This topic was automatically opened after 8 hours.
I would expect Pelosi to be better versed than you in what is or is not in accord with the Constitution.
3 Likes
There was at least one situation where they impeached someone, the official resigned, and they didn’t end the impeachment process until several months later. Given that disqualification can follow impeachment conviction, I don’t think it would be moot. There’s also a principle in federal procedure (though admittedly not the same as an impeachment and not sure it would even apply to the facts here) where, if a case is initiated and later becomes moot, but there’s a possibility that the controversy would re-appear and would again become moot before a resolution on the merits, that the court would still have jurisdiction to hear the case after it becomes moot.
With respect to Roberts, I am 100% certain that he will comply with his duties which would include presiding over an impeachment trial in the Senate. Based on his prior practices, he would likely try to be a fly on the wall. If there’s any question as to the legality of proceeding with a trial, he would almost certainly defer to the Parliamentarian and the Senate as a body.
Also, McConnell can’t simply dismiss the matter. And not convinced he wants to either.
That’s not why Trump got off to a slow start. There’s a good book on Trump’s transition - The Fifth Risk. Basically, he never sent in people to learn about what all the departments did. When he did send in people, it wasn’t to learn about what the departments did.
Trump clearly has no problem not having confirmed positions in the Cabinet filled. I think he’s even said he likes it that way.
All lives matter/white lives matter/blue lives matter are movements that are anti-BLM. The statements aren’t racist in and of themselves. But they imply that either black lives don’t matter as much, or that black people are not disproportionately harmed by society compared to white people.
American History X…
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that “Trump loving insurrectionists” are disproportionately white. So a policy affecting that group of people has a disparate impact on white people. I think you’re thinking of “disparate impact” as a negative, but it’s not a negative in and of itself; it itself is a neutral term.
A good example: an employer policy that requires you to have a car has a disparate impact on many different groups of people. That doesn’t mean there’s a problem with the requirement.
McConnell sounding like he’s ok with impeachment and kicking Trump out of the party.
Do you get to speak for what those movements mean? I mean, some of those supporters are probably sick of all this racial favoritism and just want equality (“all lives matter”?). I could just as easily say BLM stands for reparations, Marxism, and punishment-free looting and I’d have a decent case for it among those movement’s leaders and supporters’ actions.
None of this was an issue and you didn’t get the blowback when BLM was an anti-cop-abuse movement, but it quickly was taken over by the racial grifters.
1 Like
Agreed. However, this is all new stuff and opinions of experts will vary.
For now I can report as follows.
With just sixteen hours to go, Nancy still is holding onto her impeachment article. I am hearing now other voices repeating stuff I posted here last week. There is doubt as to whether or not CJ Roberts will be willing to preside over the trial of a former POTUS who is only just a citizen. This goes double if the trial itself has not commenced prior to Trump’s leave taking.
Just as interesting as tomorrow’s ceremony will be whether or not Pelosi pulls the trigger before Biden places his hand on that Bible. Or will she instead demand the Senate try a private citizen?
If the process does not commence timely, I can foresee Trump asserting:
You cannot try me beneath a Constitutional provision specifically dedicated to and intended for Presidents of the United States. I am not the President of the United States and am not subject to such a trial.
Should the Senate under Schumer nevertheless insist, I can foresee Trump appealing to the SCOTUS and quite possibly winning.
On the other hand, if the trial process is set into motion while Trump is still in office as POTUS, I think his ability to evade the proceeding will be significantly hampered.
So you really think there’s a difference between the article being delivered to Senate at 11:59am vs 12:00pm on Wednesday?
On its face that sounds ridiculous. He was impeached by the House while he was President. Bringing up the articles of impeachment is the start of the entire process.
1 Like
I agree. Point is there are legal arguments to be made both ways. This has not happened prior.
I do believe, though, that if Pelosi sends over that article before Biden is sworn in that Trump’s escape chances will be negatively impacted.
Here are some examples of what I mean of using this theory to advance racial quotas and punishment of businesses or institutions that had “disparate impacts” as assessed by the Obama DOJ who were much much more aggressive at using this tactic than prior administrations
” I am pleased that the Supreme Court has affirmed that the Fair Housing Act encompasses disparate-impact claims, which are an essential tool … for rooting out discrimination in housing and lending," Lynch asserted, adding that she will use it to “vigorously enforce the Fair Housing Act” — even though the FHA bars only disparate treatment, not disparate impact, which requires zero proof of actual discrimination.
And that’s the net result of disparate impact — racial preferences. “Parties fearful of disparate-impact claims may let race drive their decisionmaking in hopes of avoiding litigation altogether,” noted dissenting Justice Samuel Alito, while warning of racial quotas.
No proof is required of discrimination and in fact in the vast majority of “disparate impact” cases they were brought under that theory precisely because they could not prove and did not have any evidence of actual discrimination. Instead they could just say, “well this bank doesn’t write as many mortgages to black folks as they should, they’re racist and let’s shake them down”, regardless of whether the black applicants were as credit worthy as other applicants or even if they were just not applying as much for any other reason. I saw the NY AG shake down several NY/NJ region bank mergers for large extra funds set aside for minority lending and extra bank branches in minority areas and so forth just because they could hold up the merger and NY loves a pro-minority racial shakedown, not because they could prove anything but just because they were in the way.
Here’s another example from the Obama era that was disastrous for secondary education.
Federal officials are getting the word out that addressing racial disparities in school discipline is a high priority, and they plan to use “disparate-impact analysis” in enforcing school discipline cases
In education, with respect to discipline, my concern would be that school districts are afraid they will be hauled before a court or some administration agency and threatened with a loss of federal funding whenever they have a racial imbalance of one kind or another,” he said. He explained that educators might become hypersensitive to students’ race or ethnicity in discipline decisions, resulting in disciplining some students who shouldn’t be and not disciplining others who deserve it.
If your public school disciplined black kids more than white kids, the DOE/DOJ is going to show up and crawl down your ass and make your life hell and their standards (of proving there exists no other possible method of discipline that wouldn’t have a disparate impact) are impossible. So what did schools do when faced with the inconvenient fact that in many places black students are more disruptive and violent in school? They stopped disciplining them at all so that they wouldn’t have bad racial stats and now the classrooms were a wreck for everyone since it only takes 1-2 disruptive students to prevent any learning, especially if they know you’ve handicapped the teachers so they can’t punish you.
Here are several critiques of the damage these disparate impact theories have caused.
Fearful of being charged with racial discrimination, school administrations have implemented policies that often prevent teachers and even principals from suspending students. The result is that students know this, do not fear suspension, and disruptive behavior and violence have increased in many schools. Meanwhile, the majority of students who come to school to learn something are not learning because classrooms have become places of anarchy. Teachers without authority cannot teach; they cannot even maintain a semblance of order in the classroom.
The solution to this, ironically enough for the original civil rights motivations, is segregated schools where the teachers can apply the rules without fear of federal punishment.
Turns out something like half the convicted murderers in the US are black, a very large over representation. Shall we stop throwing murderers in jail because it has a disparate impact on the community of black murderers?
I wonder if Trump will pardon Bernie Madoff.
1 Like
Was he buddies with Madoff? If so, and he wasn’t screwed in the process, then the pardon would fit his M.O.
How about his best friends Epstein (posthumously) and Ghislaine?
Not insofar as I’m aware. But I think Trump is endeavoring to pardon individuals, at least in some instances, in order to piss off his political enemies . . . . especially those located in The State of New York. They hate Trump. He hates them. They went to a lot of trouble to prosecute some of these people and would regard certain pardons as an assault on their professional accomplishments . . . . such an assault being precisely Trump’s intent. Can you say: scorched earth
News out of Canada saying Trudeau is appealing personally to Biden NOT to kill the Keystone XL
That pipeline is a HUGE deal for Canada, and especially for Alberta.
In my view, it is a huge deal for the entirety of North America, the USA obviously included. If Biden kills it he screws Canada, messes with American energy independence, and massively helps China.
I hope he comes to his senses and reconsiders.
Trump gave a decent farewell speech
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-farewell-address-nation/
It was very good. Now we can watch Biden & his entrance speech. (he best not venture off script)
Putin, MBS, Kim?
Watch what they do, not what they say. His behavior belies everything he said, particularly the refusal to meet with or assist the new administration — which every previous President has done to assist the continuity of the nation’s government.
I’m pretty sure there’d be outrage if a Democratic President had behaved the same way to his incoming administration.
In his speech he denounced the Capitol assault and violence.
"All Americans were horrified by the assault on our Capitol. Political violence is an attack on everything we cherish as Americans. It can never be tolerated.
Now more than ever, we must unify around our shared values and rise above the partisan rancor, and forge our common destiny."
Do you agree with that?