DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,560
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 17, 2021 23:37:46 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,314
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 18, 2021 6:21:18 GMT -5
If the US had a domestic terrorism laws that mirrored the "material support" charges that may be brought in international terrorism prosecutions, prosecutions would be much easier. Designate the neo-Nazis, 3 Percenters, Oathkeepers, Boogaloo Boys, Proud Boys, etc., as "domestic terrorist organizations" similar to the designations of "foreign terrorist organizations". www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339B#:~:text=Whoever%20knowingly%20provides%20material%20support,of%20years%20or%20for%20life.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,560
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 19, 2021 7:44:06 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,314
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 19, 2021 8:04:11 GMT -5
You don't need 67 votes to convict. You only need 2/3 of the Senators PRESENT to vote to convict. Thus, if ten GOP Senators boycott the trial because they claim it has no jurisdiction, only 60 votes would be sufficient to convict. Dishonest GOP Senators can boycott and claim to the Trump cultist base that they did not vote to convict and the cultists might be ignorant and gullible enough to believe them.
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. 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."
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,560
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 20, 2021 7:22:04 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,453
|
Post by TC on Jan 20, 2021 13:32:38 GMT -5
I really want to read the history of the last 14 days - not really the history of the riot itself, but what went on behind the scenes after it and who has been running the country for the last two weeks.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,321
|
Post by tashoya on Jan 20, 2021 20:01:50 GMT -5
I really want to read the history of the last 14 days - not really the history of the riot itself, but what went on behind the scenes after it and who has been running the country for the last two weeks. Screenwriters are, likely, already on it.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,453
|
Post by TC on Jan 20, 2021 22:39:31 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,314
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 21, 2021 13:18:24 GMT -5
The First Amendment does not shrink the scope of the impeachment power or alter what conduct would fall within the terms of high and misdemeanors. If a civil service employee in the Department of Justice had done the things contained in the article of impeachment, he could be justly terminated from his federal employment despite the First Amendment. If the attorney general had done the things alleged by the House of Representatives, the president could justly fire him despite the First Amendment. There are many things that could get a government employee or a Cabinet secretary fired that would not rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but there is nothing that would otherwise be an impeachable offense for which the First Amendment would shelter an officer from Senate conviction and removal. www.lawfareblog.com/there-free-speech-defense-impeachment
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,560
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 22, 2021 21:55:56 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,314
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 23, 2021 6:35:46 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,314
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 23, 2021 7:52:46 GMT -5
Alternative to impeachment. First, the 14th Amendment does not require the Senate to conclude that Trump engaged in an insurrection. The amendment requires only that Congress conclude that Trump gave aid or comfort to enemies of the Constitution. This he did, both on Jan. 6 and in the broader context of the events after the presidential election of 2020. The House of Representatives has already adopted this conclusion. The article of impeachment adopted by the House found that Trump violated his oath to defend the Constitution “by willfully inciting violence against the Government of the United States.” It also found that this conduct was “consistent with his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 presidential election.” Thus, the House concluded, “In all of this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government.” www.lawfareblog.com/practical-path-condemn-and-disqualify-donald-trump
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,560
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 23, 2021 22:39:57 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,560
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 24, 2021 6:22:06 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,314
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 24, 2021 6:33:40 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,314
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 25, 2021 19:14:08 GMT -5
Hypocritical Republicans impeach Clinton for lying about a Edited. They defend and seek to excuse the sociopath for incitement of insurrection based upon months of lies that the election was stolen. Edited all of them. Scum.
Hypocritical HoyaTalk Republicans, you guys satisfied??
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,321
|
Post by tashoya on Jan 25, 2021 23:02:03 GMT -5
Lawyers on the board, please help me out. I keep reading about the unconstitutionality of the impeachment (obviously, from Republicans). As a layperson, I'm confused as to how the impeachment could be unconstitutional when the actions in question occurred while Trump was still holding the Office. Is that incorrect? If it is correct, what's the counter?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,314
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 25, 2021 23:15:30 GMT -5
Lawyers on the board, please help me out. I keep reading about the unconstitutionality of the impeachment (obviously, from Republicans). As a layperson, I'm confused as to how the impeachment could be unconstitutional when the actions in question occurred while Trump was still holding the Office. Is that incorrect? If it is correct, what's the counter? Short version: Since impeachment and conviction is a mechanism to remove a President, once he or she is no longer in office it does not apply. Counter: If that were true, any President has free rein to commit high crimes and misdemeanors near the end of his term and be free from punishment. Or resign to avoid impeachment. See below. Moreover, it nullifies the disqualification clause whereby a majority of the Senate may bar him from holding federal office. But there is historical precedent for impeaching and trying to convict a former federal officeholder. In 1876, as the U.S. House of Representatives was about to vote on articles of impeachment against Secretary of War William Belknap over corruption charges, Belknap walked over to the White House, submitted his resignation letter to President Ulysses S. Grant and burst into tears. The House still went ahead and impeached Belknap, and the Senate tried him, with the impeachment managers arguing that departing office doesn’t excuse the alleged offense — otherwise, officeholders would simply resign to escape conviction or impeachment. www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/meet-other-american-who-was-impeached-tried-after-leaving-office-n1255516The Constitution provides that the President “shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” but it says nothing about the timing of when the impeachment and trial may take place. That omission makes sense, since presidents – and any other impeachable officials – could commit impeachable offenses at any time while they are in office, including in their last months or days in their positions. It certainly makes no sense for presidents who commit misconduct late in their terms, or perhaps not discovered until late in their terms, to be immune from the one process the Constitution allows for barring them from serving in any other federal office or from receiving any federal pensions. www.justsecurity.org/74107/the-constitutions-option-for-impeachment-after-a-president-leaves-office/
|
|
|
Post by bicentennial on Jan 25, 2021 23:36:10 GMT -5
I do not practice law. I believe this website at Cornell summarizes information on the various views on impeachment noting that the US has a different view of impeachment than that established under English law. www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachment. One interesting note is that disqualification from holding office under senate precedent only requires a majority vote. This is different from the 67/100 vote required for removal from office. Hopefully Majority Leader Chuck Schumer recognizes this as there is no way to remove Trump from an office that he no longer holds. I question if he does since it appears a democratic senator has been appointed to preside over the trial. I do not believe the person presiding over the trial is allowed to vote. Biden's agenda could be expedited if the trial calls no witnessed and only requires all the democrats to disqualify Trump from holding future federal office. Hope this helps.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,314
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 26, 2021 8:16:30 GMT -5
|
|