Democrat Clown Car Unloads At Senate

[Jackie S]

I can’t find a picture yet, but just watched live as Bozo, Clarabell, and the rest of the circus crew unloaded, marched into the Senate to present their bogus argument for impeachment.

Morons.

[00 gauge]

They certainly don't have a problem with making fools of themselves, do they? .....

[reddog1951]

Nor did Trump and Hawley

[Trey]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I can’t find a picture yet, but just watched live as Bozo, Clarabell, and the rest of the circus crew unloaded, marched into the Senate to present their bogus argument for impeachment.

Morons.

Who is responsible for the hillbilly rebellion at the Capitol in your opinion?

[littlerichard]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

Nor did Trump and Hawley

Nor has Biden and Harris the last 19 days

[Unique_Carpenter]

Come on guys.
It's a politicians job to aspire to the highest levels of clownsmanship.

[oeb11]

DPST/ccp - elitist, arrogant, smug, know-it -all, better than anyone else
Self-qualified to Rule teh world with the 'Brain".

And not shy at letting anyone and everyOne around them know their 'qualifications'!

[HedonistForever]

Today was a vote on whether holding the trial of a former President was Constitutional or not. Problem is, the only body that can make that determination, will not be asked to do so and that is a shame. The Senate can not decide whether something is Constitutional. They can certainly give an opinion but unless and untill the SC rules on the matter, it is still up for debate and their are Constitutional scholars that come down on both sides of the argument.


I thought it was a very interesting debate although the 3 Democrat House Managers did a far better job of "public speaking" than the two Trump lawyers. I would give all 3 House Managers an A+ and both Trump lawyers a C-, they were beyond terrible as public speakers.


I went into the debate with an opinion that it isn't Constitutional to try a President that is out of office. My opinion was that impeachment, is for the purpose of removing a President from office and if the President has left office and is a private citizen, the Senate can not try him. 56 Senators decided other wise.


The House Managers went first and they damn near convinced me because they were very good, very eloquent but I think in the end, their reasoning was flawed and while I base that opinion on a couple of things, the one that kept coming back to me was the lie that Democrats kept repeating. They kept saying that a President should not be allowed to be "un-accountable" for what he did. He shouldn't be allowed to just "walk away". They know that is a lie but as with all things, it didn't fit the narrative they wanted to put forward so why not just lie.


The truth is, that the DOJ could have brought criminal charges against private citizen Trump on Jan. 7th. There is nothing the the Constitution that says a former President can't be criminally charged if he broke the law while he was President. Federal statutes say a sitting President can't be prosecuted, that is what impeachment is for with regard to a sitting President.


The Democrats did a really good job with historical accounts of putting public officials out of office on trial in the Senate with mixed results. In one case, the official was called back to DC after leaving office to stand trial and he as much as said "fuck you" I'm not coming and they dropped the whole thing.


And again, the SC never gave an opinion one way or the other. I've argued many time before that these are the very things a SC should do, decide these matters because they are the only body that can but they don't/ won't.


Trumps 2 lawyers were a disaster but if you listened hard enough and it was hard, you could figure out what they were saying which came down to, impeachment is for removing a President from office. Once he is out of office, the DOJ and State prosecutors are free to charge him and convict him for things he did as President. He is not immune which Democrats kept pushing.


The day opened with a 13 minute video of the riot and it was difficult to watch. So stupid. More than one person saying "this is what Trump told us to do" and one guy yelling at a cop telling him this is what his boss ( Trump ) wanted.


Problem with irrational, illogical thinking is that nobody, not even the President can tell you to break the law and ignorance of the law is not a valid defense in most cases.


In the next phase starting tomorrow, Democrats will try and make the case that with his words, Trump incited violence and insurrection. Trump's lawyers will make a first amendment case of free speech.


In that opening 13 minute video spliced together by a law firm and not House staffers, that had most of Trumps speech that day but they left out the part where Trump called for them to peacefully demonstrate. I wonder why they left out those words.


Are you free to lie without fear of prosecution by the government? Isn't that the purpose of the first amendment? Speak freely even if your words aren't truthful? That the government can't prosecute you for speech even if what you are saying isn't the truth? Of course you can't incite violence with your speech but could they prove that Trumps words did that? Looks like 44 Republicans Senators believe at least one if not both arguments, that the trial is un-constitutional and that his speech did not incite the violence because facts are emerging that this was planned without an input by Trump, weeks prior to that day.


And without question, Hawley and Cruz's speech certainly didn't incite violence because if it did, then you would have to put all those Democrats that objected to certifying Republican electors on trial too.


Trump's lawyers will present their own video of Chuck Shumer using threatening language against two SC Justices which was so inflammatory that Chief Justice Roberts came out and said that his court will not be bullied or harassed. Then You have Maxine Waters and every member of the Squad saying inflammatory things that could easily incite a crowd not to mention the Vice President encouraging BLM and Antifa to continue burning and looting for social justice and even contributed personal funds to bail out rioters in order for them to keep going what they were doing, violence.


Months of violence. Many more dead and injured compared to the Capital riot all encouraged by Democrats unwilling to speak against the violence in a meaningful way.


So get ready 1blackman1 because you are going to hear a shit load of "whataboutism" tomorrow and it is just one other reason I won't find Trump guilty of something Democrats did repeatedly without any consequences.


Equal application of the law or no application of the law.

[oeb11]

HF - thank you good Sir - well written.



as to 1b1, Trey,, etc - you are wasting your time with logic, facts, Truth, and cogent and constructive debate for One whose allegiance is teh marxist DPST/ccp narrative in blind religiosity - Uber Alles!

[Unique_Carpenter]

Hedonist,
Nice write.
One of my thoughts was that the Dim Managers were trying to present all this stuff as if they were presenting to a basic civie audience, as would be found in a normal jury trial.
Huge error.
The jury in this case are some of the smartest men around and they already know what the core issues are.
And the whole 1st amendment issue is a key thing.
Nancy and co need to get away from their do it my way or else routine or they will lose the house and senate in 1 year 10 months.

[oeb11]

let nazi Pelosi and her cabal - and in teh Senate - do their damndest.

Unless they truly have their voter fraud machine in gear - The People will decide in 2022.

Based on teh damage the DPST/ccp ers did to America!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Hedonist,
Nice write.
One of my thoughts was that the Dim Managers were trying to present all this stuff as if they were presenting to a basic civie audience, as would be found in a normal jury trial.
Huge error.
The jury in this case are some of the smartest men around and they already know what the core issues are.
And the whole 1st amendment issue is a key thing.
Nancy and co need to get away from their do it my way or else routine or they will lose the house and senate in 1 year 10 months.

Trump is not going to be convicted ....so they mostly are playing to the public.

Did anyone hear what Alan D said about Trumps lawyer?

Scroll down this link....it is funny AF.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/no...?ocid=msedgntp

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Hedonist,
Nice write.
One of my thoughts was that the Dim Managers were trying to present all this stuff as if they were presenting to a basic civie audience, as would be found in a normal jury trial.
Huge error.
The jury in this case are some of the smartest men around and they already know what the core issues are.
And the whole 1st amendment issue is a key thing.
Nancy and co need to get away from their do it my way or else routine or they will lose the house and senate in 1 year 10 months.

Well, I have to hand it to the Democrat Managers, they managed to change one Senator's mind ( Cassidy from LA. ) on the issue of Constitutionality. I was wondering to myself after listening to them, just how many Republicans they might turn beyond the five that had already decided to join the Democrats because they made their case very well. I still didn't buy it.



What I found interesting was how Democrats, in both impeachments became textualists when any other time, they argue against textualism in favor of a "living Constitution" but when they think it will help their argument, they use it as they did today and as I said, they almost had me changing my mind, parsing the words with their original textual meaning.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification

What is the meaning of that clause? What if you aren't removing a President from office? Does that make Clause 7 null and void as some are arguing? And to get to disqualification, do you have to have the conviction first?


Seems as though there is a section in the 14th Amendment that says even without conviction, a President can be disqualified from ever running again, if the majority (51 votes ) decides the President was involved in an insurrection and they don't need a trial to prove it. They just call for a vote.


We know Trump will not be convicted. What we don't know yet is whether the Senate will invoke the 14th Amendment and with a simple majority, bar Trump from ever running again. I can't imagine that Democrats won't do this though some Constitutional scholar's say it will almost certainly be appealed to the SC and maybe the robes will end up ruling on this after all.


Good stuff. Interesting as hell.

[gnadfly]

Did anyone ask "Where's Justice Roberts?" and "Why isn't he here?"

[1blackman1]

HF you are wrong. You wrote all that and continue to be wrong.

The meaning of your clause you wonder about is pretty simple. It limits what can be done to a person to removal of office and preclusion from attaining another office. It means they can criminalize the behavior or jail someone. It limits the punishments to political punishment only.

You other question of the SC involvement I have doubts. The political question doctrine would likely be invoked and the court would deny justifiability.

Again this is a political process and the fact that the DoJ or state can bring charges is irrelevant to the political process so without the ability to have a political impeachment and trial there would be no political punishment if the person resigns or their term expires. You’re too caught up with other processes. There are actions a president (for instance) can do that might not be statutorily illegal but surely unconstitutional and impeachable.

What if a president knowing he’s likely to lose his race activates, for national security purposes, the military and blocks roads in and around swing districts in select congressional races to negatively affect voting to ensure a Democrat house or senate. Is that prosecutable. Maybe but I can’t think of a statute it violates. Is it an unconstitutuonal abuse of power and likely a high crime or misdemeanor, I suspect so since he’s using the power of his office to manipulate the election but not for his personal benefit. Under your logic there is no recourse for his actions. Can’t be prosecuted and if he loses his election he can’t be impeached and tried. If he could resign and their would be no political cost except at the next election. In or her words the ability to remove from office and preclude further office would have no meaning at all.