Americas

[henry quirk]

https://www.businessinsider.com/actuall ... ap-2013-11

This is a repost (of a kind) from another thread. The link was lost there amidst other posts.

I stumbled on to story and found it interesting. It reminds me of an in-forum conversation from a while back wherein I asserted Americans are not nearly as cohesive or monolithic as non-americans think we are.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If Trump has been 'impeached' Henry (whatever the hell that even means), is he allowed to stand again?

[henry quirk]

If Trump has been 'impeached' Henry (whatever the hell that even means), is he allowed to stand again?

All impeachment really means is the House of Reps thinks he's been naughty and formally sez so.

The meat of things is the Senate trial.

Till he's convicted in that trial: He's the Prez. And, if he's acquitted: then he remains the Prez and can (will) be reelected this November.

If convicted (not likely): he's ousted, probably prohibited from holdin' public office, and V.P. Pence steps in as Prez.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If Trump has been 'impeached' Henry (whatever the hell that even means), is he allowed to stand again?

All impeachment really means is the House of Reps thinks he's been naughty and formally sez so.

The meat of things is the Senate trial.

Till he's convicted in that trial: He's the Prez. And, if he's acquitted: then he remains the Prez and can (will) be reelected this November.

If convicted (not likely): he's ousted, probably prohibited from holdin' public office, and V.P. Pence steps in as Prez.

Some 'democracy', especially if he's alienated enough of his own party. If anyone has ever deserved to be 'impeached' it would be Bush jr. and Obama--both for mass murder.

[henry quirk]

If Trump has been 'impeached' Henry (whatever the hell that even means), is he allowed to stand again?

All impeachment really means is the House of Reps thinks he's been naughty and formally sez so.

The meat of things is the Senate trial.

Till he's convicted in that trial: He's the Prez. And, if he's acquitted: then he remains the Prez and can (will) be reelected this November.

If convicted (not likely): he's ousted, probably prohibited from holdin' public office, and V.P. Pence steps in as Prez.

Some 'democracy', especially if he's alienated enough of his own party. If anyone has ever deserved to be 'impeached' it would be Bush jr. and Obama--both for mass murder.

We're not a democracy.

And: yeah, impeachment is mostly a political instrument.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

We're not a democracy.

But I think that was the plan;

"government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".

[henry quirk]

We're not a democracy.

But I think that was the plan;

"government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".

That's what Lincoln said, that's not what the Constitution promises (a limited, controlled government serving a free people). Certainly, American government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people but it is of, by, and for the people so the common man can rule himself, not so he can trade the rulership of King for the rulership of majority. To that end: the common man elects representatives from among his own ranks to exercise limited power, and this all occurs within the narrow confines of the Constitution. We vote, but only on a narrow range of things; our reps vote, but only on a narrow range of things.

That was the plan, one we've strayed from.

[gaffo]

If Trump has been 'impeached' Henry (whatever the hell that even means), is he allowed to stand again?

Impeachment is done. and without the Senate convicting (finding the accussed (prez) guilty) - pres will be allowed to remain prez as an impeached one via the House.

- there is a second option NEVER mentioned, but legal to do. whereas the Senate to convict the impeached president requires 2/3's of the senate to affirm, the second option is for a simple majority (so 51/49 - 2?3? republicans will have to vote with dem senators for this - rather than the 20 or so needed to convict).

via a simple majority of the Senate that body can deny the president a second term. I forget the legal terminalogy but it is sort of like a vote of no confidence, and in effect a removal of that person's ability to hold an office in government in the future.

and so there is that second option, which would force Trump out of office at the end of this term and not allow him to run for a second term via a simple majority in our Senate.

as said before option is never mentioned in the press/on the news, but it is there (as was/is the option of the House arresting Mulvany for not appearing before the House after being supeaned(sp).............the House has a Sargent of Arms (Paui Irving) with 10-20 guys with the power to arrest (they were last used in the 1930's, and used at least twice a decade between 1780's and 1900's - so at least 20-30 times prior). They are under the orders and power of our House of Reps, not our Executive, so they are not under the control of our Deptment of Justice/FBI - and under the Constitution have full power of arrest! I think Pilousi(sp) should have used Irving to arrest Mulvany myself.

she did not order him to do so and so sadly not used my Constitution to its full power.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/9 ... reelection

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf

[Walker]

And: yeah, impeachment is mostly a political instrument.

In its corrupted form.

With this baseless impeachment, the Legislative branch of government, which has constitutional oversight over the executive branch, is abusing its authority* not only with the impeachment, but with interpreting oversight to mean, micromanaging the executive branch, thus effectively seizing the actionable power of the executive branch, giving Congress unequal (and thus unconstitutional) power. As with Obamacare, with a completely partisan vote in the House, the Democrats are exhibiting a political philosophy more common to a banana republic, i.e.: True Power is seized, not granted.


* Via malicious use of process, a malfeasance for which Congress is apparently immune, but could be challenged based on evidence of a political party attempting to subvert the constitution in a coup to overthrow a duly elected president.


Legal Definition of malicious prosecution
: the tort of initiating a criminal prosecution or civil suit against another party with malice and without probable cause also
: an action for damages based on this tort brought after termination of the proceedings in favor of the party seeking damages
— called also malicious use of process

[Arising_uk]

And Clinton's was what? Surely what's good for the goose?

[henry quirk]

And Clinton's was what? Surely what's good for the goose?

Lordy, but that was a rather large cluster fuck, that one.

The used car salesman wasn't on the up & up, but he shoulda never been impeached and tried.

Ultimately: all that came from it was pain and sufferin' for the Repubs.

The Dems, apparently not bein' students of history, are puttin' their hands into a meat grinder, and Trump will gladly turn and turn and turn the handle.

[Arising_uk]

And Clinton's was what? Surely what's good for the goose?

Lordy, but that was a rather large cluster fuck, that one.

The used car salesman wasn't on the up & up, but he shoulda never been impeached and tried.

Ultimately: all that came from it was pain and sufferin' for the Repubs.

The Dems, apparently not bein' students of history, are puttin' their hands into a meat grinder, and Trump will gladly turn and turn and turn the handle.

Agreed but the precedent was set by the Repubs and for a lot less than using one's office and private mates to dig up dirt on rivals from a foreign state for an upcoming election, no?

[henry quirk]

And Clinton's was what? Surely what's good for the goose?

Lordy, but that was a rather large cluster fuck, that one.

The used car salesman wasn't on the up & up, but he shoulda never been impeached and tried.

Ultimately: all that came from it was pain and sufferin' for the Repubs.

The Dems, apparently not bein' students of history, are puttin' their hands into a meat grinder, and Trump will gladly turn and turn and turn the handle.

Agreed but the precedent was set by the Repubs and for a lot less than using one's office and private mates to dig up dirt on rivals from a foreign state for an upcoming election, no?

Yeah, the Repubs set the precedent and lost their hands. Dems: too dumb to not repeat history?

Well, Trump opposers say he did wrong (based on hearsay and interpretation of fact) and Trump supporters say he did no wrong (based on hearsay and interpretation of fact). Me: I don't give a flip either way. As I've said before: Trump can do whatever the hell likes as long as he does what I hired him to do.

Bluntly: if he ain't rapin' kids, ain't workin' to take my shotgun, and ain't workin' to put a leash around my throat, and as long as he continues to flummox and frustrate the folks who are, he's got my vote in November.

[Immanuel Can]

Agreed but the precedent was set by the Repubs and for a lot less than using one's office and private mates to dig up dirt on rivals from a foreign state for an upcoming election, no?

No. It doesn't seem that that happened.

There is, so far as anyone can find, no evidence of such a thing. The Ukrainians say it didn't happen at all, because they felt no pressure and were investigating anyway -- at least until J. Biden got the investigator sacked. There are no tapes or documents of Trump doing it. There are no witnesses called to confirm that it happened. No other person has been able to say anymore than "I felt like something like that could have happened," but everyone who thinks that is a Democrat, it seems. There isn't enough evidence to warrant a legal proceeding of the most rudimentary kind, even...just a lot of talk from the Dem side, and some spin from the media, so far as I have been able to discover.

Maybe he did it, and maybe he didn't: who knows? But one thing's clear...there's insufficient evidence for anything, let alone an impeachment. If there were evidence, you can be the Dems would have put it on the table.

But more importantly, did Biden DO it? Did he actually use his influence as Vice President to leverage a job for his unqualified, coke-sniffing son? It seems he did, and we have the evidence he did.

So the question turns to, why is nobody concerned that Biden did that? That would surely be abuse of power. So why aren't Biden and his kid in jail, or at least in front of an inquiry? And while that remains to be done, why does anybody spend any time on an impeachment for which there is zero evidence, apparently?

American politics are mystifying to an outsider. It just looks like it's all about party, and nothing about truth.

[henry quirk]

Agreed but the precedent was set by the Repubs and for a lot less than using one's office and private mates to dig up dirt on rivals from a foreign state for an upcoming election, no?

No. It doesn't seem that that happened.

There is, so far as anyone can find, no evidence of such a thing. The Ukrainians say it didn't happen at all, because they felt no pressure and were investigating anyway -- at least until J. Biden got the investigator sacked. There are no tapes or documents of Trump doing it. There are no witnesses called to confirm that it happened. No other person has been able to say anymore than "I felt like something like that could have happened," but everyone who thinks that is a Democrat, it seems. There isn't enough evidence to warrant a legal proceeding of the most rudimentary kind, even...just a lot of talk from the Dem side, and some spin from the media, so far as I have been able to discover.

Maybe he did it, and maybe he didn't: who knows? But one thing's clear...there's insufficient evidence for anything, let alone an impeachment. If there were evidence, you can be the Dems would have put it on the table.

But more importantly, did Biden DO it? Did he actually use his influence as Vice President to leverage a job for his unqualified, coke-sniffing son? It seems he did, and we have the evidence he did.

So the question turns to, why is nobody concerned that Biden did that? That would surely be abuse of power. So why aren't Biden and his kid in jail, or at least in front of an inquiry? And while that remains to be done, why does anybody spend any time on an impeachment for which there is zero evidence, apparently?

American politics are mystifying to an outsider. It just looks like it's all about party, and nothing about truth.

A nail hit squarely.

As I say: the Dems lose.

There was little to stop Trump's reelection (certainly none of the Dem wannabes have a chance against him) and with the impeachment he's been rendered a juggernaut.

Worth mentionin' again: I don't give a flip if he 'abused his office'. I hired him to bitch slap, nuthin' more or less.