Politics January 6th (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Stevenson said:
How would a second impeachment prevent him from holding office again?
Click to expand...

One of the punishments the Senate can levy, if they convict, is barring him from ever holding federal office again. It's a separate penalty from simply removing him, from what I've read.
 
Stevenson said:
How would a second impeachment prevent him from holding office again?
Click to expand...

The constitution

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7

"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."

If he is impeached by both the senate and house and removed from office he can no longer run for president
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
If we’re being honest here, we are “manipulated” almost every hour of every day. Our spouses “manipulate” us. Our kids “manipulate” us. Our parents “manipulate” us. Our friends “manipulate us. Every day events “manipulate” us. It all boils down to what your definition of “manipulate” is......and how willing and able you are to use your own free will to think for yourself in those instances. The truth is always out there if you look long and hard enough. Some folks are smart enough (or at least think they are) to separate the wheat from the chaff. I like to look at myself that way.......but then, maybe I’m self manipulating.
Click to expand...
admit it though my friend...you're self manipulating in a Louie CK sort of way...maybe I'm projecting a bit here....
 
Yesterday the occupant of the white house invited a seditious mob to invade the Capital, with incompetence if not collision of law enforcement. And I see page after page of people outraged because someone in a sports chat room said mean things.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
Click to expand...

I would absolutely love to hear each and every one of these morons try and articulate why they feel they have the right and privilege to engage in this kind of asshat fashion. I read a small (as it should be) write up on the clown who made himself at home in Pelosi’s office. He sounds like a community minded individual who I assume has a job. He considers himself a “patriot”. How has America (or the left wing socialist conspiracy) let him down in particular? What is his specific complaint?? Or the specific complaints of the rest of these “patriots”. All we hear from them (and their supreme leader) is generalities with little if anything to justify them. No one ever said life was fair and they need to get over it like the other half of the country has had to do. Someone needs to tell them that the white mail patriarchy has had it’s life support pulled and they should prepare for the funeral. They are nothing more than the Joe Bubba Antifa, no matter how they might look at themselves (if they even make the effort).
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
I would absolutely love to hear each and every one of these morons try and articulate why they feel they have the right and privilege to engage in this kind of asshat fashion. I read a small (as it should be) write up on the clown who made himself at home in Pelosi’s office. He sounds like a community minded individual who I assume has a job. He considers himself a “patriot”. How has America (or the left wing socialist conspiracy) let him down in particular? What is his specific complaint?? Or the specific complaints of the rest of these “patriots”. All we hear from them (and their supreme leader) is generalities with little if anything to justify them. No one ever said life was fair and they need to get over it like the other half of the country has had to do. Someone needs to tell them that the white mail patriarchy has had it’s life support pulled and they should prepare for the funeral. They are nothing more than the Joe Bubba Antifa, no matter how they might look at themselves (if they even make the effort).
Click to expand...

They all can just say Trump sent them there. They were following his orders. The orders of the president of the United States. And, it wouldn't be a lie.
 
Did trump get banned from twitter permanently? I see he didn’t tweet anything once the 12 hour ban was over
 
ehizzy3 said:
Did trump get banned from twitter permanently? I see he didn’t tweet anything once the 12 hour ban was over
Click to expand...

Either that or his handlers finally got him to keep his mouth closed
 
fixotl bawe nop zard pizgot

barfo
 
noknobs said:
In my opinion, the complete failure of security of the capital building wasn't about incompetence by the various law enforcement agencies because I can't believe they would all be that bad at their jobs. It feels like someone had to have been in on the coup attempt. I could be wrong though.
Click to expand...

The so called "coup attempt" actually hurt Trump's chances for a legitimate challenge.
 
ehizzy3 said:
Did trump get banned from twitter permanently? I see he didn’t tweet anything once the 12 hour ban was over
Click to expand...
Facebook and Instagram blocked him through the end of his term. Hopefully Twitter is following suit.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
Click to expand...


If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
 
Stevenson said:
How would a second impeachment prevent him from holding office again?
Click to expand...

"Yet Article I Section VII clarifies that removal is not the only punishment impeachment can bring. It reads: “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.” This clause shows definitively that the Senate can inflict a penalty that would prevent Trump from holding office again. Under established Senate practice, that vote to disqualify would require only a simple majority vote in the Senate, less than the two-thirds vote required for conviction.

Two historical precedents have established this procedure. In 1862, a federal judge named West Hughes Humphreys was impeached by the House. When it came time for the Senate to pronounce judgement, the body determined that the decisions of whether to remove and whether to disqualify were separable. The Senate first voted by two-thirds majority to convict and remove Humphreys, and then took a second vote, under a simple majority requirement, to disqualify him from future federal office. In an eerie foreshadowing of what we just witnessed with Trump, one impeachment article accused Humphreys of acting “in disregard of his duties as a citizen…Humphreys endeavor[ed] by public speech to incite revolt and rebellion’ against the United States.”

A second disqualification was voted upon in 1913 in a case involving federal judge Robert Archbald. Archbald was convicted by a two-thirds majority in the Senate, and then, in a separate vote, he was disqualified from holding future office on a simple majority vote of 39 to 35. In a later 1936 trial involving Judge Ritter, the Senate cited the Humphreys precedent for the simple majority requirement for disqualification, though ultimately the Senate did not impose the penalty of disqualification."

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ump-and-bar-him-from-holding-office-again-now

I've seen a couple of people argue that there need not be a passed vote of impeachment in order for the disqualification vote to be held. Now, that would definitively be taken the the Scotus, but it is possible that the Senate could vote to disqualify
 
RR7 said:
In the interest of better understanding, ill ask if you're calling sly a goat fucker, instead of simply assuming you're calling sly a goat fucker.
Click to expand...

No! That's not at all what I meant, thanks for asking. I'd never call Sly a goat fucker.

I was saying Sly's a pig fucker.

barfo
 
Trump just put out a decent video but it was way toooooo late, and of course with some lies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top