Impeach!
-
Constitutionally it can't spill over outside of this term.
Good luck finding that in the constitution. The current plan is to take up the trial in about three months.
And then there would be a constitutional issue. No one knows if you can do that to an ex-President. That could take another 100 days. And there you have it folks Trump dominating a Biden Presidemcy. Sound like people rather fight than govern.
-
-
Maybe I'm the only person who has spoken with and had dinner with actual mobsters. They rarely admit anything. There's a lingo. "We had a 'conversation' with him." "I ran an auto parts business." "A couple of friends of mine had a 'talk' with him and then he changed his mind."
No question that Trump conveys what he wants - but is careful in the words he used.
-
Constitutionally it can't spill over outside of this term.
Good luck finding that in the constitution. The current plan is to take up the trial in about three months.
And then there would be a constitutional issue. No one knows if you can do that to an ex-President. That could take another 100 days. And there you have it folks Trump dominating a Biden Presidemcy. Sound like people rather fight than govern.
And then there would be a constitutional issue. No one knows if you can do that to an ex-President. That could take another 100 days. And there you have it folks Trump dominating a Biden Presidemcy. Sound like people rather fight than govern.
Well, the Senate can just do it. Trump could go to court to try to invalidate it but its not like he can stop them.
But I think in practice Biden will make the call whether he wants to deal with the distraction. And that will really depend on what they find in the investigation. I suspect he won't opt for the distraction if it's going to result in another acquittal. Which means most likely, no trial. Again IMO.
-
-
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
What step did they skip?
Examining evidence.
So you're telling me they didn't examine evidence, or are you saying that you don't like the way they did?
-
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
What step did they skip?
Examining evidence.
So you're telling me they didn't examine evidence, or are you saying that you don't like the way they did?
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
they didn't examine evidence
Exactly. The rush to judgment was so frenzied that they didn't wait for the actual facts to be brought to evidence.
He was impeached early this afternoon.
Sperry tweeted this an hour ago.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Maybe I'm the only person who has spoken with and had dinner with actual mobsters. They rarely admit anything. There's a lingo. "We had a 'conversation' with him." "I ran an auto parts business." "A couple of friends of mine had a 'talk' with him and then he changed his mind."
No question that Trump conveys what he wants - but is careful in the words he used.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
they didn't examine evidence
Exactly. The rush to judgment was so frenzied that they didn't wait for the actual facts to be brought to evidence.
He was impeached early this afternoon.
Sperry tweeted this an hour ago.
-
-
Maybe I'm the only person who has spoken with and had dinner with actual mobsters. They rarely admit anything. There's a lingo. "We had a 'conversation' with him." "I ran an auto parts business." "A couple of friends of mine had a 'talk' with him and then he changed his mind."
No question that Trump conveys what he wants - but is careful in the words he used.
Maybe I'm the only person who has spoken with and had dinner with actual mobsters. They rarely admit anything. There's a lingo. "We had a 'conversation' with him." "I ran an auto parts business." "A couple of friends of mine had a 'talk' with him and then he changed his mind."
No question that Trump conveys what he wants - but is careful in the words he used.
I have not dealt with Chicago or NY guys, but I have with those in a couple other cities and 1% er bikers. Explicit language is not their way. Can’t say I had dinner with them
-
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
He was basically indicted on charges that will now be investigated
A grand jury is convened, agrees that a crime has been committed, and evidence points that a trial should occur. Within hours, evidence comes forward that their decision was based on incorrect evidence.
What should be the course of action?
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead?"
or...
"Er...."
It was 5 business days between the events that led to his impeachment and the revelation of evidence that's potentially exculpatory. And remember this is the FBI investigating; you know how fast they can be.
You're OK with that?
-
Maybe I'm the only person who has spoken with and had dinner with actual mobsters. They rarely admit anything. There's a lingo. "We had a 'conversation' with him." "I ran an auto parts business." "A couple of friends of mine had a 'talk' with him and then he changed his mind."
No question that Trump conveys what he wants - but is careful in the words he used.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
He was basically indicted on charges that will now be investigated
A grand jury is convened, agrees that a crime has been committed, and evidence points that a trial should occur. Within hours, evidence comes forward that their decision was based on incorrect evidence.
What should be the course of action?
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead?"
or...
"Er...."
It was 5 business days between the events that led to his impeachment and the revelation of evidence that's potentially exculpatory. And remember this is the FBI investigating; you know how fast they can be.
You're OK with that?
@george-k George - the articles of impeachment make a sort of "doing X could foreseeably be seen to leading to Y" sort of argument.
The "X" is falsely claiming that the election was stolen. The "Y" is political violence.
I supposed you could argue that they need proof that this is false - but given that Trump had multiple court cases on this you could argue that it's false by default until proven true.
If you read the articles of impeachment (they're short), that's the basic claim.
-
@george-k George - the articles of impeachment make a sort of "doing X could foreseeably be seen to leading to Y" sort of argument.
The "X" is falsely claiming that the election was stolen. The "Y" is political violence.
I supposed you could argue that they need proof that this is false - but given that Trump had multiple court cases on this you could argue that it's false by default until proven true.
If you read the articles of impeachment (they're short), that's the basic claim.
@xenon I get it. The process is political. They can do whatever they want, and they will. I've been hearing all the legal arguments in favor of impeachment ("He incited violence"), but those don't hold water, because, on the face of it, that's a high bar to prove. Fact of the matter is, from a legal standpoint, he did not.
The political question is totally different. If you think that he incited violence, then, sure, go ahead and impeach. I'm questioning the wisdom, not the legality of it. The precedent of "The president did something we think is horrible so we must impeach" with no evidence, no argument, nothing...is scary.
This will happen again, and, as McGurn points out, again and again. The process has been cheapened, and that's sad.
-
@xenon I get it. The process is political. They can do whatever they want, and they will. I've been hearing all the legal arguments in favor of impeachment ("He incited violence"), but those don't hold water, because, on the face of it, that's a high bar to prove. Fact of the matter is, from a legal standpoint, he did not.
The political question is totally different. If you think that he incited violence, then, sure, go ahead and impeach. I'm questioning the wisdom, not the legality of it. The precedent of "The president did something we think is horrible so we must impeach" with no evidence, no argument, nothing...is scary.
This will happen again, and, as McGurn points out, again and again. The process has been cheapened, and that's sad.
@xenon I get it. The process is political. They can do whatever they want, and they will. I've been hearing all the legal arguments in favor of impeachment ("He incited violence"), but those don't hold water, because, on the face of it, that's a high bar to prove. Fact of the matter is, from a legal standpoint, he did not.
The political question is totally different. If you think that he incited violence, then, sure, go ahead and impeach. I'm questioning the wisdom, not the legality of it. The precedent of "The president did something we think is horrible so we must impeach" with no evidence, no argument, nothing...is scary.
This will happen again, and, as McGurn points out, again and again. The process has been cheapened, and that's sad.
I get where you're coming from. It's not an iron-clad chain of logic from his actions to the violence. Without that rock-solid link, this sets a potentially flimsy precedent.
