Democrats are making a mockery of impeachment

Fortunately, for what we know, Winston doesn't seem to have had other uses of his cigars.

 

Hmm.. the book tour... the apology tour... Sometimes it just floors me who severely lacking historic context some folks can be.

 

Weird and screwed up world right now - we literally have 350,000 dead from a pandemic, doctors and nurses begging
for help - and the only person the MAGA sees as a victim is Trump - and Trump has left the building, wrapped up in self-absorbtion.
WTF, people. Just plain old WTF.

 

Give us one of the pictures from the near year-long assaults on our cities and streets, and then we'll see how "peaceful" your peaceful marches are. You know, the one's like this:

 

Historic context would be book tours and political junkets years away from the certification of the Electoral Vote by Congress?
Crazy reply, dude.

 

Asinine post, dude. I just posted what a peaceful march looked like. Posts that are jerk-wad what-about-isms are just
jerk-wad posts.

 

Super spreader event??

 

Interesting how you cherry-pick one peaceful march from years ago while ignoring the scores of violent, flaming, murderous marches that the left has been sponsoring for close to a year now. Yes, I say sponsoring, because that's exactly what they've been doing; they've been sponsoring them.

 

Long before Covid, dude. Gods, do you ever research anything?

 

NOT a cherry pick. A March organized by a President in DIRECT comparison with another march organized by a President.
Understand? It ain't rocket science.

 

Of course a democrats saying things like this would never even get criticized by these self righteous bozos.


Fartwell is the point man here. Only a traitor and a serial liar.

 

You are dumb enough to think that 350,000 primarily died from covid.

 

Hmm... Seems that Biden had to shut down several folks in 2017. Ironic huh.. And we witnessed how many posters here endlessly claim that Trump was illegitimate because of how Hillary won the popular vote. And here you are, what? Trying to apologize for all of that, and wish it didn't happen? That's pretty disingenuous. Even from you.

 

Don't forget the Russian collusion lie that has never ended. All in the name of unity and peace.

 

Given the lack of context that you so often bring to the table.... so, how about we just use the real photos from the last year...

 

Are you referring to yourself again drluggit? A book, and an apology from Trump would be, well it would be nice if he chose to do that rather than to Loudly proclaim over and over and over again that he won the entire election, "by a landslide," of all things! And then demand, during a frenzied rally at the White House with the #1 terrorist group in America (white supremacists), that they go down to the Capital building during the electoral college tally and, "fight like hell," to keep Congress and his own Vice President from unfairly, "Stealing," the election from them. Sometimes, drluggit, it should just floor everyone how severely lacking in current events' knowledge/comprehension some folks can be.

 

And you're trying to claim this march was led by Obama from a speech at the White House to the Doors of Congress - cause that
would be an equivalent historic comparison.

 

Yup. Of course, media used other media to justify their actions, and carried all of the water for democrats. For those of us who called it out from the beginning, it was no shock that the current situation would be happening now. Democrats just want to win, bully folks, and censor folks for their ideas if it doesn't conform to their authoritarian views.

 

What I understand is that until you can condemn the many riots of the past year, you have no credibility in condemning the one riotous march of this year; regardless of who or how they were organized.

 

She must have missed Hillary's concession speech, or the fact that Biden won the election, making it unnecessary for him to concede.

 

Trump's grandstanding days will be over.

 

The thing is, the Constitution says nothing about when the trial must happen and whether or not the trial is moot if the person has already left office. The Constitution does establish two penalties; one, removal from office, and two, loss of the right to run for office in the future. Given that the second one is obviously not dependent on the first one (actually, according to Senate rules, the second penalty would require a separate vote, which would happen after the vote for conviction were successful), there was an interpretation that the Framers wouldn't want a person to avoid the second penalty by simply quitting.

So, that's precisely what the case that created the precedent was about. A former War Secretary was impeached by the House. Then he quit, to avoid the Senate trial which would strip him of his political rights. Well, the Senate held the trial anyway, one to two months later, and actually happened to acquit him (all five articles of impeachment had a majority vote for conviction but neither reached the two-thirds majority)... but the precedent was created that the trial can happen after the office-holder is no longer holding office. Our legal system does include attention to precedent, so, from that point on, it became possible to delay the start of the Senate trial.

This was the case of William Worth Belknap, the 30th United States Secretary of War, serving under President Ulysses S. Grant. He was accused of corruption, evidenced by a lavish lifestyle that he wouldn't be able to afford on his salary. Belknap was impeached on March 2, 1876. He left that day, but his Senate trial only happened in April and May of 1876. The Senate agreed that it retained impeachment jurisdiction over former government officials. So, that's where we are, now. I'm sure Trump's defense will contest it, and maybe the SC will have to issue an opinion on it, but as we stand now, the Senate delaying the trial is clearly possible, under precedent.

 

You can't be serious. Do you really believe that??

Creating limits on immigration that are racist is not the same as racism to the citizens that are already in the country.

 

Interesting. Thanks for the background. Did the same Congress that impeached and convicted him, subsequently try him and fail to convict? Impeachment and conviction is essentially a political act. Was Belknap criminally prosecuted at all? I'm guessing, but I would think the same Congress has to impose both penalties...removal from office and prohibition to hold further federal offices.

 

Indeed. And the fact that Trump NEVER conceded but only, at best, admitted Biden will be the next President (followed, of course, by his molding chant of a, "landslide victory," and, "stolen election").