Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by ursidman, Jan 28, 2021.
The poll he was referring to had a sample size of 158,394,605 with a margin of error of 0.00000%.
He is going to have big problems in Georgia.
Trump riled up his supporters for weeks with the big lie Trump won. Then Trump invited all of them to DC on Jan 6, got them more riled up, pointed them towards the Capitol, and directed them to fight like hell. When the House Minority Leader called in a panic to Trump, Trump first lied about Antifa, then sided with the insurrectionists over Congress!
Trump is the rich bully that always gets bailed out of any punishment, and as a result, never learns any important lessons. At best, Trump is a bad insult comic. At worst, Trump nearly single-handedly destroyed American democracy. And the worst part? The Rs covered for Trump, and millions of Americans are upset Trump didn't get the chance to completely destroy the country!
I doubt it goes very far. The case was brought by Fulton County, not the state of Georgia.
The witch hunt is over. This whole trial was nothing but a huge waste of resources as the whole concept of impeaching a President who was already out of office was ridiculous from the start. Adding in the fact that everyone knew the Dems were never ever going to get enough votes to impeach anyway, I guess we should all just be happy the whole charade lasted just five days and didn’t drag on longer.
Trump left office in disgrace and there is no reason why he should still be so far in the heads of so many who opposed him. It’s time for the country to move on but unfortunately it seems like way too many people on both sides are unwilling to do so.
Here is a portion of the statement by Richard Burr (R-NC) (retiring in 2022) about why he voted to convict:
The President promoted unfounded conspiracy theories to cast doubt on the integrity of a free and fair election because he did not like the results. As Congress met to certify the election results, the President directed his supporters to go to the Capitol to disrupt the lawful proceedings required by the Constitution. When the crowd became violent, the President used his office to first inflame the situation instead of immediately calling for an end to the assault.
“As I said on January 6th, the President bears responsibility for these tragic events. The evidence is compelling that President Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection against a coequal branch of government and that the charge rises to the level of high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Therefore, I have voted to convict.
“I do not make this decision lightly, but I believe it is necessary.
“By what he did and by what he did not do, President Trump violated his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Burr doing what I voted for him to do.
. It is always a “witch hunt” when an attempt is made to hold Trump accountable for his crimes. Especially to those who, deep down, support what Trump did. But don’t have the guts to say it. But, Trump was guilty. Even McConnell said it. And Trump was impeached before he left office. And the 14th Amendment provides for a bar from office in majority vote if impeached and convicted. So the constitution plainly allows for a trial after the Officer is out of office. And, in the context of an attempted coup against the results of an election, it would only happen as the officer was leaving office because there would never be the need to do it earlier, at least with respect to subversion of democracy. And, of course another reason the notion you can’t try after the officer leaves office is what happened: the Majority Leader originally scheduled the trial for 1–19, so it would never finish before Trump left office. Which is why the constitution cannot prohibit the trial afterward, because it cannot allow such a dishonest process. But that it the GOP today.
Correct. Vernado Realty Trust. Do you think Trump will get anything near the $800M his share was valued at precovid?
story on Chicago
Judge: Trump's hotel in violation of environmental protection rules (businessinsider.com)
I wrote to thank him. Though his "courage" was likely in large part due to this being his last term - he is out in 2022
probably so but Georgia’s rico statute covers false statements made to state officials so it could get very messy for him, Lindsay and Rudy.
steve Roth is smart as hell. Trump is a minority partner and Roth will squeeze him until it hurts.
I think McConnell's interpretation of the constitution as it pertains to impeachment is the correct one. Keep in mind that the only additional thing a conviction would have brought was ineligibility to run for federal office. But that's highly unlikely anyway for a number of reasons. Furthermore, in addition to the other legal matters facing Trump, he may well be indicted in DC on criminal charges arising out of his actions. Regardless of what some believe, I believe Trump is finished on the American scene. If he's not, it won't be because he wasn't convicted. The democrats accomplished what they needed to accomplish.
i disagree. A president should face Constitutional accountability for everything he does while in office, not just the things they do where time permits an impeachment trial before the next person is inaugurated. The oath doesn’t say “protect defend and uphold the constitution for as long as there’s time for an impeachment trial before my term expires”. Period. End of paragraph. And I’d say the same thing if it was Trump, Obama or Snoopy in office. I don’t interpret these things with a partisan eye.
Removal from office is not the sole remedy for an impeachment conviction. Another remedy conviction triggers Is a potential congressional vote to ban a person from ever running Again for federal office. And as long as you have to convict to trigger downstream remedies that apply only after one leaves office, they shouldn’t still have to be in office to be impeached. That’s simply not a logical interpretation of how this was supposed to work, it was merely a cloak for 43 gutless republicans to hide behind.
He was impeached. The question is whether there was still jurisdiction to have a trial and conviction. Your point is a good one. I just disagree with it. I do share your frustration and wish he had been convicted if for no other reason than to shame him further.
seems to be a former mentor who has had enough
If I had to guess, he won’t get 50% of that. I actually know more about 555 California in SF than the NYC property.
Look at the list of major tenants. None of those brands want anything to do with Trump. Not sure if that gives him more or less leverage.
Vornado is actually an S&P 500 company worth billions. I’d bet on them, as Trump’s brand gets worse everyday. Just glad I didn’t make that deal 10 years ago. Somebody is going to have a rough month.
555 California Street - Wikipedia
I was actually editing my post while you quoted me.
But we disagree on the trial part. It’s a two step process so to allow one but not the other makes absolutely no sense to me. If the House files articles the Senate is obligated to try the case THE NEXT DAY (other than Sunday). .so Mitch’s whole “we were in recess” crap is just that. Crap. It warranted an immediate emergency type hearing. Because that’s what it is when a president fails his oath. An emergency.
See paragraph III below.
Like I said, it was a cloak for gutlessness.
we were in a potential deal with Vornado about 25 years ago. Trump isn’t gonna come close to screwing Steve Roth, not even on his best day, and those days are long behind his sorry, scumbag brand.
I don’t think the logic works. If Trump pulled a pseudo Nixon and resigned, and had Pence pardon him on his last day, then what you are saying is there would be ZERO accountability for a President. Indeed, that would be the “January exception” the House managers were talking about, since there’s no way an impeachment can get through both the house and Senate in just a couple weeks or right before an incoming POTUS is sworn in. Clearly this form of accountability needs to carry through even beyond the term of office, particularly as the House did vote on it while Trump was still in office. So 1/2 of the process was done. It isn’t just about removing him from office - they had the option to strip some of his “former President” trappings, his pension, his secret service detail, among other things.
Impeachment should be a very high bar, but it should also be lower than the criminal standard since we are not talking about taking away his freedom. Trump probably violated a criminal standard here as well, and unlike the Clinton impeachment it wasn’t over an immaterial lie (a material lie is criminal, and immaterial lie is not criminal). I think violating the oath in an egregious manner can be done without it being criminal, you need not have a crime for it to be impeachable. In this instance you actually had both standards met. An egregious violation of the oath of office, and a crime in the way he conducted himself (incitement to riot at minimum if you look at just Jam 6, organized sedition at maximum if you look at his ongoing and coordinated conspiracy leading up to the Jan 6 rally).
Remember, there were Senators in there that voted Yay on conviction Bill Clinton and Nay on Donald Trump. Those clowns scare Pennywise.