When the House moved to impeach President Donald Trump for a second time, I wrote a column on the similarities to the William Belknap impeachment in 1876. The vote of the Senate to continue the trial despite a constitutional challenge over the use of a retroactive trial bore striking resemblance to that earlier decision. That should be good news for Trump. The Senate declared the trial constitutional and effectively over by its 56-44 vote.
The Belknap was charged with accepting bribes for contracts associated with the Indian territory. The House managers charged that Belknap had “disregarded his duty as Secretary of War, and basely prostituted his high office to his lust for private gain.’” Belknap first raised the jurisdictional argument that impeachment did not extend to former or retired “civil officers.” The Senate voted on this threshold jurisdictional question and reaffirmed that it had jurisdiction over former officers by a vote of thirty-seven to twenty-nine.
The vote fell just five votes short of a majority to dismiss the case as constitutionally improper. The first vote on this issue in the Trump trial on the motion of Rand Paul resulted in just five votes short of a tie. This vote failed by six votes.
Thus, the constitutionality of retroactive trials remains a highly contested proposition and I expect it will remain so. While many of us have reached conclusions on the question, most scholars add that this remains a close question. It certainly is for me. As I have previously written, I stand by virtually everything that I wrote on the intent behind the Belknap trial and the value of such retroactive condemnations in my 1999 Duke article that was cited in the impeachment trial by the House managers. Thus, my views of the inherent value of such trials and the application of this theory remain unchanged. Where I have changed is on the ultimate jurisdictional issue. I have written for years on my evolution on constitutional interpretation toward greater textualist and formalism over the last three decades.
What is more important is that not much has changed for the United States Senate. It remains almost divided in half on the issue.
There is of course another similarity with Belknap. He was acquitted. With 44 senators stating that this trial is categorically unconstitutional, it is hard to see how the merits of the trial would change their position. Thus, Trump is likely looking at an acquittal with at least 44 votes. That could well increase as some senators vote on other issues like the impeachment of a president for reckless rhetoric, as I discussed yesterday in a column. To pick up a few more votes however will require a substantial improvement in the performance of the defense which seemed casual and unfocused on the first day.
The immediate problem for the House managers will now be addressing how that vote impacts its demand for witnesses. With the outcome all but certain, senators of both parties may not want to draw out the trial with witnesses.
Belknap worked to the advantage of the House managers on the constitutional issue but now works against them on the verdict. Belknap demonstrates how such threshold votes harden the vote for acquittal. Thus, Trump may have lost the threshold vote and won the ultimate verdict.
The vote to continue the proceedings ( affirming the notion that a president can be impeached, even after leaving office ) essentially held the door open for future action against any living previous president that a political majority ( in whichever political party ) wants to make an example of! Ya never know when that might come in handy!Now it remains to be seen if THIS dog & pony show can change any senator’s mind, encouraging them to convict.
Here at the university hospital clinic the waiting room TV is set to CBS News. Patients aren’t looking at the Senate proceedings. However their concerns are of a different category altogether. Depression, anxiety, alienation, insomnia, COVID, fear, uncertainty of the future, employment…. all standard complaints.
The disconnect of US national leaders towards the US population – a crime
Estovir,
I suggest you insert yourself into this situation & contact the clinic’s PR head & explain the benefits to the patients to have those TVs turned to silly pets channel or some sort of animals & nature channel. It’ll likely lower their stress levels
I already do stuff like that with success.
IE: If your a mom or you’re the son & your mom is have a heart attack, you couldn’t give 2 craps about Trump, a bunch corrupt senators or partisan politics.
The thread jacking here is beginning to get a little bit ridiculous. Moderator? Oh, moderator?
“The thread jacking here . . .”
Not me.
My comment about Biden cozying up to China is on thread, because the topic is the impeachment trial of “the president.”
Armed occupation to protect the corrupt Democrat leadership has a big price
https://www.theepochtimes.com/national-guard-protection-of-capitol-to-cost-483-million-through-march-pentagon_3690742.html?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-02-09-2
Allan, they’re there to protect all members of Congress and their staff and any visitors (e.g., people attending hearings), Democrats and Republicans alike.
Only a partisan would characterize their job as you just did.
“Allan, they’re there to protect all members of Congress …Only a partisan would characterize their job as you just did. ”
Sorry but that link was not mine. I haven’t read it so I don’t know what it says. However the claims made by some Democrats are ridiculous.. I’ll go no further since the article isn’t mine and I haven’t read it.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
remember folks, when Democrats do it, they are “saving the election” not stealing it
or so they say
Anonymous makes twelve posts back to back….is he arguing with himself?
Surely…that must be a new record here!
Several different people post anonymously. It’s unlikely that any of them is arguing with himself.
Anonymous the Stupid, admit it. You have pretend friends that post on the blog and pat you on the back. Maybe all aren’t your creations but over time it looks like most of them are. That is the reason it is great you hide behind an anonymous icon because then people don’t have to pay attention to your idiocy.
The “Big Guy” Pays His Debts
Joe Biden (aka the “big guy”) is paying off his IOU’s to China.
First he nominates known China-sympathizer, William Burns, to head the CIA. As president of the Carnegie Endowment, Burns openly courted the communist Chinese government and accepted some $2 million in donations from that dictatorial country (via various cutouts).
Next, Biden just gave free rein to the Confucius Institute (CI), the international arm of the Chinese government’s propaganda campaign. For years, CI has spread its vicious, collectivist-totalitarian ideology in American schools and universities. Trump put restrictions on CI. Biden just removed them.
Everyday more evidence piles up show the current congress, senate & the president are all illegitimate!
It about time among swing states like Arizona, Georgia, Virginia, etc. to allow the public to view & have a real audit of the ballots!
If they didn’t cheat they have nothing to fear from showing the evidence!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/must-read-democrats-able-win-2020-breaking-chain-custody-laws-every-swing-state/
The reality is, the violations of law to get all these shotgunned out, unsolicited mail ballots into the voting systems, in the first place, was the real steal.
COVID was the premise for it all.
Sal
If just one of our commenters here would point out the statements by Democratic lawmakers inciting violence I could take their complaints more seriously. It’s as if their leaders calls for getting up in peoples faces and the continuation of riots in Seattle have disappeared from their reality. Where are the calls for the impeachment of the Democratic inciters. But my motivations are always based on a desire for fairness they exclaim. We should understand their double standard and apply it to our judgement of their veracity when reading their musings in the future.
Can you quote a Democrat who you think attempted to incite insurrection?
Says the man who was asleep from the end of May onward.
I haven’t been asleep, and you haven’t provided a quote. I think you cannot, but I’d be happy for you to prove me wrong.
Hell, I’d be happy to get the popcorn if this wait proves productive.
Elvis Bug.
Anon, Kamala Harris: “The riots in Seattle can and should continue”. Government property was set on fire. Police barricaded in a burning building. The continuance of these acts was supported by Kamala Harris. Antifa has declared that their purpose is insurrection and Kamala arranged for their bail. Insurrection enough for you. I know, you’ve put her statements down your memory hole. Then again, maybe your sources of information never let you know that she called for a continuance of the insurrection. They just kept telling you about the peaceful insurrection and you choose to believe them.
Per the new standards imposed on trump today, Kamala should be impeached
Sal
You clearly aren’t listening to the impeachment trial to understand the standards Trump has met.
Oh, I listened to about 45 minutes actually, in which time I nearly puked twice from the shamelessly earnest persecution.
They are blazing a new trial of extrajudicial show trial style standards with no law except this lame attempt at a bill of attainder against Trump. Have at it! I am sick of the false double standards of socalled free speech anyhow, which never protect normal people, only freaks and weirdos. Fine, let the illusion perish! The new standards will make life much more tolerable in the long run, when the zig starts to zag.
Trump draws fire. Good! Focus on Trump. he’s the boogeyman! ban him, flog him, flagellate him.
We all understand more and more: if Trump does not have free speech, then we sure don’t either.
Sal
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” — JFK
Anon, I just googled Kamala Harris’s statement on the riots in Seattle. She said that the mostly peaceful protests should continue. Just call the burning of private and public property a protest and the ashes will go away. Just tell us that Antifa is not bent on insurrection and our troubled souls will be slowly twisted away from reality. Don’t you feel the increasing pressure of the thumb of big tech on your ability to reason?
She didn’t say what you put in quotation marks.
She said protests should continue and condemned the violence and looting –
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-kamala-harris-late-show-rio/fact-check-kamala-harris-said-she-supports-protests-not-riots-in-late-show-clip-idUSKBN27E34P
You resort to your favorite trolling strategy, where you pretend someone believes something and criticize them for beliefs you pretend are theirs. Stop already. It’s unhealthy.
So why are the Democrats not taking the Nancy Pelosi attitude on the summer riots that caused injuries and deaths of around of around 700 police “People do what they do.”
Why are you changing the topic from Harris’s statement to Pelosi?
Why are you asking me a question about Democrats that I clearly cannot answer, since Democrats have diverse opinions and I don’t speak for them?
Why are you misrepresenting what Pelosi was talking about?
She was talking about removing statues, answering a reporter’s question, “Shouldn’t that be done by a – respectfully – shouldn’t that be done by a commission or the city council, not by a mob in the middle of the night?”
Speaker Pelosi: “People will do what they do. It’s a – I do think that, from a safety standpoint, it would be a good idea to have it taken down if the community doesn’t want it. I don’t know that it has to be a commission, but it just could be a community view. …”
Maybe you never read it in context. Here you go – https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/7920-0
Anon, so given a second chance Kamala says the protests should be peaceful. You accept her clarification but when Trump says protest peacefully you say it’s a call to insurrection. Kamala was a part of the Minnesota Freedom Fund that raised money to bail out the rioters. She says she wants peaceful protest and yet she bails out the rioters. You can say the word protest but we saw the burning and destruction of property and we properly say they were riots. If you say it was a peaceful protest enough times we might believe you once we are properly reprogrammed.
See this?
https://midsouthpeace.org/get-involved/donate-to-support-the-black-lives-matter-community-bail-fund/
Bail fund for lawbreakers, maintained and administered by the patchwork of various organizations funded by billionaires like Soros
I welcome the new standards of liability that the Democrat leadership proposes against Trump. That he is responsible for the acts of a few criminals who heard his words and were supposedly “incited” by them. And he can now be held liable. OK!
Then we can hold other people who incited BLM liable for the losses to the community of vandalism and arson and looting.
We can hold the ones who bailed them out, co-conspirators under civil RICO perhaps.
I said it months ago and now the logic is more powerful than ever
LAWFARE is a two edged sword., Don’t be so sure your adversaries are too dumb to use it.
Saloth Sar
“when Trump says protest peacefully you say it’s a call to insurrection”
Once again, you’re lying about me. I should probably stop responding to you, given your ongoing dishonesty.
“She says she wants peaceful protest and yet she bails out the rioters.”
Yep. People shouldn’t be in jail pending trial simply because they can’t afford bail. Either they’re too dangerous and a judge rejects allowing bail and says they have to be in jail pending trial regardless of how wealthy or poor they are, or they’re not that dangerous and they should be free pending trial even if they’re poor.
Anon, let’s talk about healthy. Kamala bailed out the rioters. She can say the word peaceful all she wants but her actions speak louder than her words. I am sure she said “go now live in peace and riot no more” when they were exiting the jail cell. A refusal to consider the totality of the information is indeed unhealthy. Just wondering, did you contribute to the Minnesota Freedom Fund to help bail out the mostly peaceful rioters. Asking for a friend.
Let’s talk about Raskin objecting to Trump’s election on Jan 6, 2017
Congressman Jamie Raskin (MD-08) objects to votes of electors from Florida on the House floor. House Democrats challenged the validity of electoral votes on January 6, 2017.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/left-only-condemns-violence-when-it-fits-agenda
They have no principles. Double standards are the only way they can pretend to move forward.
Bell Nap …came home…
To his wife and family…
After fighting in Congress on his knees.
And the time that he’d serv d…
Had shattered all his nerves…
And left..a little…shrapnel in his knees!
Another distinction from the Belknap impeachment was the fact that his was supported by hard evidence rather than just inflammatory and prejudicial video taken out of context.
Of course, as those of us who trade markets regularly can tell you, trend is the most important lens to track, JT. And what I see is that after the opening day of argument, and a hack factor 10 performance by trump l’orange’s lawyers, the trend is further toward the managers. What’s going to be the bit of further presentation that trends more votes away? Because, the opening argument is the best it gets for trump’s side. All downhill from there…, and since it sucked so hard on their best day, that’s a frightening proposition for you on the trump defense side…
And you’ve still wildly contradicted your earlier stated position due to clearly partisan interest. I’m wishing for you to see the signs, to see the writing on the floor so to speak, of being a trump surrogate. It’s a losing proposition, Jon, and it will end as it does for all who show loyalty to sir cheeto. Now’s the time to make the break. A wildly out of control president encouraged an active lynch mob from the oval office. It doesn’t go lower than that. Well, he could’ve started a nuclear war, that would’ve been lower…, but that would also obliterate career considerations in the process..
There’s still time to de-cult yourself, Turley. Soon the money will be leaving the coffers of those backing trump, as it’s already begun to do. Recognize that trend and salvage what you can of your credibility.
Elvis Bug
10+
Pelvically Challenged:
“And you’ve still wildly contradicted your earlier stated position due to clearly partisan interest.”
********************
You oughta do something about that lack of reading comprehension. Makes you look … well … Romper Roomish. JT explained it to any sane person’s satisfaction and, of course, proved it wasn’t a contradiction at all. So one has to wonder if you’re only purpose for being here is just to troll the host, why are you here at all? You really don’t add anything — likely because you have nothing to add. So while you’re fun to roast, I’ll just put you on natacha protocol, which means a cursory stroll through your blistering bluster and a head shake that our educational system could somehow output you.
mespo727272, are you capable of disagreeing with someone without insulting them?
“mespo727272, are you capable of disagreeing”
Anonymous the Stupid, Mespo is just returning those dishes you dished out. Stop complaining like the baby you are.
No, Allan, mespo727272 was responding to Elvis Bug, not to me.
Calling out abuse isn’t acting like a baby. The abuser is the one who is acting like a child. You’re frequently the abuser, Allan, no wonder you defend it when one of your pals does it.
It seems to be almost an algebraic equation…
Allan posts something idiotic and when called on it he lashes out at as if it’s only one person who it could’ve possibly come from. It’s like it rains frogs in Allan world.
Elvis Bug
“Allan posts something idiotic and when called on it he lashes out ”
Elvis, why don’t you quote the words you are referring to. Is it due to stupidity?
I’m open to criticism so you can provide the quote or let everyone recognize the underlying ignorance of almost every response you provide.
SM
Elvis bug, you just did what you claimed Allan always does in your cute little rains frogs in his brain hominem. Here’s another hominem. Clever by only half.
My response was to “Anonymous”, Anonymous the Stupid. If you wish to blame the Stupidity on Elvis go right ahead, but you don’t exist. Elvis does when he signs his name. If Elvis wishes to take credit for the comment you say he posted he can correct the issue and consider that comment void. If I deem to respond that will be my choice and based not on Anonymous the Stupid, but on Elvis.
Allan:
“Anonymous the Stupid, Mespo is just returning those dishes you dished out. Stop complaining like the baby you are.”
**********************************
True enough. Elvis is the captain of the ship of fools; Gainesville the crotchety, one-eyed guy in the crows nest; and anniny the stupe just flies around the deck cheering them on like the shoulder parrot she is! It’s quite the confederacy of dunces. Like Swift said “When a true genius appears in the world (like JT on lots of topics), you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.” Amen.
🙂
Aninny:
Sure but it’s hard when you either won’t or can’t read JT’s explanation. There’s room for some debate there but not much. You’ve accused him of lying; I’m accusing you of either not reading it or having no idea what you read. It’s the same complaint I have with natacha though I think she just feigns not understanding it. That said, natacha protocol — check.
mespo727272, why do you answer my question, “are you capable of disagreeing with someone without insulting them?” with “Sure but it’s hard …”?
It’s not hard to respond without insults. I’m responding to you here without insults.
As for “you either won’t or can’t read JT’s explanation.” I both can and do read what he writes, as should be clear from my accurately referring to his statements and sometimes quoting him.
I, too, often quote JT from his posts in my responses to him. I think it’s a really important way of interacting with the blog despite the fact he doesn’t read the comments section. Turley needs feedback that’s honest and unsparing because I actually do believe that beneath his surrogacy to trump and whatever has become of the republican party that he’s a truly conscientious attorney. People that read his posts and immediately interpret his meaning to fit their own political views are being wildly disrespectful to the balancing act Turley faces every single day. On the one hand, he’s an attorney ensconced in academia while at the same time being contractually bound to partisan interests. A rather challenged existence that is…, and I actually feel for him despite very often disagreeing with his views. But I still respect them and salute the energy he puts forth every day.
Elvis Bug
wow, from Elvis Bug here is the rare frank and credible statement of why one turley detractor comes back every day.
well, i say, i do not agree with some of what you say but I celebrate your right to express yourself. i applaud you for your candor and temperate tone. i look forward to reading your comments again. at least when you are not rolling around in the mud over inconsequential personality based squabbles.
Saloth Sar
IDGAF Big Mess. I’ve read Turleys rationalization. Not calling out his flip flop hypocrisy around his own past positions actually would be disrespectful to him…
So far I know, or suspect, this about you….
-you don’t consider free and fair elections part of ‘freedom’ because “honorable” white men began to have their property and fortunes stolen by ‘undeserving’ others after 1776.
-you’re so overprotective of your inadequacies that you need an online forum to act out out on them, often being barely subtextual about your desires to actually shoot the people you hate and disagree with.
-you’re incredibly insensitive to the true indigenous population of this continent. Ditto women and people of color.
-you think Steve Bannon is a ‘real man’…, when Bannon rips off his own followers by fraudulently raising money to build a wall that the only constructed portions of violate the most basic foundational building techniques so much that it’s immediately victim to out of control erosion.
-you wildly overestimate your own intelligence and are so insecure that you bloviate about how your approval should be considered to be of value. Personally, I have no desire to gain your approval and regard you as a tortured man with enough emotional baggage for the whole block.
-I suspect you may be secretly gay and hate yourself for it. To that, I’d say give yourself a break, accept who you are, and drop your blatantly obvious defenses around it.
I could go on but that’s probably enough for you.
Elvis Bug
Just as an aside…
“So one has to wonder if you’re only purpose…”
You’ve misspelled ‘your’ in this fragment.
Elvis Bug
You have to be careful of the school marms on this sight. The ever lurk ready with ruler in hand to call out any failure be it spelling or punctuation. You will stay after class. The pursuing of the menial.
Allan, the Bloviation machine brought up reading comprehension yet made the most basic of spelling mistakes. I can’t help what the big man puts up in terms of sheer idiocy.
Elvis Bug
Elvis, it is obvious there is not a spellchecker device for logic and thought otherwise you might have used that device to come up with a reply that wasn’t so Stupid.
SM
Like I said, or maybe misstated when saying I actually bad about your idiocy when I said it was painful to listen to. I guess I just feel bad that I actually have to listen to it.
Elvis Bug
“I guess I just feel bad that I actually have to listen to it.”
Probably so, but then one would think any one of intelligence would ignore it and not listen. I guess you are excluded from that group.
I think sane people should delete all the comments made by anonymous persons. The blog comments would vastly improve.
SM
Elvis, one should be careful about using a spell checker to formulate their argument. Criticizing typos is not a substitute for intelligent argument. They are the last resort of one that lacks sufficient knowledge.
Allan, sometimes the sheer mindlessness of your commentary is almost too painful to read. I actually feel bad for you. If you need directions to reach the other side of your house I suppose I could help.
Elvis Bug
Your response demonstrates that you nothing of value to say. Why don’t you pick up the points Natasha tried to express? Can’t do that? Too ignorant?
SM
Elvis bug. We appreciate your suggestion that Professor Turley should expeditiously step up for his reprogramming session. Maybe he can go with you when you receive your second injection.
Thanks TIT. Now go on identifying as TIT.
Elvis Bug
Speaking of tits and azz…
http://www.pinkbarrio.com/blog/articles/was-tommy-raskin-a-closeted-queer-boy/
Was Tommy Raskin a closeted Queer boy?
Was that the reason, or part of the reason for him committing suicide on 31 December 2020? His father is Representative Jamie Raskin (from the US state of Maryland) in the House of Representatives of the US Congress in the District of Columbia.
Representative Raskin of Montgomery County — and a former constitutional law professor — has a rather progressive record in the House of Representatives. He fought for gay marriage as a member of the House. Did he do that because he believed Queers should have the same rights as breeders, or did he have a Queer member of his family, or both?
Tommy, his son, was described by his parents as a guy whose “irrepressible love of freedom and strong libertarian impulses made him a skeptic of all institutional bureaucracy and a daring outspoken defender of all outcasts and kids in trouble.” He was also an avid vegan, animal lover and writer. He left a suicide/farewell note which said, “Please forgive me. My illness won today. Please look after each other, the animals, and the global poor for me. All my love, Tommy.”
Terribly sad to read that, and I’m sure his death has destroyed their family, and it will never be the same. That is something you never get over. Or at least most people don’t.
I’ve worked in suicide prevention and we were trained that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. In Tommy’s case his depression seems to have been permanent and not temporary since he suffered with depression much of his life.
I knew a woman — an acquaintance of mine — a few years back who committed suicide after her husband died of cancer. She didn’t want to live anymore without him. No one that I’m aware of expected her to commit suicide. I didn’t, but I had not talked with her at all about it. Mi amigo/my friend did, but all she told him was that her husband had died and she was dealing with the estate. As I remember, she committed suicide about 6 weeks after his death.
Some people have said that in one (or more) of the obituaries for Tommy Raskin that the family seemed to go out of their way to portray Tommy as straight and how he “loved the ladies.” (roll eyes) I saw a Queer boy when I saw Tommy’s picture, and my gaydar is extremely reliable. So did mi amigo/my friend just now when I showed it to him before posting this article. And many of the things Tommy cared about are not what the typical straight guy cares about: Animals, animal rights, being vegetarian or vegan and global poverty.
The reason I’m writing this is — from the comments I read online — no one seems to make the connection and or know that Tommy’s father fought for gay marriage, so — knowing that — why would Tommy have had trouble coming out of the closet if he were Queer? I’m well aware that some people say they fully support Queer rights, then out of the other side of their mouth they say, “But I’d prefer to have straight children and not Queer children,” which strongly implies that there is something wrong with one being Queer, and their alleged support for Queer rights is suspect.
On the sites where these comments appeared, I didn’t feel like going through the hassle of registering and then posting this bit of information, so I’ve decided to do so here.
From the comments I read, many people seemed to think that Tommy killed himself because he was painfully in the closet and was struggling with that. Perhaps. I don’t know what was going on in his head. After reading one of his obituaries, one person said Tommy wasn’t depressed — Tommy had suffered from depression for years — but rather exhausted considering all that he had done. He was in his second year at Harvard University.
Queer Youth Health, Depression and Suicide
From my research: As of July 2020, two in 5 Queer youth in the non-United States have “seriously considered” suicide in the past year. 40 percent of Queer youth have “seriously considered” suicide in the past year. They polled 40,000 Queer people between the ages 13 and 24. And Queer youth are more likely to commit suicide than straight youth.
There have been multiple obituaries written about Tommy. I read one that could have easily been written by a greeting card company considering all the lofty and flowery language used. It sounded like it was written by someone in a lot of pain from grieving his death. Some commenters said the obit they read was “over the top” or words to that effect rather than the standard obituary that one reads about a person’s death.
Tommy was 25 at the time of his death. Considering all the ill-adjusted and closet case Millenneals we see in San Francisco and elsewhere these days — where a closet case guy is holding hands with a female and they’re pretending to be a straight couple; in reality he’s wishing so badly that it was a guy he were holding hands with — it seems that one’s 20s and 30s are the years where one’s Queer sexual orientation is very difficult to accept. Really odd when you think about it, since the Millenneals came along/grew up at the height of the now-dead Gay Rights Movement. What anti-Queer propaganda did their parents brainwash them with in response to our Movement? In my case and with my friends at the time, my 20s is when we all came out of the closet. But that was a different time than today where it seems that most Queers are back in the closet by all indications, and some/many gay guys — with their internalised homophobia and gay shame — are living with females in heteronormative “straight” relationships, especially since gay marriage became legal and Queers were ordered to “assimilate,” which many interpreted to mean: Go back in the closet and be like the straights. Ugh. Why? Model your lives after the breeders. Emulate the breeders. Our Movement worked decades to be like the breeders, did we?! Ha! And after gay marriage became legal, I read that “gay guys are marrying females in droves,” which is something gay guys could have done to begin with from Day One. They didn’t need gay marriage to marry a woman! So they accomplished gay marriage, went back in the closet, and then married the opposite gender, rather than the same gender. This is a reminder that we’re living in the Century of Insanity.
Unfortunately, Tommy felt he wanted to end it all. If he were Queer, why did he think his family would have a problem with his sexual orientation considering his dad — and possibly the rest of their family — supports gay marriage and presumably equal rights for Queers? Or did Tommy get (some) mixed messages from his family by them pushing the heterosexual “Tommy loved the ladies” as the dominant image?
Elvis Bug
Oh my god I’ve reached the height of Turley blog notoriety!!! I’m being trolled by someone insecure enough they have to try to abscond with my name! Awesome.
Obviously, I didn’t write this — but I do respect the ass clown who put the time and energy to troll me so hard.
The real Elvis Bug (f&*k you very much)
Yeah, I thought so, Elvis. Check out his parents obituary to their son. I wonder if he was well hung or a beatchy bottom like me
“At Amherst College, he majored in history, helped lead the Amherst Political Union, intellectually discredited the egregious Dinesh D’Souza who turned to pathetic insults when Tommy destroyed his argument from the audience with a simple question (even before D’Souza was soon to be convicted of federal campaign finance crimes), won the Kellogg Prize, created and performed one-act plays with his social dorm mates, and wrote a compelling senior thesis on the intellectual history of the animal rights movement.“
Members of the gay datalounge com site nailed it:
* When you feel the need to take shots are your political enemies in your son’s obituary, that tells me a lot about what kind of person you are.
* He had to have been a closet case as in the statement they made such a point of mentioning how much he looOVved the ladies.
* Agree, it’s inappropriate. So tired of politics infecting absolutely everything.
* I get a suffocating feeling reading that obit. Adding the words “…and, to be clear, he took a strong liking to girls too” is highly suspect.
* There’s a BIG difference between saying “Tommy was a staunch democrat who did this or that for the party. Was active in politics in an effort to change things for the better, blah blah blah,” and “ intellectually discredited the egregious Dinesh D’Souza who turned to pathetic insults when Tommy destroyed his argument from the audience with a simple question.”
* Destruction should not be a part of anyone’s obituary unless they died in a building collapse.
* Killing yourself because you’re a c0cksuck3r is so 1953.
* I got misty eyes reading that obit….especially the part about the note he left his family. He actually mentioned taking care of the pets in his own suicide note. What a wonderful, sensitive soul. Such a shame he couldn’t deal with his sexuality. I can’t imagine the agonizing pressure he must have felt at the thought of having to come out, in that extremely well-connected family. I don’t know that I could have done it myself. It’s much easier when your anonymous.
* Any shirtless pics of the deceased?
😘
https://www.datalounge.com/thread/27709930-the-life-and-death-of-tommy-raskin-
Wow, special place in hell for you, you beatchy bottom you. But I suspect you might like that am i right?
Elvis Bug
Question: In the Belknap impeachment did the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS preside? Because in this current farce the presiding “judge” is a senator who has publicly declared the president guilty before the current impeachment was filed.
No, Sen. Ferry presided over Belknap’s impeachment. Ferry was President Pro Tempore of the Senate at the time, the same position as Sen. Leahy now. Ferry also voted in Belknap’s impeachment.
The cabinet officer/president comparison is apples and oranges. The Constitution is very explicit about the Chief Justice presiding over the impeachment trial of a president. A senator itching to convict also serving as an “impartial” judge is a farce (irrespective of whether one calls this a “trial” or a dog-and-pony show).
No, Sam, the Constitution doesn’t say that the Chief Justice presides over the impeachment trial of A president, it says that the Chief Justice presides over the impeachment trial of “THE President.” Biden is THE President. Trump is not, and Roberts is not obliged to preside over Trump’s current trial.
I see. So you want to have your cake and eat it, too.
The Constitution empowers the Senate to conduct an impeachment trial of “the president.” But Trump is not “the president,” so the Chief Justice does not have to preside.
Nice pretzel “logic.”
The Constitution does not limit the Senate’s impeachment power to “the President.”
Article I, Section 3, Clause 6: “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 …” That first sentence applies to all impeachment trials, not just for the President. The Senate has held impeachment trials for other people, including former Secretary Belknap.
There is no logical contradiction in what I said, you’re just trying to pretend there is.
So who is the Senate trying — the man-formerly-known-as-president? Where in the Constitution does it empower the Senate to try the man-formerly-known-as-president?
The Constitution empowers the Senate to hold an impeachment trial for anyone impeached by the House: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” The Senate is trying the former President after he was impeached by the House, just like they tried the former Secretary of War, Belknap, after he was impeached by the House.
This means it is the Senate and not any other person or body that has the power to try all impeachments. It does not say that every impeachment must be tried.
I agree that it doesn’t say all impeachments must be tried. The Senate voted to try Belknap, and it voted yesterday to try Trump.
And the Senate was wrong both times. Under Article 2, conviction “shall” result in removal. If removal cannot happen because the officer is no longer in office, the Article 2 consequence of conviction cannot follow so the Article 1 trial should not be held.
Removal can’t occur for someone who is already out of office, but disqualification CAN occur, and an impeachment trial has a point as long as either is possible. Multiple lawyers, including Turley, have explained why impeachment trials are relevant even if someone is no longer in office, in part to prevent someone from simply resigning in order to avoid disqualification.
You are mistaken. The fundamental purpose of impeachment was always removal, not punitive. You, and the revenge seekers, are trying to pass removal and go directly to punitive.
No, Sam, I’m not mistaken. I never suggested that the fundamental purpose of an impeachment trial is punitive. I’d say that the fundamental purpose is to help protect the country from further harm by people who have harmed it while in specific positions of power.
Trump has already been removed. No one is “trying to pass removal and go directly to punitive.” It’s not necessary to go past removal, because removal has already occurred.
Keep dancing around the issues Anonymous the Stupid. That is the best you can do.
according to this logic we can all be impeached.
if we simply violate their preferences by making lawful but inflammatory political speech, they can simply impeach and DQ us one by one if they like. of course it would be too laborious.
the Democratic leadership position is preposterous on its face
Sal
PS maybe they will pass an enabling law to make a new “impeachment bureau” who can go person by person and election by election and DQ anybody they don;’t like from holding future office. by this logic it would be possible!
For the umpteenth time, Trump was impeached WHILE IN OFFICE for acts he carried out while in office.
Impeachment of a president exists to remove a president. Trump is already gone.
The left was ready to impeach the day Trump assumed the Presidency and such desires continued until his Presidency ended. Now they want to impeach him after he is gone. Impeachment is a remedy to get rid of a President that committed certain crimes. Trump committed none but that doesn’t matter because he is gone. TDS hasn’t abated.
Impeachment also exists to disqualify the person from future office. Disqualification only occurs once someone is out of office (whether because they’ve been removed by conviction, or they resigned, or they were voted out).
“The left was ready to impeach the day Trump assumed the Presidency ”
Yep. And had Clinton won, the right was ready to impeach Clinton right after she would have assumed the Presidency. Both sides were talking about impeaching the opponent even before the election.
“Now they want to impeach him after he is gone.”
He’s already been impeached. Twice. What the left wants at this point is for Trump to be convicted for his high crime and disqualified from future office.
Trump is no longer in office. Use the rule of law. If there isn’t a law to cover his offense pass one for the future. Why should Congress decide who can run again? The people are supposed to have that choice.
Dictators, on the other hand, don’t believe in the rights of the people so maybe you prefer dictatorship.
“Both sides were talking about impeaching the opponent even before the election.”
But the Democrats were the ones to do it without cause. Hillary broke the law while in office and that makes a difference in how one should be looking at things.
“Why should Congress decide who can run again?”
“Should” is a matter of opinion. It’s a fact that they CAN, and they CAN because the Founders included that possibility in the Constitution and the states ratified it. If you don’t like it, introduce an amendment to change it and work to get your amendment ratified.
“the Democrats were the ones to do it without cause”
Your opinion. My opinion is that it was done for cause. I couldn’t care less about reconciling our opinions.
Anonymous the Stupid your type of government can do a lot of things that the Founders wouldn’t want. Stalin could do even more. You push for complete power for the elites. That makes you lean in the direction of fascism. Then again you once told us that the fascists were the good guys.
This is a simple either-or. Either Trump is “the president” or he is not “the president.”
Your position, and that of the congressional insane asylum, is that Trump both is and is not “the president.” (He is for the impeachment requirement; he is not for the Chief Justice requirement.) That, of course, is a contradiction.
“Your position, and that of the congressional insane asylum, is that Trump both is and is not “the president.”
Nope, I’ve never said that he is currently “the president.” I specifically said “The Senate is trying the former President after he was impeached by the House, just like they tried the former Secretary of War, Belknap, after he was impeached by the House.” I also pointed out that he was “the president” when the House impeached him.
“Belknap, after he was impeached by the House.”
It is amusing that so many cite as a precedent an unconstitutional impeachment, that they themselves do not even understand. Belknap was already out of office when the *House* impeached him.
Nowhere does the Constitution grant congress the authority to impeach “former” civil officers. The Constitution is not a piece of clay to be molded by the whims of politicians.
If you want to blindly rely on precedent, use Nixon. There, the House acted constitutionally by dropping the charges.
Sam, you say that Belknap’s impeachment was unconstitutional. That’s your personal opinion. It’s not fact.
You also can’t even bring yourself to admit and correct your false statement about me that “Your position, and that of the congressional insane asylum, is that Trump both is and is not ‘the president.’”
As for “Nowhere does the Constitution grant congress the authority to impeach “former” civil officers,” it does, in Article I, where it says “The House of Representatives … shall have the sole power of impeachment” without constraining that power.
“If you want to blindly rely on precedent …”
I don’t want to do anything blindly, thanks though.
Sam, the senate is trying the president who was impeached. The senate has the sole power to try ALL impeachment’s.
Since Trump was president when he was impeached the senate must still try him whether he is in office or not.
Think about it. The first sentence as anonymous points out states that the senate has the sole power to try ALL impeachment’s. The house already impeached trump when he was president. The house still has to try him. Whether or not he is president during the trial is irrelevant. It’s the fact that Trump was already impeached by the house as president requires the senate to finish the job.
It’s like arguing that you got a speeding ticket the day before a woman got married under her maiden name. The next day she’s no longer under her maiden name. So according to the logic you propose she would no longer be accountable for the ticket because she’s no longer the person named in the ticket. So she’s not liable for the fine.
Sam, a senate trial is not the same as a trial on a court of law. The constitution grants congress broad discretion on how it sets its rules on an impeachment proceeding.
The Chief Justice presiding over the trial is largely a ceremonial role. The Chief Justice only moderates the debate in the senate. He doesn’t actually determine whether a president is guilty or not. That’s solely the power left to senators. 2/3rds must vote in order to convict. The Chief Justice doesn’t do anything other than moderate the proceedings. He is not required to preside just as trump is not required to be there in person.
Speaking of conspiracies . . . .
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
Old Guy,
Amazing that the Anti-American Commie/fascist Dems/Rinos Trash in that Time piece admit to the public they rigged the 11/3/20 election.
That was then, now look & listen to those same Authoritarian Azzholes Openly Plotting to have all non Commie/Fascist Cult followers to be Rounded Up, In Prison if not Mur.dered.
People should help repost these links:
ENDGAME NOW! Globalist Purge Imminent
https://banned.video/watch?id=602191b4e3b3412a3a71d68a
·
You’re a conspiracy theorist, Oky.
Read the Time article — it details a conspiracy to manipulate the election in 2020, and they are bragging about what they did. No need to be a theorist.
Oky said “those same Authoritarian Azzholes Openly Plotting to have all non Commie/Fascist Cult followers to be Rounded Up, In Prison if not Mur.dered. … Globalist Purge Imminent”
That’s a conspiracy theory. If you cannot admit that, you have a problem.
Anon,
There’s no “Theory” about it, it’s “Analysis” of the Commie/Fascist public words/thoughts & actions.
And as far as you’re concerned I’d suggest you get to a doctor right away & seek to have him help you through your treatment for Stockholm Syndrome.
Old guy, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s a description of differing organizations making sure the election was fair.
Trump WAS trying to overturn it for reasons he couldn’t prove.
I’ve now skimmed your article. It does not detail a “a conspiracy to manipulate the election in 2020.” It discusses”The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted.”
You think that an effort to ensure that the election was ” free and fair, credible and uncorrupted” is manipulation?!?
Actually, what the author describes meets the standard for a JCE (Joint Criminal Conspiracy). If you are unfamiliar with the term, you might want to read the following article. You might also want to revisit the postwar trials in Japan and Germany where any number of people were found guilty of conspiring to protect their countries from communists and other rascals, even though the reading of conspiracy was narrower than in the international criminal courts.
My reading of the Time piece is my reading. No reason for anyone else to agree, but i do find it interesting that some people did some things to assure that one person would not be elected and another would be. Gee, am I naive?
Allison M. Danner and Jenny S. Martinez, “Guilty Associations: Joint Criminal Enterprise, Command Responsibility, and the Development of International Criminal Law,” International Law Workshop, University of California, Berkely, 2004, Paper 3, pp. 1-70
Anon, the article says they changed laws
It’s legal to change laws, and the only ones who can do it are elected legislators or the general public via a referendum.
you forgot about judges. judges change law all the time and when it comes to liability rules, it is usually pretty boring stuff
but the Dems are blazing new trails now, trails that we will walk against the likes of BLM and their apologists
I am not the only one who gets this. clever minds think alike. one wonders what shape the many lawsuits of the future which bloom like mushrooms on the turf after a thunderstorm will take
Sal
More agitation without any competent analysis.
Reminds me of Turner Diaries.
You can buy that at Amazon… oh wait, it’s banned now. As of January 15.;
Old Guy, what you think you read is not what you think it said. The article is just pointing out a confluence of totally disparate parties getting together to oppose what they see as a threat to the nation. There’s nothing conspirational about it.
It’s not proof of anything.
Very funny.
What exactly do you think constitutes a conspiracy to manipulate something? Regular meetings on Zoom? Secret, not open, meetings with people to assure funding for efforts to harvest ballots? Planning to put people on the streets in over 400 locations if Biden did not win?
I could go on, but it would be futile, since your mind is closed. But you might want to ponder why the EU, the UK, and other ‘democratic’ countries ban mail-in voting, save in special circumstances, and then with tight controls, and why this ‘disparate’ cast of characters moved Heaven and Earth to assure than half the ballot cast were by mail, with no serious controls. As the King of Siam might have said, “It’s a puzzlement.”
Old guy, just because certain organizations and people coordinate on a common goal is not a conspiracy. A conspiracy doing everything in secret. It was all out in the open. The author was showing the confluence of similar ideas.
That was no conspiracy. Everything must be a conspiracy to you if it goes against what you expect things to have been. Trump expected to win, he didn’t recognize that he could lose. He did. Now because he wasn’t “supposed” to lose he excuses his loss to crazy conspiracy after conspiracy.
Reread the article.
None of it was in the open. Private dinners with the owner of Facebook? Invitation only to Zoom meetings? Meeting behind closed doors with those funding the effort? Close coordination with activists?
My goodness, what would constitute a conspiracy to you? Perhaps the 1922 March on Rome, where a lot of disparate people got together to do something? The 1923 Putsch? The 1934 uprising in Austria (funded by the nearby states)?
What, exactly? According to Webster, a conspiracy is “the act of conrpiring together” or “an agreement among conpirators,” and to conspire is to “join in a secrete agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accompaliesh a lawful end, or, simple, “to act in harmony.” If your language is sloppy, so is your thinking.
The ‘handshake’ took place across state lines to change the electoral processes in swing states, with non-elected officials changing laws that had been made by state legislatures. That, at any rate, is my reading of the article.
That they had ‘activists’ ready to take to the streets strongly suggets something other than openness and a desire for a free and fair contest.
It is a pity that there has not been a free and open debate regarding all of this on line or in the mainstream media. Instead, we have had a concerted (conspiratorial?) effort to shut down any discussion and have been told to accept what our betters tell us.
That is not free discourse; that is coerced speech.
Old guy, you’re too hung up on the term “conspiracy”. These were not “secret” meetings. They were private meetings. People and organizations have private meetings all the time. Are you expecting every zoom meeting to be public?
There IS a free and open debate on regarding all this online. What do you think is going on now on this blog?
Seriously man. You’re just going wild on anything that seems like a conspiracy and immediately think something sinister is afoot. That’s how crazy conspiracy theories go on runaway storylines.
These people who are constantly finding one conspiracy after another will never be satisfied with what they find until they satisfy their preconceptions based on…conspiracy theories. It is nothin but a nasty vicious cycle of over skepticism feeding itself.
There are people who still are not convinced that the earth is not a sphere. No amount of evidence will dissuade them from confirmation that their belief is true. If they were to be sent into space and see for themselves they would still claim it’s all a conspiracy involving mirrors and drugs or some other crazy idea in order to deny the very proof they have before them.
I realize that is an extreme example, but there are different variations of that problem in people and the conspiracy that there is some grand scheme to manipulate the election is one of them.
“ To pick up a few more votes however will require a substantial improvement in the performance of the defense which seemed casual and unfocused on the first day.”
“Casual and unfocused” is a huge understatement. Trump’s lawyers were rambling and not really making a coherent argument if you want to call that an argument. The most damning criticism of that pitiful performance is a GOP Senator who stated that if that’s how Trump’s lawyers are going to conduct their defense he would not be voting to acquit. It was that bad.
Witnesses would be a big problem for Trump’s lawyers if this is the level of incompetence that is to be expected
We have a serious threat from a virus, from the economy, and from our enemies yet Democrats, like they have for the past 4 years, have focussed on Trump rather than their jobs.
At present Biden has made a number of decisions devastating to the nation but Democrats keep moving forward in the impeachment when at 56 to 44 they are destined to lose. Democrats show no concern for the hard working citizens. Their sole concern is their jobs, their pocketbooks and their billionaire supporters including those in the CCP.
Anonymous, you’re worried about the pandemic now? After trump had an entire year to deal with it? Me thinks your complaint is fodder to distract from the fact that Trump’s lawyers were really bad on their opening “argument”.
Democrats AND republicans voted to move forward with impeachment deeming the trial constitutional. The basic takeaway is that democrats were much better prepared and posed a much better argument. Whatever Trump’s lawyers were trying to prove was not really a thing. Just incoherent rambling.
“Anonymous, you’re worried about the pandemic now? After trump had an entire year to deal with it?”
I hate to say it but such words can only come from an uneducated mind. Worry over the pandemic started when the threat was revealed. Many threats to the nation occur over the year. We address those threats with a purpose, not with the idea in mind that some fool will criticize later. It is impossible and contraindicated to address all threats equally.
Trump pushed the development of the vaccine so it was developed at a super speed. Operation Warp Speed has been complemented by some of Trump’s most vigorous detractors. Macron said that he admired the Trump administration’s “extremely innovative model” in producing the vaccine. He also admitted that Europe didn’t have the competence to match America’s proficiency.
The impeachment is a joke and meant to influence those with little knowledge of the world we live in so such comments we are seeing exposes ignorance.
Anonymous SM. Your entire post is one ironic mess of contradictions and cognitive dissonance galore.
You declare others are ignorant because because they have little knowledge of the world, and yet you display that same ignorance every day.
“ Worry over the pandemic started when the threat was revealed. Many threats to the nation occur over the year. We address those threats with a purpose, not with the idea in mind that some fool will criticize later.”
Trump ridiculed the threat posed by COVID in the beginning. He claimed he stopped people from coming over without mentioning Americans were still being let in unchecked. Apparently only foreigners were spreading it, not Americans coming over without being quarantined.
The response was so chaotic and incompetent that the threat was only realized AFTER it became apparent that Trump’s administration had no idea what it was doing.
Trump pushed for the warp speed program, but none of the companies that actually developed the first vaccines were part of it.
Europe had a better handle on COVID than we did. Their infection rates were lower, death rates were lower. We were out of control with the spreading.
Your ignorance is breathtaking. I don’t even think you know what the word ignorance is. Anonymous SM, obviously you’re not Americas best example of an educated citizen.
“SM. Your entire post is one ironic mess of contradictions and cognitive dissonance galore. ”
What I find interesting in almost all your writing is the lack of content and frequent errors.
Does this represent cognitive dissonance?
” Macron said that he admired the Trump administration’s “extremely innovative model” in producing the vaccine. He also admitted that Europe didn’t have the competence to match America’s proficiency.”
How about this?
” It is impossible and contraindicated to address all threats equally.”
Those are the two major points that were made to demonstrate what Trump did and why he did it.
“Trump ridiculed the threat posed by COVID in the beginning. “
That is a fair statement but lacks perspective. Fauci was the expert but Trump was proactive. I guess Biden’s appointment of Fauci was “ignorant”. Trump started Warp Speed but you and your fellow Democrats, many of the experts, and others “ridiculed” his attempt to have the vaccine produced in a year or less. That doesn’t say much for the Democrat side of the aisle.
Trump banned Chinese travelers while you and most Democrats called him a racist and while Nancy Pelosi gathered the residents of SF into close contact in SF’s China Town. Cuomo killed residents in nursing homes from his policies as did a slew of other Democrat governors.
Ignorance is dominating your discussion.
“Europe had a better handle on COVID than we did.”
No, it didn’t. Did you read what Macron said? I posted part of it in my remarks.
You utilize a lot of big phrases and talk about cognitive dissonance but based on the facts I provided, your erroneous facts, and your inability to deal with what I wrote we know you are talking about yourself.
You are nothing more than a pile of cognitive dissonance which in your case, I am afraid, there is no cure for.
Mitch McConnell refused to bring House bills up for a vote that would address Covid relief and many other issues. You didn’t complain then, so your complaint now is just partisan shilling, Allan. Republicans are the ones who show no concern for the hard working citizens.
If the final vote is predestined to be 56-44, that means that the Senators don’t care about what evidence is presented in the trial. As it is, the weak defense convinced one Republican to change his mind and vote in favor of having the trial, when he’d earlier voted against it.
“Mitch McConnell refused to bring House bills up for a vote that would address Covid relief and many other issues. You didn’t complain then, so your complaint now is just partisan shilling, Allan. ”
Anonymous the Stupid, you are too busy in the dirt to recognize what others believe. You could have chosen to discuss this new thread in a new and different manner but you chose not to.
I dislike Mitch McConnell and would be happy if he, Pelosi, Schumer, and Mccarthy were gone. You are a fool every time you respond because you wish to lie in the muck rather than rise above it and look for solutions for the American people. Solutions require principles something you don’t seem to have or at least have never revealed.
“If the final vote is predestined to be 56-44, that means that the Senators don’t care about what evidence is presented in the trial. ”
No. That means the impeachment was more garbage for you to add to your living quarters.
Democrats voting in unison for crazy political theater proves they have no regard for the American public. Many Republicans don’t either but they have not all been voting in unison where a principle is utmost in their minds.
Sigh. I don’t understand how anyone over the age of 35 with even a reasonable amount of intelligence can still support the democratic party. They say our average IQ here in the states is now 90 or lower, and I believe it.
If the past two weeks weren’t a soft coup precipitated by a hostile societal takeover, I don’t know what is. I had already made up my mind never to vote dem again, now it would appear rule by fiat is very nearly complete.
In case anyone has forgotten (and I know our indoctrinated twits never knew), this country was founded in reaction to precisely what the dems have become.
“I don’t understand how anyone over the age of 35 with even a reasonable amount of intelligence can still support the democratic party.”
You are not alone. The only question is, is this the Democrat Party?
“The only question is, is this the Democrat Party?”
****
Not anymore. Jacobins, lunatics and morons all.
Not morons, the leadership are evil, cunning, clever mercenaries for global billionaires.
The morons may be on the street but not in the executive suites.
We need to understand, the financial motivations for all the wickedness imposed upon us in the past year.
Understanding that. confirms that the billionaires are the enemy. Not one by one, but the group as such, is fully behind all that’s unfolding before us.
They are our oppressors, our contemporary lordships, arrogant tyrants with powers that King George only could have dreamed.
Sal
Trump is one of those billionaire enemies, but you voted for him, and you cheered the riot at the Capitol. You have no moral standing here with standards like that Kurtz.
The only question is, is this the Democrat Party?
No more than Antifa/BLM/LGBTQ are representative of the American people.
The political party without any focus or drive for anything other than raw political power is the Republican Party, which used to stand for things like personal integrity, fiscal responsibility, family values and other character traits foreign to Trump. Then, along comes Trump, who still manages to wield power despite: trashing the economy, botching the pandemic, historic trade deficit, historic loss of House seats in 2018, loss of the Senate, the White House and the House in 2020. Then, there’s the endless lying about everything, especially about his lack of approval by most Americans, leading to inciting of a riot leaving at least 5 people dead, the Capitol trashed and members of Congress put in fear for their lives. Yet, the Republicans may let him get away with it because they want the support of the deplorables and they are afraid of the primaries coming up. How much failure does it take for people like you to see that everything Trump touches, dies? It is literally a miracle that more people didn’t die, and we can only wonder what Trump disciples would have done if they had gotten hold of Pence, for whom they erected a gallows, of Pelosi, AOC, Pressley and Omar, whom they were systematically taught to hate by Fox and other pro-Trump media. There are many who believe that even if members of Congress had been killed, abducted or injured by the rioters who invaded the Capitol to try to forcibly prevent Biden’s victory from becoming official on orders of Trump, this wouldn’t sway Republicans who are power-hungry. Would more deaths have made a difference, if so, why? Trump was desperate, and somehow thought that if he could stop the official Electoral College tally from being accepted, he could still retain power. He never stopped lying about his loss, even after the insurrection. He told the faithful that he “loved” them, hours later. The bodies were probably not even at the morgue yet.
I still hold some faint hope that somehow, some way, Republicans might think about the sacred chamber which they are occupying, the values it represents, including the right of the people to choose a new leader that Trump tried to take away by force, how Trump was willing to let people get killed because he cannot handle failure, and to somehow grow some measure of patriotism and do the right thing to keep him from ever having a chance to do this again. If he gets away with this, it will only enlarge his power, and that is unthinkable.
Totally, 100% agreed, Natacha. If trump garners even a shred more power we are done as a nation.
Elvis Bug
You folks feel free to keep on focusing on the Baba Yaga.
As you do, a thousand boogeymen will bloom
Natacha, as usual I will only deal with the first few lines. I won’t deal with your rants that don’t deal with reality.
“The political party without any focus or drive for anything other than raw political power is the Republican Party, which used to stand for things like personal integrity, fiscal responsibility, family values and other character traits foreign to Trump. Then, along comes Trump”
I dislike the Republican Party but the Democratic Party of today is fascist for all the reasons I have previously provided. Trump gave the Republicans a direction and had many positive results. You can disagree but you don’t seem able to do that using fact rather than opinion.
Bahahahahahahaha!! She rained facts in the first paragraph of what she wrote. You, on the other hand, have provided none.
Elvis Bug
There was no “soft coup” by the Democrats. Biden was legally elected by the certified state votes and the EC. Even Trump’s lawyers admitted this yesterday in his impeachment trial.
Calling it a Big Lie doesn’t make it a lie. We all know what happened. And it was not a free and fair election.
It was at least as free and fair as the 2016 election.
You supply no basis for your comment.
I supplied as much of a basis as the comment I replied to.
In other words you are too stupid.
Allan the abuser continues his abuse, what a surprise.
You supplied no basis for a comment you made. That made you look stupid. Saying the truth doesn’t make one an abuser, but lack of content makes one look stupid.
You’re right. It doesn’t make it a lie. It makes it a *big* lie.
More Stupidity from Anonymous the Stupid.
Turley does not disavow his old view that impeachments historically have had the effect of righting a Constitutional wrong for the edification of the society in spite of the fact that they were retroactive. Because of his maturing view to adhere more so to the literal wording of the Constitution, he now believes, particularity in light of Trump’s impeachments, that the prudential concerns of retroactive impeachments outweigh their salutary effect to exhibit moral condemnation. But he does not spell out why this is so in his recent articles. He acknowledges that either interpretation of retroactive impeachments- pro or con- is a close call with valid arguments on both sides. Indeed, it would seem that Turley’s position now is very much in the minority. We understand the benefits of retroactive impeachments include holding a former president accountable lest he commits a high crime with impunity by leaving office or resigning before he is impeached or convicted. Moreover, if the former president is unrepentant and intends to run again, the Senate can disqualify him from doing so. The only prudential concern which would outweigh these safeguards to our democracy is the fear that a former president may be impeached long after he has left office for purely political reasons to deprive him of the opportunity to run for office again. This is a risk, but it seems to me rather remote. Nor do I think it outweighs the deterrent effect of preventing a would-be tyrant as president committing an impeachable crime in an attempt to remain in office because he knows that he will be impeached notwithstanding his leaving office. Where, as here, the question of the intent of the Framers is not unmistakeable on account if their vague and contradictory wording, is it not logical to presume that the Framers would not have intended impeachments to be an exception to fundamental rule of law that no man is above the law? Retroactive impeachments guarantee that no president can violate his oath of office with impunity (assuming his conduct was not a criminal violation).
There is nothing to condemn. The condemnable conduct is on the other side.
Yep, it was hunky dory for Trump to lie to his supporters for months, to call on Pence to break his oath and lie to his supporters that this would be legal, to rile up the crowd and lie that he’d go with them to the Capitol, to condemn Pence during the insurrection while insurrections were looking for him chanting “hang Mike Pence” having built a gallows outside the building, to wait hours before condemning the violence and instead spend part of the time talking with Tuberville during the insurrection about other ways to delay the acceptance of the EC votes, etc. Nothing at all there to condemn.
It seems Anonymous the Stupid has risen from the dirt to criticize with generalities while saying nothing. Typical of his desire to gain attention while not adding any factual material to the discussion.
What a dope.
FO Allan.
I guess this is your anonymous contribution to the English language.
LOL
And yet they say, let’s move on, nothing to see there. Now e-mails and Benghazi is something that should be looked at. But domestic terrorism in support of trump is fine with them.
Dimwit has an opinion.
It is desirable to create incentives for a sitting official to resign to avoid impeachment or conviction. The main objective of impeachment is to remove a dangerous official from office. And the sooner the better. This objective of quick removal is served by resignation, which would avoid a long process. The criminal justice system remains available to charge, try, convict and punish any official who is believed to have committed crimes while in office.
High crimes and misdemeanors need not be statutory crimes, so criminal prosecution doesn’t address everything.
That is true and neither does impeachment.
That tells us that based on circumstances the Democrats are engaging in political theater while neglecting most of the American population.
That’s true. All that means is that if there are abuses that are not crimes the former official goes unpunished. So what?
Trump is not guilty of anything but perhaps another person will be. In that case do what is normally done by civilized people that recognize the rule of law.
Pass a law that will cover whatever problem you see that you think is criminal.
If a foreign army invaded the country, and the President failed to call the US armed forces to protect the country, that would be a high crime, but not a statutory crime. You think we should just shrug?
So if impeachment relates to an abuse that is not a crime the resigning official avoids criminal punishment. That is OK, because he forfeited his office, which was the main point in the first place. If someone later wants to elect him or appoint him again notwithstanding the non-criminal abuse, so be it.
You’re welcome to that opinion, but it wasn’t the Framers’ opinion. They chose to include disqualification in the Constitution. The Constitution is the law of the land.
Neither does Jeffrey, and considering it’s Turley’s blog, not Silberman’s, you are the one creating the annoyance. If it doesn’t give you a heart attack to address the content of posts (which you never do) minus the personal invectives of their author (every time!) it would be a miracle.
The only prudential concern which would outweigh these safeguards to our democracy is the fear that a former president may be impeached long after he has left office for purely political reasons to deprive him of the opportunity to run for office again.
However there are legal remedies to prosecute public figures of crimes once they leave office. That of course would expose the case to a different standard for rules of evidence. While the House managers will allege the former president used “coded” speech to incite an insurrection, breathlessly recounting the “horror” of the mob terrifying those simply carrying out a constitutional process, a criminal trial won’t have the luxury of merely appealing to political passions. So the fear Democrats are revealing is real. They know the former president’s speech is a protected right that will not be successfully prosecuted through the criminal courts. They know the former president will remain a force to be reckoned with, with his base of energetic followers leading up to the mid-terms and 2024. They will see this retroactive impeachment as nothing more than a blatant attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters from electing who they want in office. And the precedent they will set will be destructive to all future elections, if Congress exercises their impeachment power to make anyone they want ineligible for public service.
Learn the meaning of “disenfranchisement.” Disqualifying Trump doesn’t disenfranchise voters, just like the rule disqualifying anyone under 35 from being elected President doesn’t disenfranchise voters.
Learn the meaning of “disenfranchisement.” Disqualifying Trump doesn’t disenfranchise voters,
Don’t be so myopic. If the Senate takes it upon itself to convict on impeachment, any citizen it desires, to disqualify them from public service, they remove the option for that individual to be a candidate for office. We have a court system to prosecute allegations of crimes that would accomplish that end. If the Democrats actually had a case, they would have the DOJ indict Donald Trump. Instead, they will proceed with a political process that needs no evidence, no witnesses and a 2/3’s majority to convict. The outcome of this Senate trial will likely be acquittal. But what you fail to see is the precedent that will be set. Congress will have established themselves as kingmaker. A majority, Democrat or Republican, will have the power to impeach anyone, for any reason. If they can secure the votes in the Senate, they don’t even need a trial. So the next person that dares to challenge the power of the political class, and they are building a following of millions of supporters, will be a target for impeachment. That’s how you disenfranchise voters.
The Senate cannot initiate an impeachment, Olly. Only the House can initiate an impeachment, and the precedent was ALREADY set with Belknap’s impeachment. But the House has not gone around impeaching “any citizen it desires.” It impeached Trump, who was still in office, for acts he took in office.
Why can’t you deal honestly with the historic facts here?
Anon, the purpose of this impeachment can not be for a removal from office. The purpose is to disqualify a person from holding office in the future. This is precedence of law without term limits. You effectively mute your own argument on the future impeachment of Hillary Clinton. We know that she destroyed records (you mean wipe my computer with a cloth) that by law she was required to maintain intact. Would the new law created be applicable for one day or would it apply even after death. Now I understand. Your position is that we should only apply it in this one case. The applicable homonym is “Open a can of worms”. Another that you should be careful of is, “You can’t put it back in the box”.
“Your position is …”
No it isn’t. Why do you lie so much?
“But the House has not gone around impeaching “any citizen it desires.” It impeached Trump,
It creates a slippery slope.
What you call a slippery slope has existed at least since Belknap’s impeachment, if not before, so Trump’s trial doesn’t create anything that doesn’t already exist.
“Why can’t you deal honestly with the historic facts here?”
Again with the fighting posture and a lack of content.
The Senate cannot initiate an impeachment, Olly.
Not only are you myopic, your reading comprehension is lacking as well. I said, If the Senate takes it upon itself to convict on impeachment, not impeach and convict. That means the House had to impeach and send the article(s) to the Senate.
But the House has not gone around impeaching “any citizen it desires.”
The House impeached Belknap and if I understand correctly, he resigned 2 hours prior. The senate did not convict as enough members held the line that it was not appropriate to impeach someone no longer in office. And while Belknap clearly committed an impeachable offense, the allegations against Trump amount to impeaching him for something politicians have been doing since our founding…exercising their first amendment right to make speeches. So yes, the House (until now) has not gone around impeaching “any citizen it desires.”
The point, that you apparently refuse to acknowledge, is that if the House desires, they can snap impeach anyone within their jurisdiction, transmit those articles to the Senate and they can convict.
Prove me wrong.
My reading is fine, Olly. You said “If the Senate takes it upon itself to convict on impeachment, any citizen it desires …” and my point was that the Senate cannot do so for any citizen it desires because the House has no obligation to impeach any citizen the Senate desires. Moreover, the Senate clearly does NOT convict all citizens impeached by the House.
The Senate does convict impeached individuals when the Senate desires to convict them. That’s nothing new.
“if the House desires, they can snap impeach anyone within their jurisdiction, transmit those articles to the Senate and they can convict.”
Yes. The Founders created those abilities in the Constitution, and the states ratified it. If you object to that, you’re free to try to amend the Constitution.
I said: “if the House desires, they can snap impeach anyone within their jurisdiction, transmit those articles to the Senate and they can convict.”
And you replied: Yes. The Founders created those abilities in the Constitution, and the states ratified it. If you object to that, you’re free to try to amend the Constitution.
So now back to disenfranchisement.
You’re essentially stating it was the Founders, by omission, setting the precedent for the following:
Congress will have established themselves as kingmaker. A majority, Democrat or Republican, will have the power to impeach anyone, for any reason. If they can secure the votes in the Senate, they don’t even need a trial. So the next person that dares to challenge the power of the political class, and they are building a following of millions of supporters, will be a target for impeachment. That’s how you disenfranchise voters.
Do you believe the Framers had that intent? Or is it more likely they never expected a political faction, with a hostile intent toward a class of citizens, to ever get a super majority in the Senate? We’ve avoided it for 232 years, but Jefferson did say, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, So not if, but when.
Are we about there yet?
That an entity has the power to do something does not imply that the entity WILL do that thing. You have the power to murder another, but the vast majority of people never do murder another, and I don’t expect you to act on your power.
Trump wasn’t impeached for “building a following of millions of supporters.” He was impeached for the high crime of incitement to insurrection while in office. You imagine that the House and Senate will conspire to disqualify someone for “building a following of millions of supporters.” I don’t. Despite my low opinion of many members of Congress, I don’t expect them to stoop that low.
” You imagine that the House and Senate will conspire to disqualify someone for “building a following of millions of supporters.” ”
That is exactly why they continued the impeachment. He is gone from office and now they want to make sure that those tens of millions of supporters don’t bring him back. This has nothing to do with anything Trump did or said. It has to do with their fear that they might lose power and people might discover who and what the Democrats of today really are. Americans are starting to learn that the Democrat Party of today is leans more in the fascist direction than in the direction of the party of JFK..
That an entity has the power to do something does not imply that the entity WILL do that thing.
In a rational world, that is true. But that world has been turned inside out. Who would have thought a man or woman self identifying as something else would be considered rational? Rioting, violence and arson would be characterized as mostly peaceful protests? Antifa’s fascist tactics are anti-fascist? BLM doesn’t have any interest in stopping blacks from murdering other blacks? Trump/Russian collusion hoax? Covid? Election integrity?
No, given the raging insanity from the Left, all bets are off on whether the next political move is to identify and then target 74 million Americans as domestic terrorists.
No, the House and Senate aren’t “conspiring to disqualify someone for ‘building a following of millions of supporters.’”
They aren’t conspiring at all, he was impeached for a high crime committed while in office, and the Senate will now determine whether he should be convicted and disqualified for that high crime.
“This has nothing to do with anything Trump did or said.”
BS. You clearly haven’t been listening to the trial and the evidence presented today about what he said and did.
“You clearly haven’t been listening to the trial”
Clearly you don’t know how to listen Anonymous the Stupid.
“They aren’t conspiring at all, he was impeached for a high crime committed while in office, and the Senate will now determine whether he should be convicted and disqualified for that high crime.”
Convicted? That means he gets thrown out of office but he is already gone from office. That’s like putting spoiled milk back into the bottle and back into the refrigerator. It doesn’t make sense.
There is one purpose and only one purpose Anonymous the Stupid and that is totally political. It puts a banana peel on that slippery slope.
“Convicted? That means he gets thrown out of office but he is already gone from office.”
No, convicted means that they judged him to be guilty of the offense and is eligible to be disqualified from office.
As for your insults, they only show you to be an abusive person.
Anonymous the Stupid, your behavior is the clue to the insults sent your way. Your stupidity doesn’t help the situation but isn’t the cause.
BTW, if you think the Founders got something wrong, nothing prevents you from working to amend the Constitution to address it.
What amendment would you now like to propose?
“But the House has not gone around impeaching ‘any citizen it desires.’”
You’re right — only the one it detests, Trump. This impeachment charade started the day Trump took office, with some 5 attempts over 4 years. Over those 4 years, there was a cattle call in the media of “impeachable offense” — all based on their fevered imaginations.
It is amazing that with such a history of bogus impeachment claims, there are those who believe that, somehow, this one is legitimate.
The House impeached a sitting President. It has done that to a couple of other sitting Presidents as well, and it has also done so to some other officers, so don’t pretend that the House only impeached one citizen.
“Disqualifying Trump doesn’t disenfranchise voters,”
Only politically ignorant people believe that. The Democrats wish to remove the ability of people to vote for a particular person who otherwise meets all the criteria for being president.
Your analogy to those less than 35 years of age represents a mind with no critical thinking skills. The impeachment of Trump is political and against an individual. The age of 35 was set as a policy measure.
Such intellectual inability is too prominent in your small world.
A 34 y.o. might otherwise meet the remaining criteria, with the sole disqualifying criterion that he or she is too young. That single disqualifying factor prevents him or her from being a candidate for President. If Trump is disqualified, he’s likewise be disqualified by a single factor, despite “otherwise meet[ing] all the criteria for being president.” It’s analogous, even if you cannot deal honestly with it and instead respond with your incessant insults. I truly feel sorry for your family that they have such an abusive person among them.
“A 34 y.o. might otherwise meet the remaining criteria, ”
So what? That is policy.
” If Trump is disqualified, he’s likewise be disqualified by a single factor”
That is targeting an individual.
General policy and the policy of targeting an individual are two different things. If you don’t understand that you should discuss it.
I understand the difference, but they’re both constitutional, and neither constitutes disenfranchisement of voters.
You are repeating yourself but you can’t explain why.
” I truly feel sorry for your family that they have such an abusive person among them.”
This why you are named Anonymous the Stupid. Instead of trying to narrow divides you choose a path to insult because you are not intellectually up to the job of defending your position.
Says the guy who has *never* factually defended a position on this blog.
Everyone who has read what is written by S. Meyer knows that there is content and logical opinion.
You don’t. That is why you are known as Anonymous the Stupid.
I already defended my position.
You’re abusive, Allan. You insult people day in and day out. I’m expressing my sympathy for your family. I’ve never seen you attempt to narrow divides with liberals, so your criticism of me on that count is hypocritical.
No you didn’t explain your position. You have wallowed in your ignorance and continue to do so in a repetitious and boring manner.
Below was the discussion which if you were brighter could lead to an interesting debate.
——
“A 34 y.o. might otherwise meet the remaining criteria, ”
So what? That is policy.
” If Trump is disqualified, he’s likewise be disqualified by a single factor”
That is targeting an individual.
General policy and the policy of targeting an individual are two different things. If you don’t understand that you should discuss it.
Test, 1,2, test. Is this thing on?
The House Managers argue that impeachment and trial of persons other than those specified in Article 2 is permitted. The targets set out in article 2 are civil officials, and by stating that they “shall” be removed upon conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanours, article 2 implies very strongly that only sitting officers may be convicted. To get around this, the House Managers say that under article 1 the House and the Senate can impeach and convict other people as well. But article 1 sets out no limitations whatsoever on who may be impeached and convicted or for what reasons or when. If the House Managers are correct, there is no constitutional limitation whatsoever on impeaching anyone at all for anything at all that they may have done at any time at all. All the limitations on targets and reasons are set out in article 2. That is why article 2 must be viewed as the sole provision governing impeachment as a substantive matter and article 1 must be viewed as a procedural guide alone.
Justice Arthur MacArthur ended the Belknap impeachment by dismissal. So where is John Roberts and our gutless supreme court on constitutionality of this impeachment. I wonder if ‘Vegas is taking bets on how many times Leahy will fall asleep during this abortion.
No, Justice MacArthur dismissed criminal charges against Belknap in DC – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._Belknap#Washington,_D.C._indictment_(1876%E2%80%931877) . He did not preside over or end the impeachment trial. Sen. Ferry, the Senate President Pro Tempore (same position as Sen. Leahy) presided over Belknap’s impeachment and it ended with a vote against conviction.