Why Trump's Lawyers Quit. Now he has 2 unique characters representing him. It will be fascinating to see what happens.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2021
(173)
-
▼
February
(16)
- Noem Avoids #1 Death Rate Questions
- The Trump Tax Returns
- If you Can Not Beat China
- Texas GOP Blames Others
- Trump is Guilty but...
- What Biden will do about Migrant Caravans?
- Half of Republicans are Delusional?
- Minimum Wage Consequences
- Noem Fights Will of the People
- The Lies of Biden and Trump
- Ben Sasse Rocks
- Big Checks per Kid?
- Trump's Big Opportunity
- Tax the MN's Rich?
- You Want Me To Say What?
- Where's The Pork?
-
▼
February
(16)
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
20 comments:
Trump certainly has made the impeachment proceeding a lot more interesting than it has to be. He has a perfectly reasonable defense. Since he is out of office, he can't be removed from office which is what impeachment does. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with that view, but it is a reasonable view. It's an argument any lawyer could put forward without violating any ethical norms. With this senate as a jury, it's a sure winner.
Instead, Trump wants to argue things that are untrue, and higher layers to do it. That raises ethical problems for the lawyers. It's why he had such trouble finding lawyers. Trump's preferred course of action brings in all sort of issues, that are embarrassing him while putting Republican senators in the position of having to defend the indefensible.
The irony is that if Republicans are able to do what Trump won't let them do, put Trump behind them and move on, they would almost certainly win back control of one or both houses of Congress in 2022, and be the clear favorite to in the White House in 2024. Just as Trump managed to cost Republicans both senate seats in Georgia, only he is really stopping Republicans from a quick return to power.
--Hiram
Hiram,
I agree that the GOP really has to unload these extremist anchors if they want to win again.
The DEM strategy?
Hiram...if what Trump did is a crime, how should he then be held accountable? It seems a terrible precedent to set that a President can commit high crimes and misdemeanors, after losing a re-election bid, without any consequences.
Moose
Did you see that his new lawyers misspelled “United States” in their legal brief? This trial should be entertaining.
And yes, he is out of office but these charges must have consequences or we give up any pretense of rule of law.
Funny, I thought the "rule of law" was something other than, "hanging first, trial later."
And in any fair court, this case would be dismissed with prejudice, and a severe reprimand of the prosecutor.
That is certainly the case when Trump and His Goons used to scream...
"Lock her up"
"Lock him up"
"People crossing the border illegally are murderers, traffickers, rapists, etc"
In wild abandon... :-)
At least Trump has been legally charged by a lawful authority.
This was completed in a bi-partisan manner.
And he will now have his open trial by the lawful authority.
Unfortunately most of the jurors on both sides are NOT very open minded or impartial. :-(
"open trial" yes. Fair trail, absolutely not, and there is considerable question about "lawful authority."
"When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office"
Trial over before it even starts, in a sane world. Only question now is how many kangaroos can be found among these exalted personages.
"Article II, section 4 provides that officers impeached and convicted “shall be removed from office”; Article I, section 3, clause 7 provides further that “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.” These restrictions on judgment, both of which relate to capacity to hold public office, emphasize the non-penal nature of impeachment, and help to distinguish American impeachment from the open-ended English practice under which criminal penalties could be imposed.853
The plain language of section 4 seems to require removal from office upon conviction, and in fact the Senate has removed those persons whom it has convicted. In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote.854 This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote,855 the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.856"
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
"A bill of attainder is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of persons, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial." --Wikipedia
Obviously Democrats are scared witless of a 2024 Trump run, under new rules for election integrity, and thus the second part of impeachment is their obvious goal. This is not a proper impeachment, and they will fail regardless because of the phony-baloney nature of the "trumped up" charges. Second, if by some magical incantation they accomplish removal from office-- a meaningless result-- history has always required a second vote for "disqualification" and, while that may pass by simple majority rather than two-thirds, it immediately becomes a "bill of attainder" since there was never a judicially proper TRIAL. I don't know why the country puts up with all this sturm und drang kabuki political theater.
Because an immoral politician:
- claimed fraud before the election
- claimed fraud after the election
- thereby angering a bunch of non-thinkers
- claimed to prove his claims in ~60 courts
- encouraged people to fight against the USA
Yeah. Definitely should never be allowed in office again.
Of course, given his popularity is at ~40%. That is probably not a problem.
He fooled some of us once, he will not again. :-)
I don't suppose you have withheld judgment at any point? Just look at everything you have just said-- hanging first, trial later. You are entitled to your opinion on any of them, but that doesn't make any of them worth "impeaching" a private citizen. Why, for example, is he not entitled to HIS opinion on the election? Why is HE responsible for the opinion of millions who saw the fraud with their own eyes? And how do you know his claims have NOT been proven in court? I know of at least 15, and again, many have been dismissed on technicalities, not the merits.
So you were fooled? Whose fault is that? Doesn't that make those who believed a little smarter than you?
I am just stating facts that are readily available to all of us. And my opinion which has no weight anywhere.
I will leave the final verdict to the authorities.
As long as folks like yourself can not admit that Trump Lies often to manipulate the weak minded, I will continue to feel sorry for you. :-(
Thankfully the majority of Americans are willing to face reality.
I really must learn to let you have the last word. Otherwise, you will continue to state as fact that which you cannot prove. You will leave to the authorities that which you usually leave to the opinion polls, neither of which proves anything abut objective truth. And then you will insult half the country, and claim intellectual superiority. Isn't it a lot of work to maintain your fantasies?
Yes this is pointless... You are welcome to your world where Trump is honest and won...
I'll stay in the real world.
OK, does your real world require that Trump be a liar for him to have lost? If the reality is that his "lies" were in fact differences of opinion or negative political propaganda, should he have lost the election? Conversely, is it remotely possible had he won the election (and I am amazed that you have such certainty on this point) would that prove his "lies" did not matter?
And let us test your bias here. Compiling a quick list of Joe Biden's lies prior to his election, should HE have ever been elected, according to the standard you applied to Trump?
Comtinued here
"Otherwise, you will continue to state as fact that which you cannot prove."
Pot, meet kettle.
Moose
Post a Comment