Jump to content

Hookah Horns

Full Members
  • Posts

    2510
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hookah Horns

  1. Thanks. His reasoning and argument are remarkably dumb and flimsy, especially for a former federal appellate judge with a strong rep for analysis (per wiki). His argument is: the constitution allows for two punishments following impeachment and conviction, and one of those isn't applicable in this situation, therefore it's unconstitutional to hold a trial here. His unstated premise is that the constitution conditions the ban punishment on the execution of the removal from office punishment. But the constitution says no such thing. I'd like to see what he'd say to what I wrote above about avoiding the ban punishment by simply resigning. There's just no way that's what the founders intended.
  2. I agree it's a shame he lacked the balls, but I don't think it would have saved any grief.
  3. I had the same thought about stamina recently, but then I remembered he hardly did any actual work during his term and primarily golfed, watched cable news, and tweeted. Hopefully he'll do us all a favor and die before 2024.
  4. Well, I didn't mean they wouldn't because it would be the right thing to do. I meant because it would be against their own interest. But I suppose you might be saying you can't count on them to act in their own best interest, either, which I won't argue.
  5. I didn't know people were making this argument. It makes no sense to me that the founders would give the senate the power to ban someone from holding office but intend for it to be avoidable simply by resigning prior to the vote. It makes even less sense when you consider that the president is necessarily already removed from office (by impeachment conviction) at the time the senate votes on the ban. The argument would make slightly more sense to me if the impeachment by the House came after the expiration of the president's term, which obviously isn't the case here.
  6. Still cracks me up that that bitch promised to never tell a lie on day 1. Which of course was a lie in itself.
  7. She's almost as big a cunt as dotard. Giving no fucks is cool and all, but only to a certain point. Past that point, you're just a cunt.
  8. Not that dumb of a question. Practically speaking, it's a party thing. They're not going to nominate someone who can't hold the office. But if they did, and he somehow won, the courts would enjoin him from getting transition funds etc. and from taking office. It's real and doesn't really need to be tested. It's black letter law.
  9. Definitely not. The law used to be that impeached and convicted/removed presidents lost SS protection, but a few years ago that was changed. This article is apparently just talking about the pension. Only the sitting president should be called Mr. President. Do people commonly address former presidents that way?
  10. He's not doing anything altruistic. He's just a shrewd motherfucker who realizes the danger of Trumpism to the GOP. He probably was planning on breaking from Trump once he left office even before the election tantrum and 1/6.
  11. The quote on this guy's Twitter page is rich: “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” -Thomas Jefferson
  12. 6 hours until pig dick is out of our house forever.
  13. "Drain the swamp" has been exposed as a farce looong before this, but this is a fitting bow to wrap it all up.
  14. No Ross Ulbricht. So fucking lame. I'm sure he had more support for clemency than most of the people who received it. He absolutely deserved to go to prison, but not for the rest of his life. I can't imagine how crushing it must be to be in prison for life, get your hopes up for a commutation, and find out you're not getting it, but remorseless dirtbags like Bannon did.
  15. I don't believe it. There's no way he'd call it anything other than the Trump Party.
  16. Could probably avoid this risk just by scanning and emailing the pardon to the pardonee.
  17. Your old understanding was a lot better. There was a lot of bastardization of norms and ignoring the law during the last 4 years, but I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about here.
  18. Pretty clear that dotard wants the attention on him and his last minute pardon tomorrow. He is such a pathetic waste of carbon.
  19. Nixon's pardon didn't. I don't think the requisite particulars of a pardon have been definitively resolved by the court. Also, I don't think the article jibes with your distillation of it. The WH counsel is saying not to pardon them unless the crime is specified. I'm not quite sure why they think a blanket pardon would be a problem, but it probably has to do with civil liability.
  20. Shit will turn into a sunni/shia style schism lickity split. And it'll probably similarly be over who is the rightful successor to their prophet.
×
×
  • Create New...