|
Post by constancespry on Jul 29, 2022 23:19:37 GMT
Not if the dems gain majority in January! Another reason to vote the repubs out, as if we needed more. It's not going to happen. First, you'd need grounds for impeachment to even get it through the House. Then to convict, you need 2/3 of the Senate to vote in favor of conviction. Even with all the crap that has been going on, just getting a majority in the Senate will be a battle, IMO, it's a pipe dream to think you'd get 67 seats.
Well, I guess we are screwed for years then.
|
|
|
Post by Cartermrc on Jul 30, 2022 17:06:42 GMT
The whole impeachment process really doesn't work very well. We've had 3 impeachments within the last 30 years and they all went nowhere, nor did Andrew Johnson's in 1868.
|
|
|
Post by albatross on Jul 30, 2022 17:39:22 GMT
The impeachment process is supposed to be difficult. The framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure that it was difficult to remove the President and other officials because of political differences. To achieve this, they require both an impeachment, which requires a simple majority in the House, and a trial in the Senate, with a 2/3 majority required for conviction. If the impeachment process were easy, then just imagine what would happen if one party controlled both the House and Senate, but the other party was in the White House or the Supreme Court had the wrong makeup. If all that was needed was a simple majority in both houses, then a party getting control of both houses of Congress would be able to use the impeachment process to steal control of all three branches of the government. Do you really want to risk any more of our rights by counting on good or honorable behavior from members of Congress? It's the same reason there are stricter requirements for Congress to override a veto vs. pass a bill or amend the Constitution vs. pass a law. The controls were put in place to try to preserve the balance of power.
|
|
|
Post by tulip on Jul 31, 2022 0:52:51 GMT
The impeachment process is supposed to be difficult. The framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure that it was difficult to remove the President and other officials because of political differences. To achieve this, they require both an impeachment, which requires a simple majority in the House, and a trial in the Senate, with a 2/3 majority required for conviction. If the impeachment process were easy, then just imagine what would happen if one party controlled both the House and Senate, but the other party was in the White House or the Supreme Court had the wrong makeup. If all that was needed was a simple majority in both houses, then a party getting control of both houses of Congress would be able to use the impeachment process to steal control of all three branches of the government. Do you really want to risk any more of our rights by counting on good or honorable behavior from members of Congress? It's the same reason there are stricter requirements for Congress to override a veto vs. pass a bill or amend the Constitution vs. pass a law. The controls were put in place to try to preserve the balance of power.
Albatross -- you hit on one of the major issues with our government... counting on the good or honorable behavior of its leaders. For decades, even if you didn't agree with policies and beliefs of those in power, most of the time you could feel they were operating out of what they believed was best for the country. That's all gone. Now it's about winning at all costs and protecting your power. Then you have Trump who basically made a fortune from being president -- not that others don't profit (post-presidential writing books, speaker circuit, etc.). But he made a being president a giant grift. He spit in the eye of ethics and went even farther beyond that to plan a government coup. That he is still walking around flapping his giant mouth about the "stolen" election and whipping up his base infuriates me. I really hope they get the goods on him enough to get him out of office. ...and one more weird little peeve of mine... that anyone can run for president even though there are constitutional guidelines for it. Ted Cruz was born in Canada. He shouldn't be allowed to be president, but somehow he ran and somehow he got on ballots and now with a stacked SC someone like him could potentially be elected and put in the WH. Who's going to stop them? There is no oversight with any sort of power.
|
|
|
Post by constancespry on Jul 31, 2022 2:38:08 GMT
The scrotus is scheduled to hear Moore v. Harper this year, and some legal scholars are sure they will rule to allow state lawmakers to overturn presidential elections. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina swing states trend blue in presidential elections but they are ruled by gerrymandered repub state legislatures. Biden won five of those states in 2020 and rump tried to coerce the gop state legislators into discarding Biden’s win and appointing rump electors instead but they wouldn't do it because it was illegal. And the scrotus ruling on this case could make it legal.
Which means the repubs could LEGALLY overrule and discard the majority vote and overturn a presidential election by manipulating swing state votes, just like rump tried to do in 2020. From what I understand, there are no comparable red-trending states which are ruled by dems, so this will only benefit repubs and allow them to throw out the will of the voters and overturn any dem president who is elected and certify their loser repub candidate instead.
Just in case the scrotus doesn't rule the way they want, the repubs are also trying to legislate the “independent state legislature” (ISL) doctrine. This assigns control of congressional elections and the appointment of presidential electors in each state to “the Legislature thereof.” It would give state lawmakers unrestricted power over elections and electors. So a state legislature dominated by repubs in a state won by dems could just throw out presidential voting results by declaring that the voters have failed to make a choice because, for example, there are (fake) allegations of fraud (like in 2020) and appoint their own electors. It didn't work for them back then, but it will work next time if they continue to succeed at their attempts to mold the country and its laws into what they want, and what keeps the repub party in power.
I just wish everyone eligible to vote would realize how dangerous and potentially damaging all of this is to our democracy, and vote the repubs out in November. If moscow mitch and his minions end up controlling congress, we just might be done for good.
|
|
|
Post by panic on Aug 1, 2022 17:19:26 GMT
That is one of the most frightening things I've ever read.
|
|
|
Post by no1novice on Aug 1, 2022 19:03:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by no1novice on Aug 4, 2022 22:30:53 GMT
Trump likely to be criminally charged in DOJ election probe along with other former White House officials, Obama AG Holder says PUBLISHED THU, AUG 4 2022 3:03 PM EDT UPDATED AN HOUR AGO Dan Mangan @_DANMANGAN WATCH LIVE KEY POINTS Former President Donald Trump "probably" will be indicted on criminal charges along with former White House officials as part of a Justice Department investigation of efforts to reverse the 2020 election results nationally, ex-Attorney General Eric Holder said. But Holder suggested Trump is more likely to first face possible criminal charges from a Georgia prosecutor investigating Trump and allies for attempts to undo President Joe Biden's win there. "I expect you're going to see the pace of this investigation or these investigations pick up," Holder said. GP: Eric Holder speaking 160726 Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Paul Morigi | WireImage | Getty Images Former President Donald Trump "probably" will be indicted on criminal charges along with officials in his White House as part of a Justice Department investigation of efforts to reverse the 2020 election results nationally, ex-Attorney General Eric Holder said in an interview Thursday.
But Holder suggested that before that happens, Trump is more likely to first face possible criminal charges from the Georgia state prosecutor who is investigating attempts by Trump and his allies to undo President Joe Biden's win there in 2020.
Holder, who led the Justice Department during the Obama administration, made those predictions during an interview with the SiriusXM Urban View satellite radio show Joe Madison The Black Eagle.
Madison asked Holder whether he would seek to indict Trump if he still were attorney general.
Holder demurred, saying he did not have access to all the material that the Justice Department currently has regarding Trump.
GP: Donald Trump at LIV Golf Invitational - Bedminster 220728 Former U.S. President Donald Trump looks on during the pro-am prior to the LIV Golf Invitational - Bedminster at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster on July 28, 2022 in Bedminster, New Jersey. Cliff Hawkins | Getty Images But he told Madison that, based on his experience as a federal prosecutor who filed public corruption cases against elected officials, as "more evidence is elicited, you will see people start to cut deals."
"My guess is that by the end of this process, you're going to see indictments involving high-level people in the White House, you're going to see indictments against people outside the White House who were advising them with regard to the attempt to steal the election," said Holder.
"And I think ultimately you're probably going to see the president, former president of the United States indicted as well," he said.
The Justice Department reportedly is presenting evidence and testimony before two federal grand juries in Washington, D.C., one of which is eyeing a plan by Trump's lawyers and others to have so-called fake electors claim that the then-Republican incumbent won the election in their individual states.
|
|
|
Post by louiswinthorpe111 on Aug 5, 2022 17:03:05 GMT
The scrotus is scheduled to hear Moore v. Harper this year, and some legal scholars are sure they will rule to allow state lawmakers to overturn presidential elections. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina swing states trend blue in presidential elections but they are ruled by gerrymandered repub state legislatures. Biden won five of those states in 2020 and rump tried to coerce the gop state legislators into discarding Biden’s win and appointing rump electors instead but they wouldn't do it because it was illegal. And the scrotus ruling on this case could make it legal.
Which means the repubs could LEGALLY overrule and discard the majority vote and overturn a presidential election by manipulating swing state votes, just like rump tried to do in 2020. From what I understand, there are no comparable red-trending states which are ruled by dems, so this will only benefit repubs and allow them to throw out the will of the voters and overturn any dem president who is elected and certify their loser repub candidate instead.
Just in case the scrotus doesn't rule the way they want, the repubs are also trying to legislate the “independent state legislature” (ISL) doctrine. This assigns control of congressional elections and the appointment of presidential electors in each state to “the Legislature thereof.” It would give state lawmakers unrestricted power over elections and electors. So a state legislature dominated by repubs in a state won by dems could just throw out presidential voting results by declaring that the voters have failed to make a choice because, for example, there are (fake) allegations of fraud (like in 2020) and appoint their own electors. It didn't work for them back then, but it will work next time if they continue to succeed at their attempts to mold the country and its laws into what they want, and what keeps the repub party in power.
I just wish everyone eligible to vote would realize how dangerous and potentially damaging all of this is to our democracy, and vote the repubs out in November. If moscow mitch and his minions end up controlling congress, we just might be done for good.
This is 100% fact. This fall could in fact be our last free election because the Moore decision won't hit until after midterms. If dems don't win the midterms, democracy is over. I don't mean to sound like an alarmist, but all of this is really being held together by a thread.
|
|
|
Post by kittylady on Aug 8, 2022 23:18:16 GMT
Got a breaking news story making the online papers here - the FBI have raided Mar-a-Largo. Donald Trump says his Mar-a-Lago home has been raided by the FBI. 'These are dark times for our Nation, as my beautiful home, Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, is currently under siege, raided, and occupied by a large group of FBI agents. Nothing like this has ever happened to a President of the United States before,' he said in statement Monday night.' 'After working and cooperating with the relevant Government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate.' It is unclear what the raid is for, what kind of warrant is being executed and what agents are seeking. Trump said: 'It is prosecutorial misconduct, the weaponization of the Justice System, and an attack by Radical Left Democrats who desperately don’t want me to run for President in 2024, especially based on recent polls, and who will likewise do anything to stop Republicans and Conservatives in the upcoming Midterm Elections. 'Such an assault could only take place in broken, Third-World Countries. 'Sadly, America has now become one of those Countries, corrupt at a level not seen before. 'They even broke into my safe! What is the difference between this and Watergate, where operatives broke into the Democrat National Committee? Here, in reverse, Democrats broke into the home of the 45th President of the United States.' It's unclear if Trump was at his Florida home when the raid took place. He was in Texas over the weekend. He usually spends August at his golf club in Bedminister, N.J. Photos posted to social media show him there on Sunday, posing with a newly-engaged couple. Article - Daily Heil
EDIT: There is now a thread dedicated to this and can be found HERE
|
|
trixie
OGs
stuck in the middle with you...
Posts: 2,105
|
Post by trixie on Aug 17, 2022 20:32:41 GMT
It's too bad Liz Cheney won't be on the committee for long. Trump speaks and the cult votes her out. She went from someone with something like 70% of the vote to 30%. Is it any wonder these repubs don't dare speak out against him? They don't want to be sent to the cornfield.
Sarah Palin wins her primary. This is bad.
|
|
|
Post by notoriousmkg on Aug 17, 2022 20:40:06 GMT
Why wouldn't Liz Cheney serve out her full term in office?
|
|
trixie
OGs
stuck in the middle with you...
Posts: 2,105
|
Post by trixie on Aug 17, 2022 21:10:47 GMT
She will. But she lost her primary so she's done as soon as her term runs out. The Trump backed candidate won.
|
|
|
Post by no1novice on Sept 15, 2022 20:24:56 GMT
Oath Keepers lawyer and federal judge in screaming match in court over US Capitol riot case By Hannah Rabinowitz, CNN Updated 1:47 PM EDT, Thu September 15, 2022 A conversation between a federal judge and a lawyer for one of the Oath Keepers charged with seditious conspiracy ended in a screaming match on Wednesday, when the lawyer suggested she would argue at trial that her client deleted evidence after the riot because he was directed to by another lawyer. Juli Haller, who represents Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs, told US District Judge Amit Mehta that she was exploring whether to argue that the Oath Keepers general counsel, Kellye SoRelle, instructed Meggs to delete text messages from his phone after the riot. Meggs has since been charged with tampering with documents for the alleged act and has pleaded not guilty. “How is it today, 10 days before trial, I’m first being told you might advance an advice-of-counsel-defense,” Mehta shouted at Haller. The argument is indicative of the many legal issues that have yet to be resolved before the five leaders of the far-right Oath Keepers militia group head to trial later this month – the first seditious conspiracy trial stemming from January 6. The trial will be a major test of DOJ’s decision to prosecute the rarely used charge, and the unsettled legal disagreements could implicate how they chose to present their case. Haller said that she only learned of the allegation after SoRelle, who was federally charged two weeks ago, testified to a grand jury in June. Her testimony has not previously been reported. Oath Keeper members brought explosives to DC area around January 6 and had a 'death list,' prosecutors say SoRelle faces charges including obstruction of an official proceeding and obstructing justice by telling others to delete information from their phones. She has pleaded not guilty. Mehta said that the allegation itself SoRelle suggested others should delete messages was not new. “I read it in the newspaper months ago,” Mehta shouted at Haller, adding “I’m not buying it” and that “it was in the indictment.” “Which indictment? The first, second, sixth,” Haller shouted over Mehta. The two continued to cut each other off, Haller alleging that it was new information and Mehta rejecting her arguments. Prosecutors shook their heads fiercely. Mehta eventually told Haller to sit down, but she did not. Another lawyer suggested a break in the hearing, to which Mehta shouted “no.” On Thursday morning, Mehta ordered that “Any defendant who intends to assert an advice-of-counsel defense … shall make such disclosure to the government by September 21, 2022.” Mehta rejected another last-minute effort to delay the trial during the hearing as well, including a request from Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes to appoint a “special master” to assist with “manage discovery” in the case. The request came from Rhodes’ attorney Edward Tarpley, who joined the case just last week during a tumultuous hearing in which Rhodes tried to fire his existing two lawyers. Mehta rejected the request in court Thursday, chastising Tarpley for asking for the special master for “no apparent reason,” calling the request “mystifying” and questioning whether Tarpley was acting in “good faith.” “I can’t imagine where the idea came from,” Mehta said. This story has been updated with additional details. edition.cnn.com/2022/09/14/politics/oath-keepers-judge-mehta-argument/index.html
|
|
|
Post by no1novice on Oct 14, 2022 9:27:32 GMT
|
|