News shows are slow to report on this.
Their Sunday scripts were set.
Their Sunday scripts were set.
Does the Senate have a Public Defender?concordtom said:
Trump entire lawyer team quits.
Arguing over how to proceed.
I can't wait to watch Republicans acquit him.
Total sh show.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/donald-trumps-entire-legal-team-041610892.html
The law firm of Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe!dimitrig said:
Never fear, Trump has a new lawyer.
concordtom said:
WHAT HAPPENS IF TRUMP'S ACQUITTED?
The likelihood of Trump's acquittal worries some senators, who fear the consequences for the country. Some have floated the possibility of censuring Trump after the trial to ensure that he is punished in some way for the riot.
But there also may be another way for Congress to bar Trump from holding future office.
In an opinion piece published last month in The Washington Post, Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman and Indiana University law professor Gerard Magliocca suggested Congress could turn to a provision of the 14th Amendment that is aimed at preventing people from holding federal office if they are deemed to have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the Constitution.
The professors wrote 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 chamber of Congress in the future could undo that result.
concordtom said:
Okay, you made me laugh, but...
Read more closely.
Half in each chamber.
That's a done deal, buddy.
Anarchistbear said:concordtom said:
Okay, you made me laugh, but...
Read more closely.
Half in each chamber.
That's a done deal, buddy.
So they are going to acquit him on incitement in the impeachment then are going to convict him of incitement. That's not how this works.,Tom and it would be a disaster for all of it did. Congress doesn't decide who can run or not run for President
bearister said:
Majority of Americans say Trump should be convicted, barred from holding federal office in impeachment trial: POLL - ABC News
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-americans-trump-convicted-barred-holding-federal-office/story?id=75729878
concordtom said:bearister said:
Majority of Americans say Trump should be convicted, barred from holding federal office in impeachment trial: POLL - ABC News
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-americans-trump-convicted-barred-holding-federal-office/story?id=75729878
Majority of Americans would like to see Trump buried at sea after suffering a heart attack.
as most here already knows the author is..bearister said:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/07/trump-senate-impeachment-trial-republicans-robert-reich
I don't believe that is accurate and frankly, I don't want it to be. You have to find the first before you can find the second. I believe if he were convicted either in the Senate or in a normal criminal trial they can do that. I don't think they can just vote that they think he is guilty of insurrection.concordtom said:Anarchistbear said:concordtom said:
Okay, you made me laugh, but...
Read more closely.
Half in each chamber.
That's a done deal, buddy.
So they are going to acquit him on incitement in the impeachment then are going to convict him of incitement. That's not how this works.,Tom and it would be a disaster for all of it did. Congress doesn't decide who can run or not run for President
2/3rds on the first, fail
50.1% on the second, pass.
Dems pulling the GOP's weight.
GOP in private says Thank You, publicly calls them radical socialists.
OaktownBear said:I don't believe that is accurate and frankly, I don't want it to be. You have to find the first before you can find the second. I believe if he were convicted either in the Senate or in a normal criminal trial they can do that. I don't think they can just vote that they think he is guilty of insurrection.concordtom said:Anarchistbear said:concordtom said:
Okay, you made me laugh, but...
Read more closely.
Half in each chamber.
That's a done deal, buddy.
So they are going to acquit him on incitement in the impeachment then are going to convict him of incitement. That's not how this works.,Tom and it would be a disaster for all of it did. Congress doesn't decide who can run or not run for President
2/3rds on the first, fail
50.1% on the second, pass.
Dems pulling the GOP's weight.
GOP in private says Thank You, publicly calls them radical socialists.
Do you really want a party to be able to say "we hold both houses of congress. we think the presidential nominee of the other party is a socialist/fascist and that is close enough to insurrection, so we vote that he can't be president."?
We have to govern after Trump. We can't respond to everything Trump has done by causing more problems.
I saw it. I think they are wrong.concordtom said:OaktownBear said:I don't believe that is accurate and frankly, I don't want it to be. You have to find the first before you can find the second. I believe if he were convicted either in the Senate or in a normal criminal trial they can do that. I don't think they can just vote that they think he is guilty of insurrection.concordtom said:Anarchistbear said:concordtom said:
Okay, you made me laugh, but...
Read more closely.
Half in each chamber.
That's a done deal, buddy.
So they are going to acquit him on incitement in the impeachment then are going to convict him of incitement. That's not how this works.,Tom and it would be a disaster for all of it did. Congress doesn't decide who can run or not run for President
2/3rds on the first, fail
50.1% on the second, pass.
Dems pulling the GOP's weight.
GOP in private says Thank You, publicly calls them radical socialists.
Do you really want a party to be able to say "we hold both houses of congress. we think the presidential nominee of the other party is a socialist/fascist and that is close enough to insurrection, so we vote that he can't be president."?
We have to govern after Trump. We can't respond to everything Trump has done by causing more problems.
Don't take my word for it; I'm not a legal scholar.
Scroll up to the original post I made about it and Google the authors for the article.
Here's a similar one:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-11/trump-2024-president-may-be-ineligible-after-u-s-capitol-riot
So even he knows his whole piece is a bunch of academic navel gazing. There is no way that the Supreme Court upholds the concept that the Congress can just disqualify someone. To say they err on the side of letting voters decide is an understatement in the extreme.Quote:
In practice, it's unlikely that a court would be prepared to disqualify a former president from running for office again. But it's a close issue and one the Supreme Court may have to take up if Trump announces a 2024 candidacy.
OaktownBear said:I don't believe that is accurate and frankly, I don't want it to be. You have to find the first before you can find the second. I believe if he were convicted either in the Senate or in a normal criminal trial they can do that. I don't think they can just vote that they think he is guilty of insurrection.concordtom said:Anarchistbear said:concordtom said:
Okay, you made me laugh, but...
Read more closely.
Half in each chamber.
That's a done deal, buddy.
So they are going to acquit him on incitement in the impeachment then are going to convict him of incitement. That's not how this works.,Tom and it would be a disaster for all of it did. Congress doesn't decide who can run or not run for President
2/3rds on the first, fail
50.1% on the second, pass.
Dems pulling the GOP's weight.
GOP in private says Thank You, publicly calls them radical socialists.
Do you really want a party to be able to say "we hold both houses of congress. we think the presidential nominee of the other party is a socialist/fascist and that is close enough to insurrection, so we vote that he can't be president."?
We have to govern after Trump. We can't respond to everything Trump has done by causing more problems.
bearister said:
"The crux of the problem is Americans now occupy two separate worlds a fact-based pro-democracy world and a Trump-based authoritarian one....
....The goal is not to "cancel" the political right but to refocus public deliberation on facts, truth and logic. Democracy cannot thrive where big lies are systematically and repeatedly exploited for commercial gain." Robert Reich
Okay, fine. Let him run again.OaktownBear said:I saw it. I think they are wrong.concordtom said:OaktownBear said:I don't believe that is accurate and frankly, I don't want it to be. You have to find the first before you can find the second. I believe if he were convicted either in the Senate or in a normal criminal trial they can do that. I don't think they can just vote that they think he is guilty of insurrection.concordtom said:Anarchistbear said:concordtom said:
Okay, you made me laugh, but...
Read more closely.
Half in each chamber.
That's a done deal, buddy.
So they are going to acquit him on incitement in the impeachment then are going to convict him of incitement. That's not how this works.,Tom and it would be a disaster for all of it did. Congress doesn't decide who can run or not run for President
2/3rds on the first, fail
50.1% on the second, pass.
Dems pulling the GOP's weight.
GOP in private says Thank You, publicly calls them radical socialists.
Do you really want a party to be able to say "we hold both houses of congress. we think the presidential nominee of the other party is a socialist/fascist and that is close enough to insurrection, so we vote that he can't be president."?
We have to govern after Trump. We can't respond to everything Trump has done by causing more problems.
Don't take my word for it; I'm not a legal scholar.
Scroll up to the original post I made about it and Google the authors for the article.
Here's a similar one:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-11/trump-2024-president-may-be-ineligible-after-u-s-capitol-riot
As for this one, his last paragraph is:So even he knows his whole piece is a bunch of academic navel gazing. There is no way that the Supreme Court upholds the concept that the Congress can just disqualify someone. To say they err on the side of letting voters decide is an understatement in the extreme.Quote:
In practice, it's unlikely that a court would be prepared to disqualify a former president from running for office again. But it's a close issue and one the Supreme Court may have to take up if Trump announces a 2024 candidacy.
concordtom said:Okay, fine. Let him run again.OaktownBear said:I saw it. I think they are wrong.concordtom said:OaktownBear said:I don't believe that is accurate and frankly, I don't want it to be. You have to find the first before you can find the second. I believe if he were convicted either in the Senate or in a normal criminal trial they can do that. I don't think they can just vote that they think he is guilty of insurrection.concordtom said:Anarchistbear said:concordtom said:
Okay, you made me laugh, but...
Read more closely.
Half in each chamber.
That's a done deal, buddy.
So they are going to acquit him on incitement in the impeachment then are going to convict him of incitement. That's not how this works.,Tom and it would be a disaster for all of it did. Congress doesn't decide who can run or not run for President
2/3rds on the first, fail
50.1% on the second, pass.
Dems pulling the GOP's weight.
GOP in private says Thank You, publicly calls them radical socialists.
Do you really want a party to be able to say "we hold both houses of congress. we think the presidential nominee of the other party is a socialist/fascist and that is close enough to insurrection, so we vote that he can't be president."?
We have to govern after Trump. We can't respond to everything Trump has done by causing more problems.
Don't take my word for it; I'm not a legal scholar.
Scroll up to the original post I made about it and Google the authors for the article.
Here's a similar one:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-11/trump-2024-president-may-be-ineligible-after-u-s-capitol-riot
As for this one, his last paragraph is:So even he knows his whole piece is a bunch of academic navel gazing. There is no way that the Supreme Court upholds the concept that the Congress can just disqualify someone. To say they err on the side of letting voters decide is an understatement in the extreme.Quote:
In practice, it's unlikely that a court would be prepared to disqualify a former president from running for office again. But it's a close issue and one the Supreme Court may have to take up if Trump announces a 2024 candidacy.
That's good, actually, because Americans F'ing hate his GUTS!
That means that the GOP will nominate him again, and get crushed again. 8 years of Dems is better than 4.
And it'll be fun to watch him soil his pants after he loses again.
Body blow,
Body blow.
KnOcKoUt PuNcH !!!!!!
Ding ding ding - we have a LOSER!
"Former Trump chief of staff says there's 'no chance' of stopping him from running"
Good!
Agree with that completely. Glad we kicked him out of the White House and hope he loses interest and looks for the next shiny con outside of government.concordtom said:
Good added points.
All I know is, he's a cancer and needs to go away. He offers nothing fresh and positive and creative as to solutions for America.
He is only about his id. He's a very sick man.
calbear93 said:Agree with that completely. Glad we kicked him out of the White House and hope he loses interest and looks for the next shiny con outside of government.concordtom said:
Good added points.
All I know is, he's a cancer and needs to go away. He offers nothing fresh and positive and creative as to solutions for America.
He is only about his id. He's a very sick man.