Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

I'm also sure that Amash remembers that for Iraq and Afghanistan there was an Authorization of use of force by Congress. For all their problems they were legal actions. That Congress didn't issue an actual declaration of war is on Congress.

No such authorization from Congress or any other legal authority can be cited for a scheme to instill fake electors and to have the VP reject legitimate electors.

 

All those examples, with the notable exception of Watergate, were abused by presidents done in the course of their duties as president. Subverting elections is way outside the scope of presidential duties and not at all like those other things. He can make a high sounding argument for a second set of rules for the elites, but I think he is rationalizing.

 

I agree. I think he is rationalizing to his staunch 'libertarian' belief.

 

Why it is dissapointing. Amash clearly understood the boundaries of Presidential duties and where the President was subverting the office for personal gain in the first impeachment. He said so on the floor of the House.

 

an impeachment proceeding is a fundamentally different proposition from a criminal indictment.

 

You're right, the former is more political.

 

Yes but it was framed in regard to misdoing by the office holder “high crimes and misdemeanors”. It may not be criminal but certainly crimes committed by an office holder would be considered grounds for impeachment.

Also many Republicans argued that Trump shouldn’t be impeached but once he left office he could be criminally charged and tried.

 

Trump clearly is guilty of his crimes. The party of law and order didn't want to impeach while he was president and gets trigger when he's getting charged as a private citizen.

With that mindset, they want to put him above the law and be impervious to anything.
Like when is the right time to actually make trump responsible for his actions?

 

When he’s a democrat

 

The other really annoying thing about Amash's argument is that we already tried the political remedy and it failed. If republicans in the Senate had done their duty, maybe we wouldn't feel the urgency to address the problem judicially. Amash did his part back then, great, but it wasn't enough and now he can **** off.

 

Isnt the bigger question is when trump is found guilty in dc which he will what will sentencing look like? I dont think the judge would sentence Trump before election or would she? Shes said multiple times that she does not look at him as a political candidate.

I dont think people are ready for that debate when sentence comes around. You folks are debating about things that dont matter. Trump will be found guilty in DC. The bigger question is what do we do about sentencing.

 

Pay your legal fees yourself you grifting con!

“The Lunatic Left, working closely with Crooked Joe Biden and his corrupt DOJ, is not only focusing on Election Interference, but on getting the Trump Campaign to spend vast amounts of money on legal fees, thereby having less to spend on ads showing that Crooked Joe is the WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY!” Trump wrote Saturday on the way to the Iowa State Fair.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/12/trump-legal-costs-pac-00110960

He kills me with his BS. He was the worst President in history, and probably the only sociopath/psychopath to ever hold office.

 

They only believed that until he was out of office. Then they quickly changed to "can't prosecute him since he is a candidate"...

 

define "high crimes and misdemeanors" please.

 

Your daddy grabbing another b**** by her p***y....

 

So, I don't have any historical basis for this, but I've always transliterated "high crimes" as "felonies", and considered the conjunction "and" could just as easily be "or". So that has always read to me "crimes big or small", or just a general indicator that whatever crimes you consider to be sufficient to impeach qualify.

Not commenting on the specific application or relevance here at all, but that it how that vaguely archaic phrasing seems to naturally translate into modern English to me, and I genuinely have never understood why people get so hung up on precisely defining it.

Again, trying to separate it from the issue at hand. And there may be some dispassionate constitutional scholar out there who can prove me wrong by comparing a note James Madison wrote to George Clinton, or some such, so appreciate and concede I may be wrong. But prima facie that's how it reads to me - just a catch-all phrase for saying the President shall be removed if convicted of "treason, bribery, or any other crimes, big or small, that you guys think are relevant".

I think trying to "gotcha" a loophole where specific crimes are excluded from qualifying for impeachment doesn't make sense in context. If they wanted to limit impeachment to specific things, they would have enumerated specific things beyond bribery and treason.

 

Wow.

This should be a bbs autoreply to every article posted by basso and Os:

 

90 days is usually the guideline for the longest you can wait for sentencing right? So if he’s convicted by let’s say July at the latest that means the sentencing is still likely before the election. If you are sentenced to any prison time typically that means you go right away.

So if Chutkan sets the trial anytime between February and May it’s almost certain he’s literally behind bars on Election Day. That can’t help.

Now if he wins even while behind bars I assume in Feb Justice Robert’s swears him in at the actual prison which is such a national embarrassment to even think about. Then once sworn in he’ll likely have the power to pardon himself on day 1 and head straight to the White House.

Then we are royally Fckd as a country.