aren't legal cases and as such don't have the burden of legal prosecutions. They are simply to determine the fitness of Donald Trump to be president, and the case against Trump is wide and deep, including breeches of security, the emoluments clause, pathological lying, sabotaging the U.S. post office, intimidating state officials, aiding, abetting, and inciting domestic terrorists, etc., etc., etc. Trump's body of impeachable work is unprecedented. The list of witnesses you could bring would have been respected adults from many political persuasions. 

But by making Impeachment One entirely about a Ukrainian quid pro quo, the Dems hung everything on something that was plausibly deniable. Impeachment Two was whether Donald Trump directly advocated the violent invasion of the Capitol on January 6, also plausibly deniable if treated as a legal case. The difficultly proving this kind of intent is how mob bosses have always avoided prison terms -- even if everyone understands their underlying guilt. 

Then again, perhaps it doesn't matter. The most recent poll says 67% of Republicans supported overturning the 2020 election without a shred of actionable proof. 

American just took a sharp right into banana republic.

Remember when folks thought Joe Biden would turn the U.S. into Venezuela?  Turns out it was Donald Trump.  

 
knapplc said:
There was ample evidence of impeachable behavior by the bloated cheeto. His own words were enough. 
Click to expand...
:movegoalpost:  it's hard to keep up with the goal posts when the narrative changes daily.

We had to impeach him because Presidents could go on a 'crime spree' the last two weeks in office but cannot arrest him due to the lack of evidence yet we impeached him.   Now we have all this evidence of his criminal behavior that we won't use because Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution.

It's to time to admit to yourself that Impeachment is an vent for your political frustrations that has nothing to do with the real Constitution.

 
Notre Dame Joe said:
:movegoalpost:  it's hard to keep up with the goal posts when the narrative changes daily.

We had to impeach him because Presidents could go on a 'crime spree' the last two weeks in office but cannot arrest him due to the lack of evidence yet we impeached him.   Now we have all this evidence of his criminal behavior that we won't use because Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution.

It's to time to admit to yourself that Impeachment is an vent for your political frustrations that has nothing to do with the real Constitution.
Click to expand...
You're not that misinformed. You're just gaslighting.  It's what you do.  You know full well that an impeachment trial is not the same as a criminal trial.  The requirements for conviction are not even close to the same.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Notre Dame Joe said:
:movegoalpost:  it's hard to keep up with the goal posts when the narrative changes daily.

We had to impeach him because Presidents could go on a 'crime spree' the last two weeks in office but cannot arrest him due to the lack of evidence yet we impeached him.   Now we have all this evidence of his criminal behavior that we won't use because Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution.

It's to time to admit to yourself that Impeachment is an vent for your political frustrations that has nothing to do with the real Constitution.
Click to expand...
Or you could admit to yourself that this post demonstrates that you apparently know very little on the subject matter.  I usually refrain from responding to outlandish posts, but sometimes I just got to....not that it does any good or changes anyone's mind.  Just makes me feel a little better.

 
Scarlet said:
You're not that misinformed. You're just gaslighting.  It's what you do.  You know full well that an impeachment trial is not the same as a criminal trial.  The requirements for conviction are not even close to the same.  
Click to expand...
Personal jabs do not change the Constitution, which does not empower Congress to 'impeach' and ex-official.  Even if instead of "peaceful and patriotically" Trump had said 'make AOC shriek again;'  Congress has no power to impeach a private citizen. 

“The case cannot come to trial in the Senate, because the Senate has rules, and the rules would not allow the case to come to trial until, according to the majority leader, until 1 p.m. on January 20th, an hour after President Trump leaves office,” Dershowitz said on Fox News' “Sunday Morning Futures.”

He went on to argue that the Constitution doesn’t allow the impeachment of a former president.

And the Constitution specifically says, ‘The President shall be removed from office upon impeachment.’ It doesn’t say the former president. Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it be a private citizen named Donald Trump or named Barack Obama or anyone else,” he said.
Click to expand...

 
Notre Dame Joe said:
Personal jabs do not change the Constitution, which does not empower Congress to 'impeach' and ex-official.  Even if instead of "peaceful and patriotically" Trump had said 'make AOC shriek again;'  Congress has no power to impeach a private citizen. 
Click to expand...
He was impeached before he left office.  You're meaning holding an impeachment trial.

https://www.justsecurity.org/74226/history-shows-the-senate-can-hold-an-impeachment-trial-after-trump-leaves-office/

 
I love how when Trump was in office, Republicans cheered on Trump when he was extremely divisive and instigated hatred towards Democrats.  BUT...now that he's out of office and has been impeached again, their attitude is, Biden is bad because he could be calling off the trial to help bring together the country.

 
BigRedBuster said:
I love how when Trump was in office, Republicans cheered on Trump when he was extremely divisive and instigated hatred towards Democrats.  BUT...now that he's out of office and has been impeached again, their attitude is, Biden is bad because he could be calling off the trial to help bring together the country.
Click to expand...


It is ok to have a different attitude when the "attack" is about justice and preventing someone who attempted a coup from gaining power again.

 
U.S. calls Myanmar military's takeover a coup


"We have expressed grave concern regarding the Burmese military's detention of civilian government leaders," a State Department official said on the call. "After a careful review of the facts and circumstances, we have accessed that Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of Burma's ruling party, and Win Mynt, the duly elected head of government, were deposed in a military coup on February 1st."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top