Chuck Schumer Nancy Pelosi Trump Removal

Nothing feels better than orgasms from wild sown oats and fraudulent results. Time for the macho purge by the decidedly unmacho Pelosi and Schumer. Too bad they have no comprehension (or any interest) of the Constitution as they didn't in the impeachment process.

 

FYI, you are going to need a link

 

Why do you feel they have no interest in the Constitution?

 

Lol...get back to us when the repubs apologize for supporting trump instead of their country for 4 years.
The ones finally deserting trump’s insurrection attempt are a dollar short and a day late.

 

It really is going to a very long 8 years for you.

 

I think you are the one who is misunderstanding the Constitution. It left to the House the responsibility of defining what constitutes "High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Let's suppose the House decides by simple majority that having orange skin and unruly blond hair constitutes High Crimes and Misdemeanors, and decided to impeach Trump for it.
Absurd as it is, the House has this Constitutional right and there is no body in the nation, not even the Supreme Court, that can change that.
So, if the Senate found the House's decision absurd and failed to convict by two thirds, end of the story, but if the Senator decided that yes, Trump is guilty of having orange skin and unruly blond hair, he'd be removed from office and again, there is nothing that anybody would be able to do to stop it.

So, if the House found that Trump committed sedition, the House doesn't need to legally prove it. The House can simply vote for it by simple majority. If the Senate agrees by two thirds, again, no need to prove it like in a court of law. The president would be removed.

It's crazy, isn't it? But it *is* what is in the Constitution.

So what exactly are Pelosi and Schumer not understanding regarding the Constitution?

 

That when you politicize the impeachment process then you are 1: Begging for the same to be done when the shoe is on the other foot. 2: Going against the reason that the impeachment clause is there for to begin with.

While it may be Constitutional by the letter, it is Unconstitutional in the spirit of the Constitution.

 

You said nothing that proves that Pelosi and Schumer are misunderstanding the Constitution. I didn't say I agree with politicizing the impeachment clause. I'm just saying that it is what it is. Besides, if Pelosi and Schumer genuinely think that Trump has committed sedition, yes, it is ALSO what is in the spirit of the Constitution.

 

The obama years weren't that long. I found it to be very entertaining.

 

Pelosi and Schumer are not that stupid. They have both proven that they will do whatever it takes to push political agenda's however. Including lie.

 

A link??? I guess it is my cognitive thought process.......

EDIT: I might have misread your meaning. The thread has been moved.

 

No interest is not accurate. They have interests in the Constitution parts that they can use and interest in the parts they want to get rid of. I should have said they do not care about any limitations that the Constitution interferes with their objectives.

 

Likely very much true. Possibly for you too depending on where you sit in the Democrat/left spectrum. And it is very likely to be 8 or more years, though not necessarily with Biden in the oval office, since the Democrats have enshrined fraudulent or fixed elections.

 

It's time to move off this canard. Perhaps then you can try to re-establish some credibility. Until then you have none.

 

They need a concession to legally delegitimize claims of fraudulent election. They like their chances of getting it from Pence better than from Trump.

 

Everything you say is literally true, but absolutely contrary to the clear intent of the framers. The framers stewed greatly on how to limit the impeachment clause so that it couldn't be used for political purposes, but they found no way to do that while keeping the Constitution short and succinct (which was a fundamental precept). The best they came up with was "high" to modify crimes and misdemeanors which by any half-way rational interpretation would not include skin color, hair style, phone calls, succinct tweets, or political speech to a crowd of supporters. And, BTW, in the 1700s there was almost no distinction between "crimes" and misdemeanors." In fact "misdemeanor" was not in any federal statute -- mostly because there were no federal statutes at all when the Constitution was written and ratified.

But you are correct that the House can impeach for whatever it wants, and impeachment, while demanding reasonable proof and justification, does not require the level of proof of guilt as a criminal court does (the framers intended this). While SCOTUS might be correct in ruling some reasons for impeachment unconstitutional, that would be a really great stretch and extremely unlikely to happen. It is odds on that SCOTUS would react the same way as it did to the recent election cases, and that is run away and hide as fast as they can to avoid the plague and getting embroiled. The framers were aware of the possibility but there was no way to assure it couldn't happen. In the final analysis they knew it was all up to the people and politicos, which is why Ben Franklin quipped after the Constitution was finally written that "we gave you a republic, if you can keep it, madam." They knew the chances for long-term success of their revolutionary concept of self-government and individual liberty might be good but not great, and that the natural tendency is for a government to become autocratic. They did not know anyway to assure that would not happen in America.

 

It was in the current events before, that's why.

 

Trump Agreed To Condemn Insurrection Only After Being Warned Of Potential Criminal Probe

"After inciting a mob of his angry supporters to attack the Capitol, President Donald Trump attempted to backtrack on Thursday night by posting a video of him woodenly acknowledging his electoral defeat and denouncing the violent insurrection-but he reportedly only did so in an attempt to avoid potentially being held legally accountable for the riot.

The New York Times reported that Trump did not want to make the speech at first and was only convinced to do it after White House Counsel Pat Cipollone warned him on Wednesday night that he could face a criminal investigation for actively encouraging his supporters to storm the Capitol in a clash that left at least five people dead."
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...fter-being-warned-of-potential-criminal-probe

 

Endless pointless words leading to absolutely nothing like always to divert us riff raff peasants from the fact that the USA just became a totalitarian corporate-fascist plutocracy.

 

Just as much as any other politician under the sun. Politicians lie. Shocking, isn't it? What amuses me is the assumption, very common here, that it's only the other side that does this kind of thing.

You know, the very inclination to run for political office includes the "skill" of not being very bothered about telling lies to the constituents. A 100% truthful politician is not likely to be elected for office or to keep his/her office, if elected. So people who have a serious aversion to anything other than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, typically don't run for office.

Douglas Adams, the genius who wrote The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, said it best: "By definition, a president is not qualified, because the people who are qualified don't run for President."

 

No surprise that covid-19 nor any other campaign promise no longer has any relevancy to Biden, Schumer, Pelosi or any other Democrat in Congress now that they have stolen all power. All of us become irrelevant to the Democratic Party as of yesterday.

 

Your evidence?

 

I wouldn't want to stress your brain too much. Just turn on the Corporate News Network to find out what you are to think and feel today. That's so much easier. You and I are irrelevant to anything anyway. Continue to be fully submissive. That is easiest. Resistance is futile. Obey.

 

All true and very well stated. Thank you.

Again, I do not support impeachment for frivolous reasons, and for the record, I did not support the effort to impeach Trump. I was even more unsupportive of it when the Dems started talking about it since day 1. I thought, this is political and it's being done in the wake of a lack of acceptance of the fact that elections have consequences and the Dems lost the election.

But this said, impeachment and removal from office are POLITICAL acts, not criminal procedures, and the Framers like you stated so well, intended it this way.

So, during the impeachment trial, many posters (I wasn't here at the time; was a member of a different forum, but I'd assume it likely happened here too) and even congressmen and the White House were complaining of a lack of due process. Well, newsflash, due process does not apply to impeachment hearings (it only applies to courts of law). There is merely a tradition on how to do things. This tradition, yes, intends to try to uphold the spirit of the Framers and to justify - politically - to the public at large, why it's being done. But in the letter of the Constitution, there is no mandatory due process. It's what the House wants, period. So, the House could theoretically debate and vote for impeachment without granting to the party accused, any right of defense and any opportunity to speak up. So, the House typically doesn't do that because the public would see it as a witch hunt and a political execution. But my point is, the Constitution does allow the House to do so, if they want to do it.

---------

Back to the present case. While I did not support the February impeachment, I support it now. I think the majority of the Cabinet + Pence (it's not going to happen) and/or Congress, have the responsibility of responding to what Trump did, and to send a message that in American Democracy, this is not OK. I do see it as sedition and conspiracy against the democratic institutions of the Unite States. I do think that a lot of the rhetoric, although cleverly disguised (Trump, contrary to what some of his detractors think, is anything but stupid), did have the goal of inciting violence and intimidating Congress. Things like "stand back and stand by," "you need to be strong, we won't take our nation back if you are weak" "we'll march to the Capitol" followed by his side kick saying "trial by combat," sorry, this doesn't pass the smell test.

But it was cleverly disguised, so, it is unlikely that Trump will be found guilty of sedition by a court of law where the burden of proof is higher (easier to prove it against Giuliani and his "trial by combat" statement; Gohmert also very explicitly told people to be violent, in these very words). But politically speaking, in a POLITICAL process called impeachment? Yep.

So, it's largely symbolic. Trump will be out in 12 days anyway. To put it all together it would mean several days, so even expediting it as much as possible, it is likely that if Trump got impeached again, and this time sufficient number of angry Republican senators joined the Dems (some of them were really pissed off at Trump, and even the VP was, too), he would be removed from office, say, a couple of days before the end of his term.

But it would send a strong message to the country and to the world that America is committed to Democracy and won't tolerate an attack on it, even by a sitting president.

 

I've said it before and will say it again: Trump would wipe his behind with the constitution, if it would help him politically. After what happened on Wed, the Trump fan section has lost ANY credibility of lecturing others about the constitution.