Impeachment

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Kinkster90210

I think the Trump empire is headed towards bankruptcy - who on earth would do business with them now? - and Trump and sons won't have a pot to piss in.

Forbes editor issues warning to companies intending to hire Trump press secretaries: 'We'll assume everything you talk about is a lie'


https://www.businessinsider.com/dont...ses-2021-1?amp

In the article titled 'A Truth Reckoning: Why We're Holding Those Who Lied For Trump Accountable,' Lane reflected on the lies that spurred rioters to ransack the US Capitol building.

The easiest way for American democracy to recover from the insurrection, he wrote, is to "create repercussions for those who don't follow the civic norms."

.....

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Thank you too eccieuser. Why we often don't agree, your posts are interesting, and every time I've taken the time to watch one of your videos I've either been very entertained. Or learned something, even though I may disagree with what's said.

Yes a Reaganite, proud to wear the mantle, although not necessarily a little right of center. More like firmly right of center on economic issues, and firmly left of center on some issues like prostitution, drugs, and criminal justice reform (although more and more Republicans are on the right side of that last one now).

Thanks for the big Tiny. I've gotten tired of reading Tiny in Redhot et al's posts.

I'm sorry none of my videos have been a waste of your time.

[eccieuser9500]

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I'm sorry none of my videos have been a waste of your time.

Redhot needs to take lessons in how to pick entertaining videos from you.

[eccieuser9500]

Das wut ime sain homie!






Influence.

[Kinkster90210]

Originally Posted by Tsmokies

I totally agree kinkster. Baron is another example of collateral damage caught up in the corruption of the trump cartel cult. Maybe his mom will grow a pair and save her child even though she is corrupt as fuck.

Melania is not corrupt.

She is, in fact, rather apolitical. She had chosen to stay out of the limelight instead of doing all of the ridiculous PR stuff that First Ladies do. Unfortunately, she couldn't stay out of all of it, but she did a lot to protect and raise Barron.

Even now, she is out of the limelight while the storm rages around her idiot husband.

I've never understood the role of First Lady anyway. When you engage in politics, you necessarily open yourself up for criticism - some deserved, much of it not. But that is as it should be. You cannot advocate for policy and then say that no one can criticize you because you are first lady.

But there are people out there who pathologically hate First Ladies - simply for their association with their husbands.

Michelle Obama, Laura Bush, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush all have psychotic haters. Even when they die, people make vicious posts about them.

I was tempted to throw Hillary Clinton in there, but I think she should be an exception.

She was explicitly political and seeking power from the day Bill got sworn in. As many of you may recall, she took a crack at creating a national healthcare system during Bill's first term. And she did so in secrecy (!) so as to avoid criticism and forestall political opposition.

You cannot be an unelected official trying to surreptitiously take control of 18% of the US economy and not escape criticism.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Tiny

The problem is that 139 out of 204 House Republicans objected to the electoral vote count in Pennsylvania and/or Arizona. This is incredible in my view. They're in between a rock and a hard place. Either they lose support from remaining Trump supporters, or they lose support from people like you and me. My Representative was among the 139. I contemplated sending him a campaign donation about six months ago. Glad I didn't and that will never happen now. I'll be voting for the Libertarian going forward unless the Democrats come up with a candidate like Joe Manchin.

Despite that, I'd rather see Republicans in control than Democrats, because of Democratic Party policies on oil and gas and taxes.

As to Trump taking bankruptcy, I don't think that's going to happen UNLESS he gets wiped out through the court system, through lawsuits and the like. Bloomberg appears to have a reasonably good handle on his assets and liabilities, and from that he looks solvent.

Have you done the math Tiny? Even if Penn. and Arizona had their electors tossed, Biden would still win meaning that no Senator expected to over turn the election. I wonder how many Americans understand that? I wonder how many on this board understand that?


The purpose of the debate, at least on the part of Hawley and Cruz was to raise awareness that irregularities, not massive fraud, occurred in those two states. What they wanted knowing full well that Mike Pence didn't have the Constitutional authority to throw out electors and Biden would still win, was to create a movement on election reform.


But trying to make such a fine point is what Sara Palin would call, "trying to put lipstick on a pig". It ain't gonna work and they should have known better.

[winn dixie]

russia russia russia

[HedonistForever]

Rather than start a new thread, this was raised tonight by at least 3 former Federal Prosecutor's confirming what I have been saying. While it is true that you can impeach a President without proving a crime, you could not prove a case of inciting insurrection in a court of law. While that doesn't matter to some people, it matters to anybody that believes our laws are the bedrock of our democracy.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-trum...nt-11610303966


No, Trump Isn’t Guilty of Incitement

Inflaming emotions isn’t a crime. The president didn’t mention violence, much less provoke it.

House Democrats have drafted an article of impeachment that accuses President Trump of “incitement to insurrection.” Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin said Thursday that his office is “looking at all actors here and anyone that had a role” in the Capitol riot. Some reporters have construed that as including Mr. Trump.

The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname “protester prosecutor” from the antiwar group CodePink. In one trial, I convicted 31 protesters who disrupted congressional traffic by obstructing the Capitol Crypt. In another, I convicted a CodePink activist who smeared her hands with fake blood, charged at then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a House hearing room, and incited the audience to seize the secretary of state physically. In other cases, I dropped charges when the facts fell short of the legal standard for incitement. One such defendant was the antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan.

Hostile journalists and lawmakers have suggested Mr. Trump incited the riot when he told a rally that Republicans need to “fight much harder.” Mr. Trump suggested the crowd walk to the Capitol: “We’re going to cheer on brave senators and congressmen and -women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.”

In the District of Columbia, it’s a crime to “intentionally or recklessly act in such a manner to cause another person to be in reasonable fear” and to “incite or provoke violence where there is a likelihood that such violence will ensue.” This language is based on Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), in which the Supreme Court set the standard for speech that could be prosecuted without violating the First Amendment. The justices held that a Ku Klux Klan leader’s calls for violence against blacks and Jews were protected speech. The court found that Clarence Brandenburg’s comments were “mere advocacy” of violence, not “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action . . . likely to incite or produce such action.”

If you care to read Brandenburg VS Ohio

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-ohio#:~:text=In%20Brandenburg% 20v.,incite%20“imminent%20lawl ess%20action.”

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

While it is true that you can impeach a President without proving a crime, you could not prove a case of inciting insurrection in a court of law.

That's why they are separate. An impeachment is done in the Legislature. Not the Judiciary.

[eccieuser9500]

Here's a question: If the president's Cabinet keeps dwindling down to only his loyalists, then how can a majority move to invoke the 25th Amendment? The more that resign, the less likely for it to happen.

[1blackman1]

I think that’s part of the strategy.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I think that’s part of the strategy.

No shit, right? No offense intended.

[1blackman1]

Didn’t take any

[eccieuser9500]

Pence has until 9am Eastern to do the right thing. If he can't sell it to the majority of the President's Cabinet, Nancy comes down with the hammer.