Jump to content

Trump Impeachment 2: Insurrection Boogaloo


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

McConnell has fucked around and will now find out that what he controlled with an iron fist four years ago has transformed into a hydra. 

He wants his old style of wicked GOPs to return to power, but Trumpists are a totally new hydra head of the hate engine. Cut off the Trumpist head and two new sets of fanged reptile heads will appear in its place and start biting him personally. 

His brand is on its way out. It's now the Trump and Boebert and Gaetz and Gohmert. Malign schizphrenic and powermad ignoramuses carried by a large plurality of racist hate mongers hooked on the rage.

spacer.png

Mitch's best hope is to just survive the ride. He ain't in control.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The point of laying out a mountain of horrifying evidence is not to convict. It’s to make the cowardly Republicans openly betray their country and the truth in broad daylight, with nowhere to hide.

why would they need to hide when they can just be themselves and continue to get reelected?

i've seen zero evidence that their bullshittery has cost them votes.  graham, mcconnell, cornyn, susan collins, they all won going away.  if not for a herculean effort by stacey abrams, mcconnell is still majority leader. 

after 4 years of gargling trump's balls for the world to see, the gop overperformed in 2020, less than a year removed from a slam dunk impeachment case.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously didn’t read it in Joe Pesci’s voice/worldview.  Man card revoked for not having an excruciatingly detailed knowledge of ‘’goodfellas’. 🤓

Edited by Lobo
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

McConnell has fucked around and will now find out that what he controlled with an iron fist four years ago has transformed into a hydra. 

He wants his old style of wicked GOPs to return to power, but Trumpists are a totally new hydra head of the hate engine. Cut off the Trumpist head and two new sets of fanged reptile heads will appear in its place and start biting him personally. 

His brand is on its way out. It's now the Trump and Boebert and Gaetz and Gohmert. Malign schizphrenic and powermad ignoramuses carried by a large plurality of racist hate mongers hooked on the rage.

spacer.png

Mitch's best hope is to just survive the ride. He ain't in control.

I’ll preface this that I’m no political scientist or strategist...

First, I’m happy the trial is delayed and wish it was a bit longer actually  I’m all for swift resolution but my experience with trump is that time won’t be his friend.  New details of malfeasance are starting to emerge.  More importantly I expect being out of the spotlight can only last so long.  And when he does emerge it will be for unwanted reasons.  High on that list, in my estimation, will be attacking the disloyal republicans to try to regain some lost credibility with his most vocal and extreme supporters.  
 

Which brings us to the second point which is the internal conflict of the Republican Party. I assume ideology is important but more important will be who controls the established political machinery.  Third parties are DOA in our system.  Trump is already threatening to form the patriot party.  If a “traditional” republican had to choose I assume they’d prefer that to having the patriot mentality consume the gop and control its political machinery.  Trump / trumpism is a metastasized cancer.  The prognosis for the gop is bad either way but it seems like the choice is between long shot curative regiment or entering hospice.  
 

That said, I expect them to acquit out of cowardice.  Simple logic that they likely lose either way so don’t piss of the crazies.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to say it because it would get people killed but they should turn his Twitter back on. He would absolutely force the Republicans’ hand to either convict him or go all in on for him. It would fracture the party irreparably 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate to say it because it would get people killed but they should turn his Twitter back on. He would absolutely force the Republicans’ hand to either convict him or go all in on for him. It would fracture the party irreparably 

The party won’t fracture. He’s holding it hostage....and they are cowards. They will cave.
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a fan of Teri Kanefield and I found her perspective on this ^^^^^ interesting. I will spoiler the majority for length. It sprang out of a discussion/question on conservatism. We've discussed on Surly conservatism as it relates, or does not(!) with the GOP but this was her take of the party's future based on this question. As she points out in the very last part of her thread, the numbers are an issue.

 

Rest of her take is here:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
You obviously didn’t read it in Joe Pesci’s voice/worldview.  Man card revoked for not having an excruciatingly detailed knowledge of ‘’goodfellas’.

“What do you want from me?” As long as you weren’t claiming Crockett hates Pink Floyd, we good bro.
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I hate to say it because it would get people killed but they should turn his Twitter back on. He would absolutely force the Republicans’ hand to either convict him or go all in on for him. It would fracture the party irreparably 

Yeah and BloU and aggy should rehire Switzer and Slocum again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SIAP but is the Chief going to preside over this impeachment trial?

From USA Today:
Another question that could affect the trial is whether Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts presides. Though the Constitution dictates Roberts would preside over an impeachment trial of a president, as he did during Trump's first trial, it doesn't address the case of a former president – another question that has left constitutional scholars divided.
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 4th_and_18 said:


From USA Today:
Another question that could affect the trial is whether Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts presides. Though the Constitution dictates Roberts would preside over an impeachment trial of a president, as he did during Trump's first trial, it doesn't address the case of a former president – another question that has left constitutional scholars divided.

What are the other options?

Link to post
Share on other sites

“The senate would decide” seems to be the common thinking if Chief Justice Roberts decides he interprets his role as only applying to current president.

And the Senate Majority Leader is the decider.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Soooo Kamala?

I’ve seen that said.  A retired SC judge would be interesting, but not Kennedy. Fuck him.

Souter maybe? Sandra Day is 90 years old.  It’s just those 3. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump playing hardball.

Quote
  • Trump is threatening to create a new political party, reported The Washington Post.

  • He plans to use the Patriot Party as leverage over GOP senators, so they don't convict him in his impeachment trial.

  • Unlike other former presidents, Trump has signaled that he will continue to play an active role in politics.

He's not getting convicted.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, immamac said:

This is exactly why he will be convicted. He doesn't get it, he fucked up big time. Worse than any President ever. He needed to just go away.

He deserves it; however, are there enough R senators with spines to vote for conviction? I doubt it. I have zero faith in Republicans doing the right and hard thing after the last 4 years. The threat of the party being splintered is just the excuse many would probably like for not convicting in the name of party unity. 

Trump can't be trusted and he will turn around and still create the Patriot party, regardless of whether he is convicted or not,  just for the grift opportunities for himself and his family. It will just be an added bonus of revenge if they convict him. 

I hope you are right though. Nothing I would like better than seeing the MAGA tears if he is convicted and barred from future office. Fuck Trump. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jhawkmvp said:

He deserves it; however, are there enough R senators with spines to vote for conviction? I doubt it. I have zero faith in Republicans doing the right and hard thing after the last 4 years. The threat of the party being splintered is just the excuse many would probably like for not convicting in the name of party unity. 

Trump can't be trusted and he will turn around and still create the Patriot party, regardless of whether he is convicted or not,  just for the grift opportunities for himself and his family. It will just be an added bonus of revenge if they convict him. 

I hope you are right though. Nothing I would like better than seeing the MAGA tears if he is convicted and barred from future office. Fuck Trump. 

Only need 51 to convict. Need 2/3 to convict and remove. If he's convicted of insurrection then he cannot serve under the 14th amendment. 

Please read the rule book. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 4th_and_18 said:

“The senate would decide” seems to be the common thinking if Chief Justice Roberts decides he interprets his role as only applying to current president.

i think justice roberts will be too busy presiding over the biden impeachment.  didn't that nutbar from georgia promise that was coming?

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, immamac said:

Only need 51 to convict. Need 2/3 to convict and remove. If he's convicted of insurrection then he cannot serve under the 14th amendment. 

Please read the rule book. 

ok, i've been told that we would need the 2/3 to trigger the future office restriction.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Js1 said:

I’ve seen that said.  A retired SC judge would be interesting, but not Kennedy. Fuck him.

Souter maybe? Sandra Day is 90 years old.  It’s just those 3. 

Tell Thomas to retire so he could do it. He might just do it to help trump, but then Joe gets to fill that spot. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, immamac said:

I may have misunderstood this. Essentially all that needs to happen is he needs to have insurrection stuck to him and that's all that matters. 

i still maintain an eligible trump is best for democrats.

if biden is too old to run again, 2024 could get a little dicey.  we need the right in utter disarray.  an eligible trump almost ensures this. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it right. Worded it poorly. 

2/3 to get a conviction which automatically carries disqualification. 

After that vote they can still vote simple majority just on the disqualifying from holding office again. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Tell Thomas to retire so he could do it. He might just do it to help trump, but then Joe gets to fill that spot. 

He’d just sleep through the whole thing

Link to post
Share on other sites
I read it right. Worded it poorly. 
2/3 to get a conviction which automatically carries disqualification. 
After that vote they can still vote simple majority just on the disqualifying from holding office again. 
I haven't been following all of this as closely lately but I've seen this talked about.

If that's true, is there anything in place to stop a scenario where Rs have the house and senate and impeach (without convicting) then vote to bar a first-term Democratic president from future office? This seems bad.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, immamac said:

I read it right. Worded it poorly. 

2/3 to get a conviction which automatically carries disqualification. 

After that vote they can still vote simple majority just on the disqualifying from holding office again. 

you could be right, but at least 2 surlawyers said otherwise when i asked several days ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing, if the federal government doesn't hold DJT accountable then America is a failed state. Even McConnell knows this. There will be a conviction. 

I'm actually much more worried about expulsion and resignation from Cruz, Hawley and others who have been pushing this agenda as hard or harder than trump himself. It's disgusting.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s 2/3 to get conviction, then simple majority to bar from office. You can’t vote for bar from office without conviction first. 

I can’t find the 17 Republicans needed. Hope I’m wrong 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 I've heard this 51 votes to bar form office, but I am not seeing it here.

U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Clearly, in the section on impeachment it takes 2/3 of the Senate.  If convicted of insurrection by 2/3, he's guilty of insurrection and the 14th amendment kicks in barring him from future office.  

If I'm missing it, I would love someone to point me to the document because I don't think they are getting 2/3.  Too many Republicans seem to be chicken shit.

Edited by PhillyD
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The other scenario, I believe,  is to codify the part of the 14th amendment that created the penalty of never holding office again for insurrection. Then it could play out in courts although not sure if you can retroactively apply the new codification of a current law.  
 

I think they are talking about that more for the Boebert types than Trump, though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

It’s 2/3 to get conviction, then simple majority to bar from office. You can’t vote for bar from office without conviction first. 

I can’t find the 17 Republicans needed. Hope I’m wrong 

This was always my understanding the first vote is for conviction. After that they have a vote on punishment. The punishments can be removal from office, being barred from future office, or both and is simple majority.  But it is a little confusing since removal is out. Seen so many conflicting comments on what will happen.

Edited by Jhawkmvp
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jhawkmvp said:

This was always my understanding the first vote is for conviction. After that they have a vote on punishment. The punishments can be removal from office, being barred from future office, or both and is simple majority.  But it is a little confusing since removal is out. Seen so many conflicting comments on what will happen.

Can we write in gibbets and crows?  Perhaps guillotines?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney, Sasse, Toomey, Collins, Murkowski, 

possibly Mitch as he’s been very critical, but still don’t think he will 

There’s at least 25 hard passes, and probably another 15 who will go with the crowd per usual. I doubt they even get 10 Republicans to switch 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2021 at 1:14 PM, henrygandorf said:

after 4 years of gargling trump's balls for the world to see, the gop overperformed in 2020, less than a year removed from a slam dunk impeachment case.

They loss the House in 2018 and the Senate and the White House in 2020.  The trend ain't good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Romney, Sasse, Toomey, Collins, Murkowski, 

possibly Mitch as he’s been very critical, but still don’t think he will 

There’s at least 25 hard passes, and probably another 15 who will go with the crowd per usual. I doubt they even get 10 Republicans to switch 

Yep. It won’t be close. The GOP is a criminal consortium that supports, both in public and private, domestic terrorism. And they will continue to do so and have it be accepted without much accountability. Welcome to the next few decades. Fun time to be an American. 
 

At least I got to watch Band of Brothers last night and be reminded of what it was like to be a true patriot and good human being. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jhawkmvp said:

This was always my understanding the first vote is for conviction. After that they have a vote on punishment. The punishments can be removal from office, being barred from future office, or both and is simple majority. 

 

10 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Romney, Sasse, Toomey, Collins, Murkowski, 

possibly Mitch as he’s been very critical, but still don’t think he will 

There’s at least 25 hard passes, and probably another 15 who will go with the crowd per usual. I doubt they even get 10 Republicans to switch 

Maybe Romney, Sasse, Toomey and Murkowski. And that’s a BIG maybe. Mitch has played this beautifully. Delaying this until February 8 will allow  enough space and time where R’s will say Trump’s gone why are we even doing this? They’re snakes, I don’t trust any of them. And R’s are a lot better at this than the D’s. 

Edited by Brandywine
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay this is the clearest explanation I could find on what will happen:

Quote

IS TRUMP AUTOMATICALLY BARRED FROM OFFICE IF HE'S CONVICTED?

No, if past is precedent. If the Senate were to convict, lawmakers would take a separate vote on whether to disqualify him from holding future office.

No president has ever been convicted in the Senate and removed from office. But in the case of federal judges who were impeached and removed from office, the Senate has taken a second vote after conviction to determine whether to bar the person from ever holding federal office again.

The bar is lower on that second vote, with only a majority of senators needed to succeed. Then again, because it's never happened before in the case of a president, a court challenge could follow. Frank Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor and author of A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump," said it's his view the lower number of votes makes sense, but it's not crazy to think that it might be challenged if things got to that point.

Another legal issue: It appears that Trump's Senate trial will not even start before Jan. 19, a day before he leaves office. Scholars disagree about whether a former president can even face an impeachment trial in the Senate.

IS THAT THE ONLY WAY TRUMP CAN BE BARRED FROM OFFICE?

Maybe not. In an opinion piece published in The Washington Post on Monday, Yale Law School professor Bruce Ackerman and Indiana University law professor Gerard Magliocca argued that members of Congress have another, perhaps easier, path to barring Trump from office.

They pointed to the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, aimed at preventing people from holding federal office if they are deemed to have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution.

The professors write that if a majority vote of both houses agree that Trump engaged in an act of insurrection or rebellion, then he would be barred from running for the White House again. Only a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress in the future could undo that result.

The sole article of impeachment adopted Wednesday cites that provision of the Constitution and says Trump should be disqualified from holding future office.

TLDR: If convicted by 2/3 of the Senate, he is automatically barred from future office by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.  He has to be convicted to be barred from office, whether automatically in cases related to Section 3, or by majority vote, in other cases, during the punishment vote following conviction. 

Edited by Jhawkmvp
link
Link to post
Share on other sites
I read it right. Worded it poorly. 
2/3 to get a conviction which automatically carries disqualification. 
After that vote they can still vote simple majority just on the disqualifying from holding office again. 
Which me means it ain't happening
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, immamac said:

Only need 51 to convict. Need 2/3 to convict and remove. If he's convicted of insurrection then he cannot serve under the 14th amendment. 

Please read the rule book. 

This is not correct.  Conviction requires 2/3 of the Senate.  Conviction is required for removal from office.  Conviction is also required for the Senate to vote, by simple majority, whether the convicted can hold office.

No one knows what the offhand statement in the 14th Amendment really means.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No one knows what the offhand statement in the 14th Amendment really means.

Seems like they should have thought about it when they wrote it and it was ratified by 2/3 of the states. Damn I hope that’s right, but I’m not looking it up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Patriot Party threat is just that, which is what he does: create threats to give him leverage. “Stand by me or I’ll create a third party that will wreck you electorally.”

The GOP will do what it always does: bow to Trump. The threat will work, and that will give him full and final ownership of the GOP. It’s like some of y’all haven’t been paying any attention to how this relationship works.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...