Time to get on the TRUMP train

[sonatine]

trump 2 days ago: us steel is doing great


us steel today: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/busin...ing/index.html

[GrenadaRoger]

so is it possible that the delay in articles transfer from house to senate is because there is a backchannel deal in the works?

Its happened before:
Andrew Johnson cut a deal to appoint a Sec of War that congress republican radicals liked, and thus avoided conviction by the senate; the story taught in your history class that a key senate members had conscious crises that prevented them voting guilty is horseshit--Johnson cut a deal

Trump/Pelosi might be negotiating something right now

[blake]

so is it possible that the delay in articles transfer from house to senate is because there is a backchannel deal in the works?

Its happened before:
Andrew Johnson cut a deal to appoint a Sec of War that congress republican radicals liked, and thus avoided conviction by the senate; the story taught in your history class that a key senate members had conscious crises that prevented them voting guilty is horseshit--Johnson cut a deal

Trump/Pelosi might be negotiating something right now

it's far more likely that the democrats have no actual plan.

if i had to guess, they are negotiating with mitt romney and a couple other GOP senators who might side with the dems, hoping this coalition will have a majority that will try to make it a real trial that would let the prosecution subpoena witnesses

i don't think they'll get enough votes. they may as well just send the articles through and let the senate dismiss them. they've done all they could and had to know how this would play out.

[MumblesBadly]

[GrenadaRoger]

so is it possible that the delay in articles transfer from house to senate is because there is a backchannel deal in the works?

Its happened before:
Andrew Johnson cut a deal to appoint a Sec of War that congress republican radicals liked, and thus avoided conviction by the senate; the story taught in your history class that a key senate members had conscious crises that prevented them voting guilty is horseshit--Johnson cut a deal

Trump/Pelosi might be negotiating something right now

it's far more likely that the democrats have no actual plan.

if i had to guess, they are negotiating with mitt romney and a couple other GOP senators who might side with the dems, hoping this coalition will have a majority that will try to make it a real trial that would let the prosecution subpoena witnesses

i don't think they'll get enough votes. they may as well just send the articles through and let the senate dismiss them. they've done all they could and had to know how this would play out.

that's a good read, and likely most probable

but with Pence as a backup, what to the Demo's gain by removing Trump? I figure a there's some chance that allowing passage of healthcare, sanctuary city, gun control (Demo pet issues) are being asked for/bartered for in return for putting on a weak show trial that will result in Trump retaining office.

[blake]

it's far more likely that the democrats have no actual plan.

if i had to guess, they are negotiating with mitt romney and a couple other GOP senators who might side with the dems, hoping this coalition will have a majority that will try to make it a real trial that would let the prosecution subpoena witnesses

i don't think they'll get enough votes. they may as well just send the articles through and let the senate dismiss them. they've done all they could and had to know how this would play out.

that's a good read, and likely most probable

but with Pence as a backup, what to the Demo's gain by removing Trump? I figure a there's some chance that allowing passage of healthcare, sanctuary city, gun control (Demo pet issues) are being asked for/bartered for in return for putting on a weak show trial that will result in Trump retaining office.

in all seriousness, trump could take the stand and admit to the charges and the senate would never remove him. they've already said this. the senate needs 66 votes in favor of removal. the GOP holds 53 seats alone.

[MumblesBadly]

Historical fact: Some high profile Evangelical Christian leaders have claimed that God unleashes deadly storms to punish people who sin against Him.


Related fact: Southern states are politically dominated by Evangelical Christians who overwhelming and rabidly support Trump.


In the news today: FMCSA issues emergency declaration in 7 southern states
https://www.truckersnews.com/fmcsa-i...uthern-states/

Recent severe weather prompted the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to temporarily suspend some regulations in seven states in the South.

FMCSA issued a Regional Emergency Declaration for Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee in response to severe weather. At least 43 tornadoes were reported causing widespread property destruction, flooding and posing an immediate threat to human life and public welfare.

[JimmyG_415]

Is there anyone, on either side of the fence, that sees a headline like this and doesn't think; must be a Fox "news" viewer.

El Paso 'Mexicans are invading us'
Tree of Life 'Jews are funding the caravan'
This battery acid thing mentioned below...................only one network spewing this garbage, I don't get how Fox "news" is even legal. They should at least have to drop the "news" part. Like Fox "politics" or "opinion". The fact that they are allowed to masquerade as a news organization is just wrong, people die because of their lies.


A woman told police she rammed a teen with her car because the girl was ‘a Mexican’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...mments-wrapper

Franklin reportedly told investigators she’d run over the teenager intentionally because she was “a Mexican”....Venema said Franklin went on to make a “series of derogatory statements about Latinos” after confessing to the crime. The chief said it was now clear that Franklin had made a determination about the girl’s ethnicity before ramming her.



In November, a Latino man from Milwaukee suffered second-degree burns after a stranger hurled acid at him. The victim in that case, Mahud Villalaz, said the attack occurred after 61-year-old Clifton Blackwell approached him, asking: “Why did you come here and invade my country?”

[Daly]

It would be an interesting constitutional moment if he did get removed and subsequently re-elected.

[blake]

It would be an interesting constitutional moment if he did get removed and subsequently re-elected.

if he was convicted in the senate, they would then hold a subsequent vote to determine if he could ever hold public office again, decided by a simple majority.

[MumblesBadly]

While Druff has been diligently looking for a solution to the non-existent voter fraud crisis, his latest idea being a national database of fingerprints for all citizens (Orwellian much???), one of Trump’s election advisers was caught discussing how the GOP, with Team Trump’s guidance, is going to dramatically ramp up voter suppression to help win upcoming elections.

Trump Adviser Caught On Tape: Voter Suppression Key To GOP Battleground Efforts
Justin Clark was recorded at a private event saying: “That’s what you’re going to see in 2020. It’s going to be a much bigger program, a much more aggressive program.”
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5...b0843d35fc2322

[Tellafriend]

It would be an interesting constitutional moment if he did get removed and subsequently re-elected.

if he was convicted in the senate, they would then hold a subsequent vote to determine if he could ever hold public office again, decided by a simple majority.

I've never heard of this. Is it in the Constitution?

[devidee]

DEVELOPING: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court that approved FBI surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page is now investigating several other applications it received from the FBI attorney accused of changing the Page application - The Hill

[DJ_Chaps]

Historical fact: Some high profile Evangelical Christian leaders have claimed that God unleashes deadly storms to punish people who sin against Him.


Related fact: Southern states are politically dominated by Evangelical Christians who overwhelming and rabidly support Trump.


In the news today: FMCSA issues emergency declaration in 7 southern states
https://www.truckersnews.com/fmcsa-i...uthern-states/

Recent severe weather prompted the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to temporarily suspend some regulations in seven states in the South.

FMCSA issued a Regional Emergency Declaration for Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee in response to severe weather. At least 43 tornadoes were reported causing widespread property destruction, flooding and posing an immediate threat to human life and public welfare.

YOUR MENTAL DETERIORATION HAS BEEN AN ASTOUNDING THING TO WITNESS.

[blake]

if he was convicted in the senate, they would then hold a subsequent vote to determine if he could ever hold public office again, decided by a simple majority.

I've never heard of this. Is it in the Constitution?

yeah although weirdly worded:

"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.

Since ratification, four troublesome questions have arisen under this clause. The first was whether the Senate may impose the sanctions of removal and disqualification separately and, if so, how. The Senate claims that it may impose these sanctions by separate votes: (1) removal, involving the ouster of an official from the office he occupies at the time of his impeachment trial, and (2) disqualification barring the person from ever serving again in the federal government. In 1862 and 1913, the Senate took separate votes to remove and disqualify judges West Humphreys and Robert Archbald, respectively. For each judge, a supermajority first voted to convict followed by a simple majority vote to disqualify. The Senate defended this practice on the ground that the clause mentioning disqualification does not specify the requisite vote for its imposition, although Article II, Section 4, mentions removal as following conviction. The Senate in 1862 and 1913 considered that the supermajority requirement was designed as a safeguard against removal that, once satisfied, did not extend to the separate imposition of disqualification.

https://www.heritage.org/constitutio...11/impeachment

[Tellafriend]

I've never heard of this. Is it in the Constitution?

yeah although weirdly worded:

"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.

Since ratification, four troublesome questions have arisen under this clause. The first was whether the Senate may impose the sanctions of removal and disqualification separately and, if so, how. The Senate claims that it may impose these sanctions by separate votes: (1) removal, involving the ouster of an official from the office he occupies at the time of his impeachment trial, and (2) disqualification barring the person from ever serving again in the federal government. In 1862 and 1913, the Senate took separate votes to remove and disqualify judges West Humphreys and Robert Archbald, respectively. For each judge, a supermajority first voted to convict followed by a simple majority vote to disqualify. The Senate defended this practice on the ground that the clause mentioning disqualification does not specify the requisite vote for its imposition, although Article II, Section 4, mentions removal as following conviction. The Senate in 1862 and 1913 considered that the supermajority requirement was designed as a safeguard against removal that, once satisfied, did not extend to the separate imposition of disqualification.

https://www.heritage.org/constitutio...11/impeachment

Big difference bn impeaching a judge and disqualifying him from being an unelected federal judge again and prohibiting someone from running for a constitutional office. I don’t see that passing muster. Not at all.

[devidee]

[MumblesBadly]

Uh, oh. Trump’s recently got himself in trouble with an increasing number of members of the US military.











And Bernie Sanders has the highest amount of campaign donations from members of the military, even Trump.

[Daly]

yeah although weirdly worded:

"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.

Since ratification, four troublesome questions have arisen under this clause. The first was whether the Senate may impose the sanctions of removal and disqualification separately and, if so, how. The Senate claims that it may impose these sanctions by separate votes: (1) removal, involving the ouster of an official from the office he occupies at the time of his impeachment trial, and (2) disqualification barring the person from ever serving again in the federal government. In 1862 and 1913, the Senate took separate votes to remove and disqualify judges West Humphreys and Robert Archbald, respectively. For each judge, a supermajority first voted to convict followed by a simple majority vote to disqualify. The Senate defended this practice on the ground that the clause mentioning disqualification does not specify the requisite vote for its imposition, although Article II, Section 4, mentions removal as following conviction. The Senate in 1862 and 1913 considered that the supermajority requirement was designed as a safeguard against removal that, once satisfied, did not extend to the separate imposition of disqualification.

https://www.heritage.org/constitutio...11/impeachment

Big difference bn impeaching a judge and disqualifying him from being an unelected federal judge again and prohibiting someone from running for a constitutional office. I don’t see that passing muster. Not at all.

Exactly. How can our elected representatives disqualify anyone from consideration for an elected posistion. A hired posistion I can understand.

[blake]

yeah although weirdly worded:

"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.

Since ratification, four troublesome questions have arisen under this clause. The first was whether the Senate may impose the sanctions of removal and disqualification separately and, if so, how. The Senate claims that it may impose these sanctions by separate votes: (1) removal, involving the ouster of an official from the office he occupies at the time of his impeachment trial, and (2) disqualification barring the person from ever serving again in the federal government. In 1862 and 1913, the Senate took separate votes to remove and disqualify judges West Humphreys and Robert Archbald, respectively. For each judge, a supermajority first voted to convict followed by a simple majority vote to disqualify. The Senate defended this practice on the ground that the clause mentioning disqualification does not specify the requisite vote for its imposition, although Article II, Section 4, mentions removal as following conviction. The Senate in 1862 and 1913 considered that the supermajority requirement was designed as a safeguard against removal that, once satisfied, did not extend to the separate imposition of disqualification.

https://www.heritage.org/constitutio...11/impeachment

Big difference bn impeaching a judge and disqualifying him from being an unelected federal judge again and prohibiting someone from running for a constitutional office. I don’t see that passing muster. Not at all.

just saying, this provision has been interpreted by the senate as giving them the ability to disqualify any federal office holder at all. there really is no basis -- from that language -- to argue that the founders didn't intend the "disqualification prong" to apply to presidents. the focus of these articles is about the president. they could have said otherwise, but didn't.

as far as passing muster, it's actually in the constitution itself. who knows though, it's never been tested. (it won't be tested here either, since trump has a 0% chance of getting removed.)