Should Trump be Impeached <again>

[cubby]

The only constitutional parameters for eligibility are age and natural citizenship, atop which Ohio may have a signature requirement or some such (as the example state). But there's nothing in Article I or Article II that gives the Senate any operant way to determine this for the states.

There are other Constitutional constraints. The number of times you've already served in the office, for instance. Why are you ignoring those other requirements in the Constitution? Setting aside the issue we're discussion, are you not aware that people can only serve two terms as President?

- - - Updated - - -

I think Chuck Schumer would be overjoyed to see Donald Trump try to run as a third party candidate.

Either he gets next to no votes and humiliates himself again...or he takes a significant chunk of the republican vote and ensures Victory for the Democrats.

Holy fuck yes. Donald Trump running as third party would be fantastic.

[Stormdash]

I think Chuck Schumer would be overjoyed to see Donald Trump try to run as a third party candidate.

Either he gets next to no votes and humiliates himself again...or he takes a significant chunk of the republican vote and ensures Victory for the Democrats.

Oh you're absolutely right, the Democrats wouldn't enjoy many things as much as they'd enjoy Trump running as a spoiler.

- - - Updated - - -

There are other Constitutional constraints. The number of times you've already served in the office, for instance. Why are you ignoring those other requirements in the Constitution? Setting aside the issue we're discussion, are you not aware that people can only serve two terms as President?

Seriously? I'm sorry I didn't go to including the explicit term limits added by amendment which by no way change the very politely offered explanation of what the core issues in a case over this would be because you asked. God this board is trash.

[Edge-]

Oh you're absolutely right, the Democrats wouldn't enjoy many things as much as they'd enjoy Trump running as a spoiler.

Which is why they're pushing to impeach him, which has a consequence of preventing him from running in 2024 as a Republican or a spoiler.

Democrats are just playing 32D chess, I guess?

[Witchblade77]

Yes. To prevent him from running for office ever again.

this basically. well that and stop him from getting former president benefits, he has leached too much of the public money already.

[beanman12345]

this basically. well that and stop him from getting former president benefits, he has leached too much of the public money already.

Hell even up to his last day he wanted us to pay for a trip for him to his golf course in Scotland, thank you Scotland for saying "you are not welcome," and saving us that little bit of money after how much he's already frivolously spent and made from our tax money.

[cubby]

Seriously? I'm sorry I didn't go to including the explicit term limits added by amendment which by no way change the very politely offered explanation of what the core issues in a case over this would be because you asked. God this board is trash.

You're the one that led with "[t]he only constitutional parameters for eligibility are age and natural citizenship". I wanted to make sure you had some basic understanding of the Constitution and it's Amendments and how they interact. Since you do have that, could you please go back to my original question:

So how do the Ohio election laws for putting someone on the ballot for President differ than the Constitutional ones? For instance, Obama wanted to run again, he would be Constitutionally ineligible (just as Trump would be if he's convicted in the Senate and barred from running for future office) but could Ohio, as you pointed out above, check their elections and if he meets them let Obama on the ballot?

What, in Ohio's election laws, prevent Obama from being on the ticket? Please use cites, if you can.

- - - Updated - - -

this basically. well that and stop him from getting former president benefits, he has leached too much of the public money already.

That would be very nice to keep him out of those benefits. Since he never really did the job, he really shouldn't receive the benefits. I'm seeing McConnell basically telling GOP Senators to vote their conscience in the upcoming trial.

[anyaka21]

this basically. well that and stop him from getting former president benefits, he has leached too much of the public money already.

my issue, in terms of impeachment now, is that barring him from holding public office again could easily be done by the 14th amendment. Basically bars anyone from running for office if charged in an insurrection, aid or abetted, incited (or something to that effect). Thus it's a simple majority vote. Much, much easier than what's going to happen.

Basically what I mean by this is McConnell is going to start the impeachment trial. The last one took 27 days and they had in interest in expediting that and getting it done. Now McConnell has zero incentive to speed the process up. So this could likely last 2+ months. And if you're gonna try and get the Senate to multitask, when has it ever... Simply put, McConnell needs to start the process early next week or loses the ability to do so when Schumer(?) takes over as Senate Majority leader and then up to him.

Basically what this does is stall Biden and the House from doing absolutely anything until this is over. It would completely derail the Biden 1st 100 days. And at the end of it, then the excuse for not doing anything will be the vaccine rollout is happening, more and more of the economy is opening up, so why do we need stimulus....

Granted, I really hope this scenario is just out there, but the bottom line is McConnell is not a stupid man, more evil genius. Thus, I could most definitely see him stalling this out as long as possible and finding obscure Senate rules and regulations to make it happen.

[Breccia]

After McConnell already made it clear there won't be any Senate business, impeachement or otherwise, before Jan 20th, FOX News has the hypocritical gall to call out Democrats for stalling.

Because hypocrisy is more and more mandatory to have an R next to your name.

[gondrin]

So, Lindsey Graham is proving to be, once again, the sub in the relationship, says that to disqualify Trump for holding office means that he can't be a bottom anymore to a sitting president. Part of that may not be true. You figure out which part.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...?ocid=msedgdhp

Lindsey Graham Says Senate Attempt to Disqualify Trump 'Unconstitutional Act of Political Vengeance'

Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, condemned Democrat-led efforts to convict President Donald Trump and disqualify him from holding elected office in the future, describing the actions as an "unconstitutional act of political vengeance."

The House of Representatives last Wednesday impeached Trump a second time, with 10 GOP lawmakers voting in favor alongside their Democratic colleagues. The impeachment came after the president on January 6 helped incite a violent mob to storm the U.S. Capitol in an effort to overturn the Electoral College victory of President-elect Joe Biden. Trump told his supporters at a demonstration ahead of the riot to "fight like hell" to keep him in office, instructing them to march to the Capitol where lawmakers had convened to certify Biden's win. Five people died in the violence that ensued.

Now the impeachment trial will move to the Senate, although the timeline remains unclear. Some Republican senators have suggested they'd be open to convicting Trump and potentially disqualifying him from running in future elections. Graham, a key ally and defender of the president, on Sunday tweeted a copy of a letter he sent to presumptive Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, criticizing the planned trial.

"The impeachment power exists to protect the Nation from the harm that an incumbent president might inflict upon the Nation were he to remain in office. Not to vindicate political grievances after a president has left office," Graham wrote in the letter.

The South Carolina Republican argued that holding the trial for Trump after he leaves office would defy the Constitution. "The Senate's attempt to disqualify a President from future office who is no longer in office, would be an unconstitutional act of political vengeance, not a righteous constitutional act to protect the Nation by removal of an incumbent president," he said.

Newsweek reached out to press representatives for Schumer for comment but they did not immediately respond.

In an interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday, Graham called the impeachment "insane at every level." He said it would "create further division in the country." Graham also warned Republican colleagues considering supporting Trump's conviction that it would "destroy" the GOP.

Although no Republican senator has publicly said they will support impeachment, several have strongly condemned the president's actions and said he committed impeachable offenses. Current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, sent a letter to GOP colleagues suggesting he was open to supporting Trump's conviction.

"I have not made a final decision on how I will vote and I intend to listen to the legal arguments when they are presented to the Senate," McConnell wrote.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, voiced her support for the House of Representatives' decision to impeach Trump last week.

"On the day of the riots, President Trump's words incited violence, which led to the injury and deaths of Americans—including a Capitol Police officer—the desecration of the Capitol, and briefly interfered with the government's ability to ensure a peaceful transfer of power," Murkowski said. "Such unlawful actions cannot go without consequence and the House has responded swiftly, and I believe, appropriately, with impeachment."

[pathora44]

So, Lindsey Graham is proving to be, once again, the sub in the relationship, says that to disqualify Trump for holding office means that he can't be a bottom anymore to a sitting president. Part of that may not be true. You figure out which part.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...?ocid=msedgdhp

So in the Politico article on Graham's letter frantically fainting over the audacity of the Democrats and Republicans who have actual spines holding Trump responsible for inciting a terrorist attack on our capitol, they bring up a part of Graham's letter that really pisses me off.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...t-trial-460014

In his letter to Schumer, Graham warned the Democratic leader that “proceeding with the spectacle of the impeachment of a former president is as unwise as it is unconstitutional.”

“Where does it all end?” he asked, questioning whether former President Barack Obama should have been impeached and disqualified from seeking future office over his handling of the terrorist attack against Americans in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012, when Republicans had control of the House and Senate.

There you go folks, Lindsey "Ah my GAWD I have the vapors" Graham is being the butteriest of males by bringing back the relic off the shelf, Bengahzi, to attack Obama. Holy shit Graham can you fuck off to where ever your secret pool boy is and just let him play hide the piggly wiggly in the mud hole with you because we all fucking hate you and your bull shit.

[Bodakane]

Trump should have been impeached every goddamned time he broke the law or wiped his ass with the Constitution.

The fact that impeaching him is considered a political move is the positive blood test that proves our country is rotten to its core.

[Kaleredar]

After McConnell already made it clear there won't be any Senate business, impeachement or otherwise, before Jan 20th, FOX News has the hypocritical gall to call out Democrats for stalling.

Because hypocrisy is more and more mandatory to have an R next to your name.

Fox got what they wanted by ousting trump, after he started attacking them directly and threatening to steal away their viewers to his own prospective media agency.

Now it’s back to their same old bullshit of blaming the democrats for everything. They’ve got to help the GOP make ground up for 2022, of course.

[Kathranis]

Alas, Giuliani won't be participating in Trump's impeachment defense as he is, quote, "a witness." By which I think he means "an accomplice."

A shame. One less clown for the clown show.