You all are quite clearly trying to roll blame onto all 75 million Trump supporters, most of whom werent even in the city.
Last summer, no one “left in disguist”, everyone just kept on marching while chaos reigned down around them. Yet it was oh so horrible and racists to even imply it was anything but peaceful protesting. People just got cought up in the moment and shouldnt be held responsible for exercising their right to protest. And so on and so forth.
The terrorists who attacked the Capitol are also all fully responsible parties in the murders, which occured during the burglary (with thefts and violent entry). That’s the law when there is murder during a burglary. It’s not a gray area or throwing the book at them.
There was no gray area, until you guys bent over backwards to construct one last summer. So, yeah, the standard has been set and there’s no one to blame for it but yourselves.
The only difference is that your beliefs fall on opposite sides for each of the two situations. Thus you think it’s obvious that they are different. They’re only different because you agree with the purpose of one and hate the other.
It’s pretty funny that you believe this statement is anything more than your interpretation. At the absolute very worst it’s ambiguous. But you want it to be a fact, therefore it must be a fact.
"
Watkins acknowledged, however, that his plea was unlikely to succeed. “Am I holding my breath thinking that Donald Trump is going to be sitting around going, ‘You know what? … What’s the name of that guy with the horns? Yeah … let’s give him a pardon.’”
But “with Trump, you never know,” Watkins said. “He may say, ‘I want the guy with the horns.’ Next thing you know, maybe he’s represented by the shaman instead of Rudy Giuliani.”
"
Because it’s grandstanding. And she know that a Republican Senate “obstructing” it will provide far more useful ammunition than a symbolic conviction.
If tried after Trump is gone and the Senate flips, it wouldn’t surprise me if the vote is near-unanimous - just to leave Democrats with nothing gained.
Not sure if you waded through my posts up thread. There could be more than symbolism going on and ruling Nancy’s decision making.
Again, if the Democrats are successful in “removing” Trump (I acknowledge he will already be gone, but no matter), that opens the door to disqualification (as punishment) which many observers are saying can be accomplished with just 51 votes. And very shortly the Democrats alone, without outside help, will have those 51 very willing votes in the Senate.
That relates to something I was going to post anyway, and this is as good a time as any:
I believe for Republican Senators generally there will be a bright line distinction, in their minds, between “removal” and disqualification. Thus:
While seventeen Republicans might be sufficiently annoyed with Trump to want to “remove” him, I suspect many will hesitate to vote that way because they will realize it would open the door for Democrats alone to disqualify him. If Republican Senators open that door, with Democrats thereafter applying the coup de grâce, there will be an upswell in the Republican party the like of which has not been experienced heretofore. Maybe “upswell” is too weak. The word “revolution” might be closer to the mark.
Arguably, already disqualified. Having participated in the sedition (as has been recognized by Congress), the Constitution separately disqualifies him from running for office.
This appeared in The Hill today, just a short while ago:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declined on Friday to reveal when the House will send its resolution of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate, leaving the country — and her caucus — guessing on the timing of the trial in the upper chamber.
Pelosi said the nine impeachment managers she tapped to lead the Democrats’ case against Trump “are now working on taking this to trial.”
“And … you’ll be the first to know when we announce that we’re going over there,” she told reporters in the Capitol.
It’s Friday afternoon. I would be really surprised if Nancy sends anything anywhere over the weekend.
Pelosi is very politically smart. She needs to send impeachment 2.0 over to the Senate AFTER Schumer is in charge. And so far that is the path she is on.
Do you really think anyone cares about disqualifying him? He may hang around for a while, but for all intents and purposes his political career is over. And a number of the Republicans never wanted him around in the first place; it was a strategic partnership forced onto them, moreso than being on the same team. The Trump party (however you define it) can keep going strong, but they’ll need a fresh face if they ever hope to build on what they have. At this point, rightfully so or not, Trump has too much baggage on both sides of the isle.
Which is to say, “disqualifying” him would be mostly symbolic, too.
What difference does it make, if it’s going to fail either way? Again, there’s more ammo in having the Republicans quickly blow off a serious trial, especially when it avoids putting the debatable ‘evidence’ on the table to be formally disected. A serious trial, with emotion removed from the facts as the case is laid out, could very well end up backfiring and validating the notion that this is all vindictive.
Respectfully, yes I surely do. I think disqualification is what this impeachment 2.0 is actually all about.
Trump remains a very popular political figure. On the very rural road where I live, almost everyone still has their Trump posters up. (Note: I never had anything like that up at my home.)
I think, within the Republican Party, Trump’s popularity remain at circa 84%.
The current Rasmussen daily tracking poll shows his approval at 48% across all voters.
I acknowledge the mainstream media is portraying Trump as finished. I follow them closely. I know what they all are saying. But Trump in reality is far from finished, especially when you consider there has not even been a trial as yet and his side has not been heard.
So disqualification for someone who remains as popular as does Trump with his base would be a really big deal, and it would cleave the country like nothing else you can imagine.
Unknown. Fourteenth amendment hasn’t been enforced before, so far as I know. It’s in force unless Congress specifically votes to remove the disability (which has been applied in that capacity of removing the disability, after the Civil War)…
It’s distinctly separate from the impeachment/ removal/ disqualification procedure laid out for abuse of power (high crimes and misdemeanors). There is no requirement for a trial or procedure, just the act itself of participating in the insurrection or rebellion is all that is needed. A vote specifically is needed to remove the disqualification, but not to apply it.
14th amendment:
"
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
"
Well, for me it’s just my gut feel. But I believe the Democrats will do everything within their capability to obtain a conviction. And for the very short amount of time involved before Schumer takes control, that outcome will more readily be achieved if the entire matter remains beneath Democrat aegis.
Are you saying there is another way to remove a POTUS absent a Senate trial? I am most interested in this and have not run across that other way.
I can conjure a fourteenth Amendment case being made at (a Senate) trial. IOW, such violation would become an article of impeachment. But separate from a Senate trial I do not know how it is possible to remove a POTUS.
My best understanding is that the single impeachment 2.0 article does not relate to the fourteenth Amendment. But I might not be right about that. Would need to look it up to be sure.
The language of the impeachment article includes “insurrection”, which matches the fourteenth amendment. I quoted the amendment above.
It requires a two- third vote in both chambers to allow someone who participated in a rebellion or insurrection to hold office. It does not define any specific process to determine who has participated in one. In that respect, it is “untested”, but even the untested parts are still part of the Constitution.
A conviction in the senate for insurrection would seem to certainly satisfy and already prohibit future runs for federal office through the 14th amendment, regardless of a separate vote barring future runs for office. But possibly the same with a similar conclusion in any other court.
A separate thing there seems to be disagreement on is whether the senate can bar from office by majority If the 2/3 conviction/removal vote fails.
The fact of my not being a Constitutional scholar now becomes self evident. But I read the two-thirds wording differently:
To me it is saying that anyone accused of misdeeds specified in the Amendment can be absolved of their possible misdeeds by such two-thirds vote in both Houses.