President Trump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

I am a bit surprised that the establishment GOP doesn't want to impeach Trump. Maybe they are just treading lightly, trying to play both sides against the middle. But, I would think the RINOs, in cahoots with The Swamp, would want to impeach Trump since that would mean he could not run for POTUS in 2024. Maybe they think they can secure his legions, 75 million true Americans, to support them. But that is laughable. One thing the Left and those with their heads buried in the sand (Goosey, lil johnny, et al) have never understood, and still don't, is Trumpism is NOT pro Donald Trump, it is anti-SWAMP. Donald Trump happened to be a person who could pull the sword out of the stone, ala King Author, and lead the movement to return the United States of America to a Constitutional "We the people..." government.

Ted Cruz might see himself as heir-apparent to the Trump-led movement, but he would have to give up his current political, entrenched status and I don't think he is willing/capable of doing that. Trump is a true outsider. Only a true outsider can lead an anti-Swamp movement.

Anyway, as I said, I am surprised the establishment, Swamp, GOP is not supporting impeachment of Trump.

---

Refuting the incitement article will be very easy. Roll the videotape and replay the entire speech. It will be easy to compare that speech with actual hate speech spouted by Congressional left-wingnuts that actually did incite violence.

The rest of the impeachment process if it goes through would provide a very public venue to air all of the proof of election irregularities regarding unconstitutionality of the election process and the separate issues of election fraud. The left-wingnuts are walking straight into that trap.

Dominion has walked into Sidney Powell's trap by suing her because of what she is going to demand in the discovery process. The chances of that lawsuit being dropped are very high, but I would expect Powell to file a countersuit and get a hefty damage settlement if Dominion doesn't back off yesterday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDawg

Refuting the incitement article will be very easy. Roll the videotape and replay the entire speech. It will be easy to compare that speech with hate speech spouted by Congressional left-wingnuts that actually did incite violence.

The rest of the impeachment process if it goes through would provide a very public venue to air all of the proof of election irregularities regarding unconstitutionality of the election process and the separate issues of election fraud. The left-wingnuts are walking straight into that trap.

Dominion has walked into Sidney Powell's trap by suing her because of what she is going to demand in the discovery process. The chances of that lawsuit being dropped are very high, but I would expect Powell to file a countersuit and get a hefty damage settlement if Dominion doesn't back off yesterday.

---

That is true about the ramifications of the lawsuit. I hope Dominion pushes it hard and Powell nails them in the discovery phase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDawg

The rest of the impeachment process if it goes through would provide a very public venue to air all of the proof of election irregularities regarding unconstitutionality of the election process and the separate issues of election fraud.

---

As opposed to the very private airing of complaints in daily press conferences, multiple "news" networks, and in court? Were they saving the good stuff for an impeachment trial? Didn't want to waste it in federal court?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DONW

Even better I'd like to see the red states and the blue states split and form their own governments. All this gender crap these liberals are coming up with is really crazy along with the green deal and a whole bunch of other crazy stuff. They want to do away with gender word like men, women and mother and father. Liberals are effing crazy. Biden wants to appoint a woman in the justice department civil rights division that thinks everything will be decided by the color of your skin.

---

Amen and Amen!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

As opposed to the very private airing of complaints in daily press conferences, multiple "news" networks, and in court? Were they saving the good stuff for an impeachment trial? Didn't want to waste it in federal court?

---

Since no impeachment trial can happen in the time allowed (before noon next Wednesday unless Trump is re-inaugurated), any articles of impeachment passed this week will be unconstiututional according to Alan Dershowitz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDawg

Since no impeachment trial can happen in the time allowed (before noon next Wednesday unless Trump is re-inaugurated), any articles of impeachment passed this week will be unconstiututional according to Alan Dershowitz.

---

Alan Dershowitz...lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDawg

Since no impeachment trial can happen in the time allowed (before noon next Wednesday unless Trump is re-inaugurated), any articles of impeachment passed this week will be unconstiututional according to Alan Dershowitz.

---

I think the Belknap case makes it at least an interesting legal debate. But probably just an intellectual one. I don't think it's all that clear either way, but even as someone who'd love him to be barred from future federal office (and censured in some way for last week) I think there is enough doubt over it to not be worth giving him more fake grievances to cry about. Even with a bar, you'd potentially run into another flood of lawsuits (valid or not) when he formed his own party and tried to run for President in 2024 or Florida Senator or something. And it'd just put him back in the public spotlight. If it was a clear thing, maybe.

Doesn't seem worth it to me.

But I don't think the impeachment itself would be unconstitutional either. Just not expedient. My only point above was just that I don't know that if they did go through with it there would be much new evidence of fraud (and if there would be - what were they waiting for?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

I think the Belknap case makes it at least an interesting legal debate. But probably just an intellectual one. I don't think it's all that clear either way, but even as someone who'd love him to be barred from future federal office (and censured in some way for last week) I think there is enough doubt over it to not be worth giving him more fake grievances to cry about. Even with a bar, you'd potentially run into another flood of lawsuits (valid or not) when he formed his own party and tried to run for President in 2024 or Florida Senator or something. And it'd just put him back in the public spotlight. If it was a clear thing, maybe.

Doesn't seem worth it to me.

But I don't think the impeachment itself would be unconstitutional either. Just not expedient. My only point above was just that I don't know that if they did go through with it there would be much new evidence of fraud (and if there would be - what were they waiting for?).

---

The only punishment that the Senate can administer in impeachment is removal from office. Can't remove someone from office if they aren't in office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDawg

The only punishment that the Senate can administer in impeachment is removal from office. Can't remove someone from office if they aren't in office.

---

Conviction from impeachment means he can’t hold office again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDawg

The only punishment that the Senate can administer in impeachment is removal from office. Can't remove someone from office if they aren't in office.

---

2 things. Removal from office and barred from future (federal) office.

Past that it's just symbolic. I don't know that that's an argument for or against. Sometimes symbols are important, sometimes they aren't. To some people that symbolism would be important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

2 things. Removal from office and barred from future (federal) office.

Past that it's just symbolic. I don't know that that's an argument for or against. Sometimes symbols are important, sometimes they aren't. To some people that symbolism would be important.

---

It is being argued (I think correctly) that neither can be done to someone no longer in office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDawg

It is being argued (I think correctly) that neither can be done to someone no longer in office.

---

Impeached or tried?

The Belknap case Inu mentioned, the guy was impeached after he resigned, so there is precedent to do it to Trump.

😁

Rasmussen: Donald Trump Holds 48 Percent Approval Rating Despite Capitol Hill Riots


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ol-hill-riots/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS

😁

Rasmussen: Donald Trump Holds 48 Percent Approval Rating Despite Capitol Hill Riots


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ol-hill-riots/

---

Rasmussen. Lol. Hitler probably had a 48% approval according to them. That is actually a really low score on a curve where 90 percent of the class gets As.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Businesses just need to stop funding the ReTrumplicans and then you can have an adult Republican Party again. Some have already started.

---

Growing list of companies that are cutting funding to the ReTrumplicans (in general targeting those that voted against certification).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.blo...ical-donations