Vetting for a WH job?
Republicans stopped caring about that awhile back.
1 Like
Just saying, ⌠the Dirt file they would bring to bear on Dump Jnr, would be about as thick as the old Yellow pages. Just let him try for it, ⌠oh boy.
1 Like
The other 4âŚ
EDIT: dodgy maths, thinking of a normal vote where each switch is worth 1 for and -1 against.
I think itâs gorgeous that youâre still living in 2014.
I prefer to live in 1986, myself, but Iâm nowhere near as committed.
The only thing stopping Jr is his lack of charisma.
The daughter might actually be a bigger threat.
3 Likes
The dirt file?
LOL.
After the last 4 years of Donald Trump Snr, 70+ mil people still voted him.
He didnât need a dirt file. He showed it to the public.
They donât seem to care for the dirt. They love the mud.
7 Likes
Needed 17, ⌠got 7âŚ
1 Like
If Iâm interpreting that right, the Democrat (plus aligned) Senators represent 62% of the population and the Republicans 38%.
1 Like
That isnât how the US works for the powerful
Dump Jnr is not his Daddy, ⌠not by the length of a straight.
1 Like
He wonât run in 2024, but he will continue to run the scam that he will. This allows him to raise money and divert it to his own pocket. The dumb a*se republicans by acquitting him have sacrificed funds they would have received for their own campaigns
4 Likes
He wonât be able to pretend to once they ban him from ever holding office again under the 14th amendment, ⌠which seems all but Guaranteed,
Are you talking about this?
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
You seem very optimistic on this. Have any of the actual invaders of the Capitol been charged with insurrection or rebellion? Are those two words actual charges, or do they refer to a range of actual charges under different names?
A list of charges laid as of yesterday is in the below link:
EDIT: see below for a better legal commentary
Republicans need his support. They wont do this
Decent article here:
They donât need to, ⌠but a few will anyway.
The problem republicans have is Trump did receive the highest number of votes a sitting president has ever received. His support is massive in his party. When the elections are so close even if 10% of republicanâs defect they wont win another election for years / decades
Good
3 Likes
The 14th Amendment offers an easier way than impeachment to ban Trump from future office
Congress could disqualify him by a simple majority vote.
By Scot Lehigh Globe Columnist,Updated January 14, 2021, 4:10 p.m.
LESLEY BECKER/GLOBE STAFF; GLOBE FILE PHOTO
Our Capitol is now an armed camp, with the National Guard policing congressional halls as lawmakers try to reestablish a sense of what constitutes unacceptable political conduct. For House Democrats, thatâs a president inciting a deluded and angry mob to violence. For most Republicans, sadly, itâs holding that president accountable for his actions.
Unless Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell changes his declared course, the Senate will not take up the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump before the presidentâs term expires, next week. Itâs possible that postponing the trial until Trump has left office will make it easier for Senate Republicans to vote to convict. But it will also open those proceedings to the political and legal argument that impeachment doesnât properly apply to public figures who no longer hold office.
RELATED: Trump impeachment trial could begin on Inauguration Day
Either way, it seems unlikely the Senate will reach the two-thirds threshold necessary to convict Trump â and, as the article of impeachment envisions, ban him from holding office again. Imposing such a ban would then apparently require only a majority vote by the Senate.
Fortunately, thereâs another means to that end. Itâs the 14th Amendment, which allows Congress to impose such a ban by a simple majority vote. Section 3 of that amendment was intended to keep former Confederate officials and soldiers from serving in the federal government, explains Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science at Yale Law School.
âIn the American mind, impeachment is the well-established way of condemning presidents who are assaulting the foundations of democracy,â Ackerman said. Nevertheless, he said, âthis second pathâ is every bit as legitimate and more likely to prevent a comeback by this democracy-disdaining demagogue.
RELATED: Explainer: Barring Trump from holding office again
That section stipulates that no one who has previously taken an oath âto support the Constitution of the United Statesâ and then âengaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereofâ can hold any public office of position in this country.
âAll that is required is for Congress by majority vote to charge that this is the case,â Ackerman told me.
Ackerhmanâs own preference would be for the House and the Senate, in a joint resolution disqualifying Trump, to set up a framework by which Trump could argue before the US Supreme Court that he hadnât done what Congress cited in disqualifying him. Thatâs not constitutionally required, however. (That said, the matter would probably reach the Supreme Court anyway, via a legal challenge.)
In a rational political world, banning Trump from electoral politics wouldnât be necessary. By his many dishonest attempts to subvert democracy, most particularly in whipping up his supporters and directing them to the Capitol, Trump would have rendered himself a political pariah. My expectation is that as the events of the last week sink in more fully, and yet more details emerge, the hold he has on the GOP will fade markedly.
But that will take more time, considerably more soul-searching, and, probably, political battles within the GOP. The rationalizations and irrelevancies Republicans offered in Trumpâs defense on Wednesday show we arenât even close yet.
RELATED: Trump isolated, angry at aides for not defending him
I occasionally urge readers to don philosopher John Rawlsâs âveil of ignoranceâ when assessing political events. Try that here. Presume you donât know the political affiliation of a president who urged officials to reject their stateâs election results and, when they wouldnât, pressured his vice president to block certification of the Electoral College votes; a president who urged his legions to come to Washington for a âwildâ protest and who, despite saying he knew his supporters would make their voices heard âpeacefully and patriotically,â also declared that he would never give up or concede, urged them to âstop the steal,â and, before sending them to the Capitol, told them that âyouâll never take back our country with weakness; you have to show strength and you have to be strong.â
If what followed was a violent ransacking of the Capitol, in which five people died, would you support impeachment? I expect most people would, regardless of party. We can say with near certainty that the GOP would. After all, two decades ago, Republicans impeached Bill Clinton for receiving oral sex from a White House intern and then lying about it.
In the age of Trump, that seems like a kerfuffle from the Victorian era.strong text
I was still under the impression that it would still most likely have to go through the courts?
If itâs easy though as you have posted just make it happen ASAP
1 Like