The Trump Impeachment Thread

  • Thread starter Dotini
  • 2,103 comments
  • 75,863 views

Will the current Articles of Impeachment ever be sent from the House to the Senate?

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
Joey D
I presume that's what the stop over in Scotland was for, because who the hell goes on vacation to Scotland in January?
Click to expand...
Preeeeecisely. The whole UK is right smack at the end of the north Atlantic tracks. Iceland is another option, if you hear any rumblings about Iceland then it's almost guaranteed he's going to Russia. There are other private jets that can easily make that eastbound flight so why he'd choose a plan that can't I don't know.
 
CTznOfTime
t**** is castrated....
No more mushroom...

I guess the peeper tape will now be more worthy to him...


Click to expand...

So I agree that Boebert is crazy but all these outlets keep saying she "tweeted Pelosi's location". Was that tweet deleted or something? All I've seen is Boebert tweeted that Pelosi had been removed from the chamber, which is a fact. A distasteful fact given the situation, but definitely not the egregious red hand that all these outlets keep suggesting.
 
Keef
So I agree that Boebert is crazy but all these outlets keep saying she "tweeted Pelosi's location". Was that tweet deleted or something? All I've seen is Boebert tweeted that Pelosi had been removed from the chamber, which is a fact. A distasteful fact given the situation, but definitely not the egregious red hand that all these outlets keep suggesting.
Click to expand...

I think the fact she kept talking about taking a gun into Congress and also sending a tweet on the morning of that day saying "it's 1776" opens that tweet to more scrutiny.
 
Keef
any more news on that plane Trump was trying to jump ship with? Does he know his old 757 can't make it from DC or NYC to Moscow on one fuel load?
Click to expand...

He won't make it to the holding point, 757AF only has one engine. And what a reg, they knew. If it's a SAM 757 then it has several USAF-operated options for the hop in England or Scotland, but the Moscow part of the flight plan will take some persuading.

 
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...t-trumps-unprecedented-conflicts-of-interest/

Screenshot_20210115-162320_Chrome.jpg
 
UKMikey
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...t-trumps-unprecedented-conflicts-of-interest/

View attachment 984909
Click to expand...
But the emoluments clause doesn't hold any weight. Give me a break! The only reason that didn't pass is because every single congressperson is dripping with emoluments and they know it.

This brings me right back around to my super strict ideas on how to whip politicians into line. Here's another one: All personal property, assets, and wealth of any elected official should be seized and evenly dispersed to the people upon swearing in, except for things like family heirlooms and pets etc, and except for what is written in a living will. You got a nifty poster on your wall? Goodbye. A billion dollars in the stockmarket? Goodbye. Every ounce of wealth you've achieved in life? Goodbye, unless you've chosen to give it away to family etc. But you can't give it away to any family or friends who are also elected or appointed to government so be careful.

An elected official's entire existence should belong to the people and to the law.
 
Last edited:
Keef
But the emoluments clause doesn't hold any weight. Give me a break! The only reason that didn't pass is because every single congressperson is dripping with emoluments and they know it.

This brings me right back around to my super strict ideas on how to whip politicians into line. Here's another one: All personal property, assets, and wealth of any elected official should be seized and evenly dispersed to the people upon swearing in, except for things like family heirlooms and pets etc, and except for what is written in a living will. You got a nifty poster on your wall? Goodbye. A billion dollars in the stockmarket? Goodbye. Every ounce of wealth you've achieved in life? Goodbye, unless you've chosen to give it away to family etc. But you can't give it away to any family or friends who are also elected or appointed to government so be careful.

An elected official's entire existence should belong to the people and to the law.
Click to expand...
Talk about a disincentive to run to your average pol. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. But they'd only hide the cash in shell companies or give it to their (non-elected) kids anyway.
 
Last edited:
UKMikey
But they'd only hide the cash in shell companies or give it to their kids anyway.
Click to expand...
Modificiation: All assets should be seized and redistributed except for what is willed with a willed maximum of one median salary of the district for which the person was elected. Boom there you go. Shell company doesn't matter, family will doesn't matter. You're only allowed to will like, $68k max as president, a bit higher for some other districts, lots lower in others.

This makes me consider AOC who was a bartender before getting elected. Such a policy would obviously be an enormous disincentive for wealthy people to choose government, but average to poor people basically have nothing to lose. Perhaps we'd get more regular people in government, poor and marginalized people, fresh college graduates with no money, etc. That does call into question whether they're doing it to get paid, but remember my other ideas about paying them crap salaries to guarantee they don't abuse it. Suddenly government becomes a middling job for middling people and your amount of wealth not only doesn't matter but is actually a detriment because it'll all be stripped from you and redistributed.

Currently we have government by rich people for rich people. That needs to change. I don't know how else to change it but to make government extremely unappealing for rich people.
 
Last edited:
Keef
But the emoluments clause doesn't hold any weight. Give me a break! The only reason that didn't pass is because every single congressperson is dripping with emoluments and they know it.

This brings me right back around to my super strict ideas on how to whip politicians into line. Here's another one: All personal property, assets, and wealth of any elected official should be seized and evenly dispersed to the people upon swearing in, except for things like family heirlooms and pets etc, and except for what is written in a living will. You got a nifty poster on your wall? Goodbye. A billion dollars in the stockmarket? Goodbye. Every ounce of wealth you've achieved in life? Goodbye, unless you've chosen to give it away to family etc. But you can't give it away to any family or friends who are also elected or appointed to government so be careful.

An elected official's entire existence should belong to the people and to the law.
Click to expand...

That would be unlawful seizure though and never hold up in the Supreme Court.

If you want rich people out of politics, you need campaign finance reform and to get lobbyists out of Washington. I suspect very few wealthy people want to spend their own money to get elected and would rather spend other people's money. Honestly, I'd like to see elections be capped at some ridiculously low amount and force people to have good ideas in order to get elected instead of just throwing money at it. Lobbyists should probably be thrown into the sun.
 
Joey D
unlawful seizure
Click to expand...
Of what, people who have submitted themselves to serving the law and in doing so should effectively be forfeiting their rights to basically anything and everything? Elected officials should be slaves to the law and to their constituents.
 
Keef
Of what, people who have submitted themselves to serving the law and in doing so should effectively be forfeiting their rights to basically anything and everything? Elected officials should be slaves to the law and to their constituents.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that's how it would go. It would be an unlawful seizure in the eyes of the law.

And, in theory, at least, elected officials are slaves to the law. The problem is that we don't follow the processes very well. The Constitution lays it out pretty well on how you remove abuse of power and how you maintain checks and balances. Unfortunately, that document often gets ignored and we end up with what we have now.
 
Joey D
The Constitution lays it out pretty well on how you remove abuse of power and how you maintain checks and balances. Unfortunately, that document often gets ignored and we end up with what we have now.
Click to expand...
Have you ever seen a constitutional law textbook? An entire discipline of law is devoted to obfuscating several pages of plain English. Everything is laid out pretty well until a lawyer gets their grubby mitts on it.
 
Last edited:
Keef
Have you ever seen a constitutional law textbook? An entire discipline of law is devoted to obfuscating several pages of plain English. Everything is laid out pretty well until a lawyer gets their grubby mitts on it.
Click to expand...

Understanding the edges of soft squishy plain english is tricky. Pretending that the entire field of law is a waste is basically not understanding it.
 
Keef
Have you ever seen a constitutional law textbook? An entire discipline of law is devoted to obfuscating several pages of plain English. Everything is laid out pretty well until a lawyer gets their grubby mitts on it.
Click to expand...

Of course, that's lawyers for you*, they're going to do stuff like that. It still doesn't take away that the document explains how to prevent the government from getting too powerful and to keep it in check.

*Ok, it's probably not just lawyers, but people in general. If there's a way to exploit a loophole someone will find it, analyze it, and pick it apart.
 
Joey D
That would be unlawful seizure though and never hold up in the Supreme Court.

If you want rich people out of politics, you need campaign finance reform and to get lobbyists out of Washington. I suspect very few wealthy people want to spend their own money to get elected and would rather spend other people's money. Honestly, I'd like to see elections be capped at some ridiculously low amount and force people to have good ideas in order to get elected instead of just throwing money at it. Lobbyists should probably be thrown into the sun.
Click to expand...
Capping election spending doesn’t stop rich people getting into power, the UK is a prime example of that.

We have limits on campaign spending and still end up with the likes of Boris Johnson.
 
Really thorough analysis here. I learned in this video that Trump was unsuccessfully sued for incitement of a riot once before (in 2016). The video makes a similar case to one I saw before, which is that the "incitement of insurrection" charge is not the right one to bring, but the video also makes a clear case for why that probably doesn't matter. I'd recommend a thorough viewing of this to anyone who is interested in the Trump impeachment. This guy, btw, did an analysis (at least one) on the first Trump impeachment that made it clear that republicans got it wrong in the senate. That was more of a clear-cut legal case than the capitol riot is, despite the capitol riot being a more clear cut political case.



One thing I would have liked to see is whether Trump really does have freedom of speech acting as president, or if he should be held accountable differently when speaking as the president.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
One thing I would have liked to see is whether Trump really does have freedom of speech acting as president, or if he should be held accountable differently when speaking as the president.
Click to expand...
Arguably, anybody with a platform whose opinion is trusted or advice is taken should absolutely be held to a higher standard. Politicians, authority figures, celebrities, etc. The influence these people have over society is undeniable and they've got the power to entice people to act in any way across the spectrum of right and wrong.
 
Keef
Arguably, anybody with a platform whose opinion is trusted or advice is taken should absolutely be held to a higher standard. Politicians, authority figures, celebrities, etc. The influence these people have over society is undeniable and they've got the power to entice people to act in any way across the spectrum of right and wrong.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of distinct issues with these various groups. One is the standard of negligence. If I say to my neighbor that we should fight to take back our country, this is extremely unlikely to result in my neighbor storming the capitol. Not just because of the amount of influence I have over my neighbor, but because my neighbor is one person. If I say to a million people that we should fight to take back our country, that likelihood that it would influence people to storm the capitol is quite a bit higher. And if I say it as someone who is influential, the likelihood goes up. This I think plays into a standard of negligence, and the narrator in the video concludes that it is clear that Trump's behavior is reckless and negligent, regardless of first amendment protections around the specific charge of inciting insurrection.

So there's negligence, and then there's specifically inciting insurrection.

My problem with the presidency doing this specifically is that since the President is in a very high profile position of authority, anything he says can be interpreted to be the official position of the US government. Especially the executive branch. I mean, even I've been directed at times to include "the opinions expressed herein are my own and do not represent those of the company... blah blah". Who among us is not familiar with that disclaimer? That's basically what Trump would need to do "the opinions I'm about to express are not those of the executive branch of the US government". But... how is that possible? You are the executive branch of the US government, at least the highest most authoritative figure in that branch of government. So how exactly do you express an opinion which is not also the official position of the executive?

So when the executive branch tells you to fight to take back your country, this is protected speech? I don't think so. And it should carry significant weight when people hear it as a directive consistent with what their government needs, and what is legal, proper, and required. We're talking about a commander in chief of a military that is capable of drafting civilians directly telling civilians to fight to take back their country. First amendment? Seems.... sketch.
 
Based on the posts previous to this, I have used this quote a lot on GTP but in terms of real talk, can anyone actually challenge it and cite legal precedence since its occurance?

Richard Nixon
When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.
Click to expand...

Technically speaking, Nixon said it in the 1975 Frost interviews after being in office but my point still stands.
 
Last edited:
Liquid
Based on the posts previous to this, I have used this quote a lot on GTP but in terms of real talk, can anyone actually challenge it and cite legal precedence since its occurance?
Click to expand...

It would be tough to find precedent to go against that. 1) it's not clear whether the president can pardon himself. 2) the recourse against the president committing crimes is congress, not the judicial branch. 3) what is the likelihood that a president is going to commit US crimes within the US? Higher than I would have expected, but it's not exactly rampant within the history of the presidency - so we don't have a ton of examples to use.

Nixon was pardoned. Clinton was not (to the best of my knowledge). But his case was not exactly one that I would have expected to see a prosecuted after he left office. All that really leaves is johnson, and his case didn't seem to lend itself to prosecution.

...and then there's Trump. I think the real answer to your questions is that we're probably going to find out.
 
Danoff
I think the real answer to your questions is that we're probably going to find out.
Click to expand...

Assuming an impartial and fair Congress which, unfortunately, I do not think you have and, god forbid, I don't think you ever will have.
 
Last edited:
Liquid
Assuming an impartial and fair Congress which, unfortunately, I do not think you have and, god forbid, I don't think you ever will have.
Click to expand...

Well congress can't really shed any light on your question. Legal means judiciary, not congress (this was a point touched on at the end of that video I posted). If Trump pardons himself, I think we may have a supreme court case which rules on whether the president is effectively above the law. If Pence pardons him, we may be in a Nixon situation, but I think that scenario looks somewhat unlikely at this point.
 
Last edited:
Liquid
Based on the posts previous to this, I have used this quote a lot on GTP but in terms of real talk, can anyone actually challenge it and cite legal precedence since its occurance?


Technically speaking, Nixon said it in the 1975 Frost interviews after being in office but my point still stands.
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer, so you can't legally quote me on this:
Legally, any US president is NOt and CANNOT be above the law, therefore not everything a president does or say can be considered necessarily as legal, in other words, there will be times when the president does or say something that can be considered as illegal...

In short, to answer your question: yes it is possible...

Liquid
Assuming an impartial and fair Congress which, unfortunately, I do not think you have and, god forbid, I don't think you ever will have.
Click to expand...

Just like the conversation/discussion we had on voter fraud in the election thread, ideally we want fraud free election, but realistically we all have to accept election results with the knowledge that improvement will be made in time...

A fair and impartial Justice and Congress is an ideal we all hold ourselves to, but our process will become more robust in time...


Danoff
Well congress can't really shed any light on your question. Legal means judiciary, not congress (this was a point touched on at the end of that video I posted). If Trump pardons himself, I think we may have a supreme court case which rules on whether the president is effectively above the law. If Pence pardons him, we may be in a Nixon situation, but I think that scenario looks somewhat unlikely at this point.
Click to expand...

In regards to trump Pardoning himself, refer to my post #1802 above.

It has been said that since trump has been impeached... (Twice now), he cannot be pardoned, regardless of who does it (him or any subsequent president)...
Can anyone double check and confirm?


trump is truly is a no win situation...
I don't think he can be, or should be pardoned...

Doing it himself is just immortal, regardless of whether the legitimacy of what the president is being charged/accused of...

The founding fathers never thought there would ever be a corrupt president, that's why they never thought of putting a provision to prevent such corrupted/perverse action.


And as you have said how unlikely it would be, for pence to pardon trump (if that is possible), it would mean trump has to resign before Wednesday before Biden becomes officially the new president, overriding both trump/pence...

When is the absolute last chance that they can pull such a trick, during the inauguration before Biden is sworn in ??!
 
Last edited:
Danoff
Nixon was pardoned. Clinton was not (to the best of my knowledge). But his case was not exactly one that I would have expected to see a prosecuted after he left office. All that really leaves is johnson, and his case didn't seem to lend itself to prosecution.
Click to expand...

Confusing. Do you mean: "all that really leaves is his johnson" ... or do you mean: "all that really leaves is Johnson."
 
Tired Tyres
Can he? Would doing so act as an effective admission of guilt?
Click to expand...

Can he? Presumably, yes. Would it be an admission of guilt? No since he hasn't actually been charged with anything. However, in the event Trump was charged, the prosecutor would go nuts with it.
 

Latest Posts

Back