Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I read from two different sources where most of Trump’s legal team that’s supposed to represent him at his upcoming trial in the senate are no longer on board. Five attorneys (including the lead) are gone. Sources say the split was mutual, but came from a difference of opinion on how to best proceed. Trump was allegedly upset that the attorneys wouldn’t go public denying that any wrong was done and they also refused to incorporate claims of the “stolen election” into Trump’s defense.
That’s not good, with an answer due on Tuesday and a trial starting next week. The sources also said that Trump believes that he can defend the charges himself, which doesn’t lend to him listening to his own counsel. 
On another note, the talking heads are now claiming that if the impeachment doesn’t yield a conviction, congress can still disqualify Trump from ever holding office again by way of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment... only requiring a simple majority in both chambers of congress instead of the 2/3rd majority needed for conviction on impeachment.  That’s gonna be interesting to watch. 
It’s gonna be an exhausting few weeks coming up. 

Posted

Maybe this is the reason why:   The government has no jurisdiction to impeach once a President leaves office.  I'll differ to Alan Dershowitz on this one. 

From the article:  "Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. The Constitution is clear: “The president . . . shall be removed from office on impeachment . . . and conviction”—not by the expiration of his term before the impeachment process is complete. It also mandates that “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal and disqualification“—not or disqualification."  

You say it's not good.  I say it appears that it doesn't matter!

This is the hidden content, please

Posted
2 hours ago, Reagan said:

Maybe this is the reason why:   The government has no jurisdiction to impeach once a President leaves office.  I'll differ to Alan Dershowitz on this one. 

From the article:  "Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. The Constitution is clear: “The president . . . shall be removed from office on impeachment . . . and conviction”—not by the expiration of his term before the impeachment process is complete. It also mandates that “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal and disqualification“—not or disqualification."  

You say it's not good.  I say it appears that it doesn't matter!

This is the hidden content, please

I’m sure there will be different opinions as to the constitutionality... I’m confused as to why the Chief Justice isn’t presiding over the trial. I suspect that issue (constitutionality) will end up being heard by the Supreme Court at some point. 

Posted

Not to be rude but I really could care less.  I personally think he was a good president but he is now out of office.  I wish him the best, I think it’s a bunch of hooey.  He basically hurt a lot of people’s feelings, wrecked shop for the Washington DC elitists and because of that they have an axe to grind.  The sad thing is the normal American could care less about what happens In DC.  Leave me alone, keep taxes low and let me go about my business.  

Posted
1 hour ago, Reagan said:

Trump should simply ignore senate impeachment trial!

This is the hidden content, please

I think the trial will end in another acquittal.  

The next question is whether the Dems go after him in an additional action under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and what that will look like.  They ALLEGEDLY only need a simple majority to disqualify him from ever running again, and I think that they can establish that.  

I don't want to live in a country where the two houses of Congress can ban a person from ever holding office with only a simple majority in both chambers.

The whole world has gone nuts.  The Dems have a mandate to do every single thing that their extreme left wing wants because they now hold a tie-breaker in the Senate.  Some mandate, lol.  

 

Posted
8 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I think the trial will end in another acquittal.  

The next question is whether the Dems go after him in an additional action under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and what that will look like.  They ALLEGEDLY only need a simple majority to disqualify him from ever running again, and I think that they can establish that.  

I don't want to live in a country where the two houses of Congress can ban a person from ever holding office with only a simple majority in both chambers.

The whole world has gone nuts.  The Dems have a mandate to do every single thing that their extreme left wing wants because they now hold a tie-breaker in the Senate.  Some mandate, lol.  

 

They scream and shout unity, but yet want no part of it.  The D’s have gone off the deep end.

Posted
3 minutes ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

I wonder why Trump’s well paid lawyers are refusing to parrot the “election was stolen” propaganda.. 🙃

I feel it's a future business decision rather than dealing with the truth.  Unfortunately, the election is over.  So, they see the left attacking anybody that's dealt with Trump.  For an example, the loony left is trying to get Harvard to take away any degrees from people who worked for Trump.  Such as his last press Secretary.  She has a law degree from Harvard.  The loony left is evil!  

Posted
12 minutes ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

I wonder why Trump’s well paid lawyers are refusing to parrot the “election was stolen” propaganda.. 🙃

Be sure they fear bad press and insurrection charges. The same reason you’ll find no attorneys in China waging lawsuits against their government. That’s just my guess. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Reagan said:

I feel it's a future business decision rather than dealing with the truth.  Unfortunately, the election is over.  So, they see the left attacking anybody that's dealt with Trump.  For an example, the loony left is trying to get Harvard to take away any degrees from people who worked for Trump.  Such as his last press Secretary.  She has a law degree from Harvard.  The loony left is evil!  

Yep. 

Posted
17 minutes ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

I wonder why Trump’s well paid lawyers are refusing to parrot the “election was stolen” propaganda.. 🙃

I was going to say timing, but Reagan and Smashmouth answered appropriately.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Reagan said:

I feel it's a future business decision rather than dealing with the truth.  Unfortunately, the election is over.  So, they see the left attacking anybody that's dealt with Trump.  For an example, the loony left is trying to get Harvard to take away any degrees from people who worked for Trump.  Such as his last press Secretary.  She has a law degree from Harvard.  The loony left is evil!  

But why take on the case in the first place then? Assuming your thesis is correct

Posted
58 minutes ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

But why take on the case in the first place then? Assuming your thesis is correct

People get charged with (crimes) and are entitled to a defense. The legality of it all should have been ruled upon in the house, but when democrats have a vendetta and control the house, legality is tossed aside in favor of vengeance. 

Posted
2 hours ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

But why take on the case in the first place then? Assuming your thesis is correct

Easy, now.... don't go making too much sense.

 

Trump has been deranged since the vote totals came in.  Nothing has changed.  It's why he needs to be convicted in the Senate and then disqualified from ever running for office again.  

Posted

Sorry, if you, or anybody else had charges against them, they wouldn’t want to be convicted with that flimsy of evidence.... somebody claiming that they are deranged. That’s clearly not a convictable offense. 

Posted
On 1/31/2021 at 5:21 PM, CardinalBacker said:

I’m sure there will be different opinions as to the constitutionality... I’m confused as to why the Chief Justice isn’t presiding over the trial. I suspect that issue (constitutionality) will end up being heard by the Supreme Court at some point. 

Why Roberts isn’t there confuses me too.  I wonder if it’s the fact he knows it’s unconstitutional already?   Imo, the whole thing is analogous to a spoiled child who won’t stop with throwing his tantrum.  The man is gone, move on.

Posted
1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

Easy, now.... don't go making too much sense.

 

Trump has been deranged since the vote totals came in.  Nothing has changed.  It's why he needs to be convicted in the Senate and then disqualified from ever running for office again.  

Trump 2024 to get us out of the mess biden, or whomever is running the 💩show, is making in two weeks of being in charge!!

Posted
4 hours ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

But why take on the case in the first place then? Assuming your thesis is correct

Possibly because they made a poor judgment from the get go as to gambling that the rhetoric would calm over time. When the screeches for “off with the heads” of Trump supporters did not subside, they decided to pull the plug. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,283
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Malachi
    Newest Member
    Malachi
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...