Acceptable registrations in the queue through May 6 at 7:00p ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Not Enough Evidence to Impeach/Convict Trump
-
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 3:31 am
Re: Not Enough Evidence to Impeach/Convict Trump
I just had a debate with a conservative friend about this issue this evening, and their underlying assumption is whether or not Trump's post-election behavior, as outlined by the Article of Impeachment, crosses the threshold into criminality. I'm not a lawyer/prosecutor, and what I've heard from the Preet Bhararas (to use an anti-Trump example) is that it is a possible, but nonetheless a hard case to make. However, Trump is not being tried in criminal court. This is a political/constitutional court with a completely different set of standards.
No presidential candidate in American history has ever challenged and try nearly as hard to overturn the results of their own election anywhere near as much as Donald Trump. Every candidate is within their rights to ensure that the votes have been properly and fairly counted, but have always respected the decisions of the courts. They never pressured governors, secretaries of state, state legislators, boards of canvassers, and every other potential avenue they could find to overturn the results of the election; especially while simultaneously losing every single legal argument minus one in court. You can argue the scope of what was argued in court, but a lot of that responsibility is on the side of the legal team of Trump's campaign and not on other government officials.
So, that said, the questions I have for members of this board are:
From the standpoint of our norms and original intent dating back to the Founding Fathers, do you believe that Donald Trump's post-election behavior upholds the oath he took to the Constitution? If so, could you explain how (in terms of principle)? If not, what is the appropriate form of accountability for Trump or any other future transgression on this scale?
No presidential candidate in American history has ever challenged and try nearly as hard to overturn the results of their own election anywhere near as much as Donald Trump. Every candidate is within their rights to ensure that the votes have been properly and fairly counted, but have always respected the decisions of the courts. They never pressured governors, secretaries of state, state legislators, boards of canvassers, and every other potential avenue they could find to overturn the results of the election; especially while simultaneously losing every single legal argument minus one in court. You can argue the scope of what was argued in court, but a lot of that responsibility is on the side of the legal team of Trump's campaign and not on other government officials.
So, that said, the questions I have for members of this board are:
From the standpoint of our norms and original intent dating back to the Founding Fathers, do you believe that Donald Trump's post-election behavior upholds the oath he took to the Constitution? If so, could you explain how (in terms of principle)? If not, what is the appropriate form of accountability for Trump or any other future transgression on this scale?
I'm here for a good, hearty debate, to agree and disagree respectfully, and commiserate on the current state of terrestrial radio.
Re: Not Enough Evidence to Impeach/Convict Trump
Absolutely not. His penalty clearly must be a ban from future office holding. Nobody imagined a 6 year old being elected president. If they had known that the electoral college would do this I doubt it would be there. They believed in the value of a peaceful transition.jadednihilist wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:23 pmI just had a debate with a conservative friend about this issue this evening, and their underlying assumption is whether or not Trump's post-election behavior, as outlined by the Article of Impeachment, crosses the threshold into criminality. I'm not a lawyer/prosecutor, and what I've heard from the Preet Bhararas (to use an anti-Trump example) is that it is a possible, but nonetheless a hard case to make. However, Trump is not being tried in criminal court. This is a political/constitutional court with a completely different set of standards.
No presidential candidate in American history has ever challenged and try nearly as hard to overturn the results of their own election anywhere near as much as Donald Trump. Every candidate is within their rights to ensure that the votes have been properly and fairly counted, but have always respected the decisions of the courts. They never pressured governors, secretaries of state, state legislators, boards of canvassers, and every other potential avenue they could find to overturn the results of the election; especially while simultaneously losing every single legal argument minus one in court. You can argue the scope of what was argued in court, but a lot of that responsibility is on the side of the legal team of Trump's campaign and not on other government officials.
So, that said, the questions I have for members of this board are:
From the standpoint of our norms and original intent dating back to the Founding Fathers, do you believe that Donald Trump's post-election behavior upholds the oath he took to the Constitution? If so, could you explain how (in terms of principle)? If not, what is the appropriate form of accountability for Trump or any other future transgression on this scale?
-
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 3:31 am
Re: Not Enough Evidence to Impeach/Convict Trump
To Trump's credit, he did leave the White House on his own volition and did so peacefully. However, whether or not Trump truly committed to the peaceful transfer of power hinges on how much you attribute his behavior towards the events on January 6th. January 6th was considered an insurrection attempt by US government officials before Biden was sworn into office, so I view that to point to be nonpartisan, and thus, by definition, nullifies that the transition of power was peaceful.
I'm here for a good, hearty debate, to agree and disagree respectfully, and commiserate on the current state of terrestrial radio.
Re: Not Enough Evidence to Impeach/Convict Trump
That means not throwing a fit all the way to the end of the earth a back once you’ve lost. Sometimes you lose... in the case of a party with no platform it’s more often than not.
Re: Not Enough Evidence to Impeach/Convict Trump
i was being facetious my man.Rate This wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:31 pmThe time lapse shows everyone moving in a matter of minutes... they don’t all move at once.Neckbeard wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:19 pmEveryone leaves an event and arrives at an event at the exact same time! Everyone left at exactly 12:30! Everyone was involved in overwhelming at exactly 12:53! No one left early or arrived late!Rate This wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:11 pmYou haven’t seen the really cool cell phone location time lapse have you?km1125 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:01 pmEnded at 1, you say?
From a quick search:
12:30 p.m.: Crowds of pro-Trump supporters gather outside the U.S. Capitol building.
12:53 p.m.: Rioters overwhelm police along the outer perimeter west of the Capitol building,
Subtract out the time it would take to make it through the crowds and get down to the Capitol, and how much earlier would they have to have left the rally? Most of those folks didn't look like very good sprinters either.
That's how it works!
-
- Posts: 2778
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:05 am
Re: Not Enough Evidence to Impeach/Convict Trump
Anybody care to guess the LONG TERM psychological damages to our congressional lawmakers and others inside the capitol that day - who intensely feared they were about to be violently killed?
They spent hours as hostages - knowing the RARE fear - that they surely were about to suffer violent deaths.
That means they are now suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - it’s short term disturbing effects - and as time goes on - it’s severe long term effects.
We’ve all read about or watched stories documenting PTSD symptoms suffered by Vietnam War veterans. All of those same symptoms will soon begin to torture these PTSD victims.
Their loved one’s lives will also be impacted as these victims are ravaged by the long term symptoms of PTSD.
They spent hours as hostages - knowing the RARE fear - that they surely were about to suffer violent deaths.
That means they are now suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - it’s short term disturbing effects - and as time goes on - it’s severe long term effects.
We’ve all read about or watched stories documenting PTSD symptoms suffered by Vietnam War veterans. All of those same symptoms will soon begin to torture these PTSD victims.
Their loved one’s lives will also be impacted as these victims are ravaged by the long term symptoms of PTSD.
Re: Not Enough Evidence to Impeach/Convict Trump
Funny. You never seemed to concerned about the lasting effects of the people affected by the riots in Baltimore, Portland, Seattle, Denver and various other cities where BLM and ANTIFA burned business's and killed people and the political leaders let it happen unabated.
History Check...
In 1974, Richard Millhouse Nixon was loathed by the left as well as the majority of the American population. His level of unpopularity was at a higher level than that of Donald John Trump today. He committed actual crimes. Crimes for which there was a plethora of evidence.
Did he get impeached? Did they have a trial in the United States Senate? No. Why? He resigned and wasn't President anymore.
History Check...
In 1974, Richard Millhouse Nixon was loathed by the left as well as the majority of the American population. His level of unpopularity was at a higher level than that of Donald John Trump today. He committed actual crimes. Crimes for which there was a plethora of evidence.
Did he get impeached? Did they have a trial in the United States Senate? No. Why? He resigned and wasn't President anymore.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
- Lester The Nightfly
- Posts: 1757
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:19 pm
Re: Not Enough Evidence to Impeach/Convict Trump
Hmmm...that's odd; I don't seem to recall Trump being forcibly hauled out of the White House on his last day.
Well then, he surely has earned a God damn cookie for doing what he was supposed to do...To Trump's credit, he did leave the White House on his own volition and did so peacefully.
Re: Not Enough Evidence to Impeach/Convict Trump
They Impeached Trump WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT. It doesn’t say “null and void when term expires” anywhere. He was also pardoned.Bryce wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 8:50 amFunny. You never seemed to concerned about the lasting effects of the people affected by the riots in Baltimore, Portland, Seattle, Denver and various other cities where BLM and ANTIFA burned business's and killed people and the political leaders let it happen unabated.
History Check...
In 1974, Richard Millhouse Nixon was loathed by the left as well as the majority of the American population. His level of unpopularity was at a higher level than that of Donald John Trump today. He committed actual crimes. Crimes for which there was a plethora of evidence.
Did he get impeached? Did they have a trial in the United States Senate? No. Why? He resigned and wasn't President anymore.
Re: Not Enough Evidence to Impeach/Convict Trump
It also doesn't say " Conviction of The Ex President"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.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Not Enough Evidence to Impeach/Convict Trump
Touché.
- Robert Faygo
- Posts: 730
- Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2020 5:26 pm
- Location: Van Down By The River
- Contact:
Re: Not Enough Evidence to Impeach/Convict Trump
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
Which, in my opinion, is the relevant part of the Constitution that this impeachment trial is addressing. No one is trying to remove him from office.No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Wellllll... la de frickin da
Re: Not Enough Evidence to Impeach/Convict Trump
Exactly. It’s about barring from future office. Aside from Johnathan “I’ve lost contact with reality” Turley and a few others this all looks kosher to most.Robert Faygo wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:30 pmSection 3 of the 14th Amendment
Which, in my opinion, is the relevant part of the Constitution that this impeachment trial is addressing. No one is trying to remove him from office.No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Re: Not Enough Evidence to Impeach/Convict Trump
But that's the punishment - removal from office.Robert Faygo wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:30 pmSection 3 of the 14th Amendment
Which, in my opinion, is the relevant part of the Constitution that this impeachment trial is addressing. No one is trying to remove him from office.No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
And you can't issue the second punishment (ie, disqualification from future office-holding) without the removal happening first.Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.