Serious Question

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
25,583
Reaction score
5,675
Points
280
Location
Washington
I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office
Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.
So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.
The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.
I would argue that the way the Constitution is written makes barring a person from running for office part and parcel of removing them from office for clear evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than a carte blanche to just wander in and bar whomever they don't want to deal with whenever they feel like getting around to it. I would further argue that the way the Constitution is written indicates that jurisdiction passes from them to the criminal courts when that person stops being an elected official and becomes a private citizen again.

And there is nothing about this vindictive, petty little tantrum of a show trial that is remotely in keeping with the spirit and intent of our republic, so please do not try to enoble this partisan political travesty by wrapping it in the flag. If you're looking at this and telling yourself that this is in any way high-minded and of benefit to the country, then you need therapy.
Your argument would fall flat on it's face since the Senate votes separately on removal and disqualified. So no, they are not inextricably tied together.

Actually they are, the removal vote must succeed, BEFORE a vote to disqualify can take place. That's not possible now.

.
There is no vote for removal it the president is found guilty, removal is automatic. Even if the president has left office, the guilty verdict will still stand. It is the same as in any court of law. If the accused is convicted and the sentence can not be carried out, the guilty verdict still stands.

After a the Senate finds the president guilty, the Senate can pass a resolution barring the president from holding office in the future.

 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,628
Reaction score
717
Points
140
I don't recall any of those democrats having to justify pussy grabbing on national television, paying off porno stars, refusing to release their tax returns, calling white supremacists' very fine people, banning entrance to the US based on religion, referring to the poorest nations as shithole countries. . . .
The enlarged was an allusion to gold diggers. Settlements are not illegal. The semi-enlarged is not required by law. The bolded are lies. The italicized is refuted/disputed. Dick Durbin claims that Trump said shithole countries. Other Republicans at the meeting didn't hear that at all. CNN reported that some Republicans at the meeting heard shithouses, but never identified who these Republicans were.
Holy shit. :eusa_doh:

I got only as far as, "the enlarged was an allusion to gold diggers."

Uh, no. Approaching a woman and kissing them and/or grabbing their pussy is actually sexual assault if not welcomed; which it often wasn't...

Calm down, Dorothy.

Floppy alluded to a lewd conversation between Trump and Billy Bush that took place in a bus that was taking them to the Access Hollywood studio to film an episode. The Washington Post published a video of that conversation, which Trump thought was private. I neither condoned or defended Trump's attitude, but the thrust of his sentiments went to the tendency of some women to permit the advances of rich and powerful men. Trump is a womanizer.
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,628
Reaction score
717
Points
140
You couldn't be more wrong. They're separate votes. They're also separate from a vote to convict. The Senate first votes on a verdict. That requires 2/3rds to pass. If it passes, then they vote on removal. That too requires 2/3rds to pass. Then they vote on disqualification. That requires a simple majority to pass. And since they're separate votes, they can vote not to remove; and then vote to disqualify. In Twice Impeached Trump's case, if he's convicted, which seems damn near impossible, they would skip the vote to remove and proceed directly to the vote to disqualify.
False. I was with you in the above, but now you've said something that is not correct. The Senate does not vote on removal per the plain reading of the Constitution and precedent. Removal is axiomatic:

Article II, section 4 provides that officers impeached and convicted "shall be removed from office"; Article I, section 3, clause 7 provides further that "judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office. . . ."​
. . . The plain language of section 4 seems to require removal from office upon conviction, and in fact the Senate has removed those persons whom it has convicted. In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote. This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote, the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote ( Judgment - Removal and Disqualification ).​
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
25,583
Reaction score
5,675
Points
280
Location
Washington
I don't recall any of those democrats having to justify pussy grabbing on national television, paying off porno stars, refusing to release their tax returns, calling white supremacists' very fine people, banning entrance to the US based on religion, referring to the poorest nations as shithole countries. . . .
The enlarged was an allusion to gold diggers. Settlements are not illegal. The semi-enlarged is not required by law. The bolded are lies. The italicized is refuted/disputed. Dick Durbin claims that Trump said shithole countries. Other Republicans at the meeting didn't hear that at all. CNN reported that some Republicans at the meeting heard shithouses, but never identified who these Republicans were.
Holy shit. :eusa_doh:

I got only as far as, "the enlarged was an allusion to gold diggers."

Uh, no. Approaching a woman and kissing them and/or grabbing their pussy is actually sexual assault if not welcomed; which it often wasn't...

Calm down, Dorothy.

Floppy alluded to a lewd conversation between Trump and Billy Bush that took place in a bus that was taking them to the Access Hollywood studio to film an episode. The Washington Post published a video of that conversation, which Trump thought was private. I neither condoned or defended Trump's attitude, but the thrust of his sentiments went to the tendency of some women to permit the advances of rich and powerful men. Trump is a womanizer.
I did not allude to it. It is on the tape.

Trump: "Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."
Bush: "Whatever you want."
Trump: "Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything."

I suppose this could be excused if it was an isolated instance and was out of charter, but it wasn't. During his early days as a New York playboy he ran around town with escorts' and prostitutes. In one his biographies he revealed that he got his secretary to see that his women got tested for aids and VD before he dated them. He later confirmed this on the Howard Stern Show where he was a frequent guest revealing his latest sexual conquests. Adulterous affairs, relationships with escorts, strippers,, porn stars, was a big part of Trump's life. And it didn't stop when he married Melania. Over a year after their marriage he was having a relationship with Stormy Daniels. Maybe his political career curbed his lifestyle or maybe he just became more careful. Trump life has been a far cry from what we expect in a president. One thing I admire in Trump is that he doesn't try to hide what he is, an immoral, conman, who has cheated and lied, his whole life and he's been proud of it.
 
Last edited:

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,628
Reaction score
717
Points
140
I don't recall any of those democrats having to justify pussy grabbing on national television, paying off porno stars, refusing to release their tax returns, calling white supremacists' very fine people, banning entrance to the US based on religion, referring to the poorest nations as shithole countries. . . .
The enlarged was an allusion to gold diggers. Settlements are not illegal. The semi-enlarged is not required by law. The bolded are lies. The italicized is refuted/disputed. Dick Durbin claims that Trump said shithole countries. Other Republicans at the meeting didn't hear that at all. CNN reported that some Republicans at the meeting heard shithouses, but never identified who these Republicans were.
Holy shit. :eusa_doh:

I got only as far as, "the enlarged was an allusion to gold diggers."

Uh, no. Approaching a woman and kissing them and/or grabbing their pussy is actually sexual assault if not welcomed; which it often wasn't...

Calm down, Dorothy.

Floppy alluded to a lewd conversation between Trump and Billy Bush that took place in a bus that was taking them to the Access Hollywood studio to film an episode. The Washington Post published a video of that conversation, which Trump thought was private. I neither condoned or defended Trump's attitude, but the thrust of his sentiments went to the tendency of some women to permit the advances of rich and powerful men. Trump is a womanizer.
I did not allude to it. It is on the tape.

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: "Whatever you want."
Trump: "Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything."

I suppose this could be excused it was an isolated instance but it wasn't not. During his early days as a New York playboy he ran around town with escorts' and prostitutes. In one his biographies he revealed that he got his secretary to see that his women got tested for aids and VD before he dated them. He later confirmed this on the Howard Stern Show where he was a frequent guest revealing his latest sexual conquests. Adulterous affairs, relationships with escorts, strippers,, porn stars, was a big part of Trump's life. And it didn't stop when he married Melania. Over a year after their marriage he was having a relationship with Stormy Daniels. Maybe his political career curbed his lifestyle or maybe he just became more careful.
Uh, that's what allude means, you know, as in refer to or draw attention to.

And as I said, Trump is/was a womanizer and is a swaggering ass in this wise. I neither condone nor defend his behavior.

Why, exactly, are you arguing with me over this?

:dunno:
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
52,136
Reaction score
11,010
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office
Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.
So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.
The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.
I would argue that the way the Constitution is written makes barring a person from running for office part and parcel of removing them from office for clear evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than a carte blanche to just wander in and bar whomever they don't want to deal with whenever they feel like getting around to it. I would further argue that the way the Constitution is written indicates that jurisdiction passes from them to the criminal courts when that person stops being an elected official and becomes a private citizen again.

And there is nothing about this vindictive, petty little tantrum of a show trial that is remotely in keeping with the spirit and intent of our republic, so please do not try to enoble this partisan political travesty by wrapping it in the flag. If you're looking at this and telling yourself that this is in any way high-minded and of benefit to the country, then you need therapy.
Your argument would fall flat on it's face since the Senate votes separately on removal and disqualified. So no, they are not inextricably tied together.

Actually they are, the removal vote must succeed, BEFORE a vote to disqualify can take place. That's not possible now.

.
There is no vote for removal it the president is found guilty, removal is automatic. Even if the president has left office, the guilty verdict will still stand. It is the same as in any court of law. If the accused is convicted and the sentence can not be carried out, the guilty verdict still stands.

After a the Senate finds the president guilty, the Senate can pass a resolution barring the president from holding office in the future.


You might want to research Ken Lay and see if that verdict stood. Here I'll help:

On October 17, 2006, the conviction was overturned due to abatement ab initio, a legal doctrine which says the death of a defendant during an appeal results in a vacated judgment.[34][35]


.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
74,670
Reaction score
14,288
Points
2,210
You couldn't be more wrong. They're separate votes. They're also separate from a vote to convict. The Senate first votes on a verdict. That requires 2/3rds to pass. If it passes, then they vote on removal. That too requires 2/3rds to pass. Then they vote on disqualification. That requires a simple majority to pass. And since they're separate votes, they can vote not to remove; and then vote to disqualify. In Twice Impeached Trump's case, if he's convicted, which seems damn near impossible, they would skip the vote to remove and proceed directly to the vote to disqualify.
False. I was with you in the above, but now you've said something that is not correct. The Senate does not vote on removal per the plain reading of the Constitution and precedent. Removal is axiomatic:

Article II, section 4 provides that officers impeached and convicted "shall be removed from office"; Article I, section 3, clause 7 provides further that "judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office. . . ."​
. . . The plain language of section 4 seems to require removal from office upon conviction, and in fact the Senate has removed those persons whom it has convicted. In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote. This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote, the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote ( Judgment - Removal and Disqualification ).​
Yes, you're correct. There is no second vote to remove.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
74,670
Reaction score
14,288
Points
2,210
I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office
Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.
So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.
The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.
I would argue that the way the Constitution is written makes barring a person from running for office part and parcel of removing them from office for clear evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than a carte blanche to just wander in and bar whomever they don't want to deal with whenever they feel like getting around to it. I would further argue that the way the Constitution is written indicates that jurisdiction passes from them to the criminal courts when that person stops being an elected official and becomes a private citizen again.

And there is nothing about this vindictive, petty little tantrum of a show trial that is remotely in keeping with the spirit and intent of our republic, so please do not try to enoble this partisan political travesty by wrapping it in the flag. If you're looking at this and telling yourself that this is in any way high-minded and of benefit to the country, then you need therapy.
Your argument would fall flat on it's face since the Senate votes separately on removal and disqualified. So no, they are not inextricably tied together.

Actually they are, the removal vote must succeed, BEFORE a vote to disqualify can take place. That's not possible now.

.
There is no vote for removal it the president is found guilty, removal is automatic. Even if the president has left office, the guilty verdict will still stand. It is the same as in any court of law. If the accused is convicted and the sentence can not be carried out, the guilty verdict still stands.

After a the Senate finds the president guilty, the Senate can pass a resolution barring the president from holding office in the future.


You might want to research Ken Lay and see if that verdict stood. Here I'll help:

On October 17, 2006, the conviction was overturned due to abatement ab initio, a legal doctrine which says the death of a defendant during an appeal results in a vacated judgment.[34][35]


.
LOL

You undermine your own position yet again. Impeachment is a political process, it's not bound by that legal doctrine. Also, Trump's not dead. If he was, they wouldn't hold the trial as then the desire to keep him from running again is no longer an issue.

And again, that one little word you don't understand....

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
 
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
52,136
Reaction score
11,010
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office
Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.
So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.
The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.
I would argue that the way the Constitution is written makes barring a person from running for office part and parcel of removing them from office for clear evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", rather than a carte blanche to just wander in and bar whomever they don't want to deal with whenever they feel like getting around to it. I would further argue that the way the Constitution is written indicates that jurisdiction passes from them to the criminal courts when that person stops being an elected official and becomes a private citizen again.

And there is nothing about this vindictive, petty little tantrum of a show trial that is remotely in keeping with the spirit and intent of our republic, so please do not try to enoble this partisan political travesty by wrapping it in the flag. If you're looking at this and telling yourself that this is in any way high-minded and of benefit to the country, then you need therapy.
Your argument would fall flat on it's face since the Senate votes separately on removal and disqualified. So no, they are not inextricably tied together.

Actually they are, the removal vote must succeed, BEFORE a vote to disqualify can take place. That's not possible now.

.
There is no vote for removal it the president is found guilty, removal is automatic. Even if the president has left office, the guilty verdict will still stand. It is the same as in any court of law. If the accused is convicted and the sentence can not be carried out, the guilty verdict still stands.

After a the Senate finds the president guilty, the Senate can pass a resolution barring the president from holding office in the future.


You might want to research Ken Lay and see if that verdict stood. Here I'll help:

On October 17, 2006, the conviction was overturned due to abatement ab initio, a legal doctrine which says the death of a defendant during an appeal results in a vacated judgment.[34][35]


.
LOL

You undermine your own position yet again. Impeachment is a political process, it's not bound by that legal doctrine. Also, Trump's not dead. If he was, they wouldn't hold the trial as then the desire to keep him from running again is no longer an issue.

And again, that one little word you don't understand....

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

Perhaps Flopper shouldn't have brought up criminal law then. You need to read the string or at least the last couple of posts in it, so you don't look so fucking stupid.

.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
786
Reaction score
433
Points
883
Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.
They just make it up as they go along. They have a lot of support from the GOP establishment, so they can do it. Rich REpublicans are heavily invested in Red Chinese labor racketeering too, so they want Trump out of the way as badly as Democrats do. Forget about 'The Constitution;, it's not a thing any more, hasn't been for a long time. It just gets trotted out for window dressing once in a while. The Soviet Union's Constitution was almost word for word copied from ours, after all, and we know how that worked out.

They're terrified of Trump; they know he won by a huge margin and have to shut him down, since they had to spend a lot on bribes and deals to win, and literally thousands of their fellow criminals can now hold them up for blackmail now; they need a display of raw oppression and an example of just how total their power grab is now. Stifling the opposition is what they're going to concentrate on for the next year or so. The media is on board, they will cover it up for them and pretend nothing is going on.
 
Last edited:
OP
OKTexas

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
52,136
Reaction score
11,010
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.
They just make it up as they go along. They have a lot of support from the GOP establishment, so they can do it. Rich REpublicans are heavily invested in Red Chinese labor racketeering too, so they want Trump out of the way as badly as Democrats do. Forget about 'The Constitution;, it's not a thing any more, hasn't been for a long time. It just gets trotted out for window dressing once in a while. The Soviet Union's Constitution was almost word for word copied from ours, after all, and we know how that worked out.

So true. And welcome to the board.

.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
25,583
Reaction score
5,675
Points
280
Location
Washington
I don't recall any of those democrats having to justify pussy grabbing on national television, paying off porno stars, refusing to release their tax returns, calling white supremacists' very fine people, banning entrance to the US based on religion, referring to the poorest nations as shithole countries. . . .
The enlarged was an allusion to gold diggers. Settlements are not illegal. The semi-enlarged is not required by law. The bolded are lies. The italicized is refuted/disputed. Dick Durbin claims that Trump said shithole countries. Other Republicans at the meeting didn't hear that at all. CNN reported that some Republicans at the meeting heard shithouses, but never identified who these Republicans were.
Holy shit. :eusa_doh:

I got only as far as, "the enlarged was an allusion to gold diggers."

Uh, no. Approaching a woman and kissing them and/or grabbing their pussy is actually sexual assault if not welcomed; which it often wasn't...

Calm down, Dorothy.

Floppy alluded to a lewd conversation between Trump and Billy Bush that took place in a bus that was taking them to the Access Hollywood studio to film an episode. The Washington Post published a video of that conversation, which Trump thought was private. I neither condoned or defended Trump's attitude, but the thrust of his sentiments went to the tendency of some women to permit the advances of rich and powerful men. Trump is a womanizer.
I did not allude to it. It is on the tape.

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: "Whatever you want."
Trump: "Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything."

I suppose this could be excused it was an isolated instance but it wasn't not. During his early days as a New York playboy he ran around town with escorts' and prostitutes. In one his biographies he revealed that he got his secretary to see that his women got tested for aids and VD before he dated them. He later confirmed this on the Howard Stern Show where he was a frequent guest revealing his latest sexual conquests. Adulterous affairs, relationships with escorts, strippers,, porn stars, was a big part of Trump's life. And it didn't stop when he married Melania. Over a year after their marriage he was having a relationship with Stormy Daniels. Maybe his political career curbed his lifestyle or maybe he just became more careful.
Uh, that's what allude means, you know, as in refer to or draw attention to.

And as I said, Trump is/was a womanizer and is a swaggering ass in this wise. I neither condone nor defend his behavior.

Why, exactly, are you arguing with me over this?

:dunno:
Sorry, I really didn't mean the post to be argumentative, just more of a comment.
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,628
Reaction score
717
Points
140
I don't recall any of those democrats having to justify pussy grabbing on national television, paying off porno stars, refusing to release their tax returns, calling white supremacists' very fine people, banning entrance to the US based on religion, referring to the poorest nations as shithole countries. . . .
The enlarged was an allusion to gold diggers. Settlements are not illegal. The semi-enlarged is not required by law. The bolded are lies. The italicized is refuted/disputed. Dick Durbin claims that Trump said shithole countries. Other Republicans at the meeting didn't hear that at all. CNN reported that some Republicans at the meeting heard shithouses, but never identified who these Republicans were.
Holy shit. :eusa_doh:

I got only as far as, "the enlarged was an allusion to gold diggers."

Uh, no. Approaching a woman and kissing them and/or grabbing their pussy is actually sexual assault if not welcomed; which it often wasn't...

Calm down, Dorothy.

Floppy alluded to a lewd conversation between Trump and Billy Bush that took place in a bus that was taking them to the Access Hollywood studio to film an episode. The Washington Post published a video of that conversation, which Trump thought was private. I neither condoned or defended Trump's attitude, but the thrust of his sentiments went to the tendency of some women to permit the advances of rich and powerful men. Trump is a womanizer.
I did not allude to it. It is on the tape.

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: "Whatever you want."
Trump: "Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything."

I suppose this could be excused it was an isolated instance but it wasn't not. During his early days as a New York playboy he ran around town with escorts' and prostitutes. In one his biographies he revealed that he got his secretary to see that his women got tested for aids and VD before he dated them. He later confirmed this on the Howard Stern Show where he was a frequent guest revealing his latest sexual conquests. Adulterous affairs, relationships with escorts, strippers,, porn stars, was a big part of Trump's life. And it didn't stop when he married Melania. Over a year after their marriage he was having a relationship with Stormy Daniels. Maybe his political career curbed his lifestyle or maybe he just became more careful.
Uh, that's what allude means, you know, as in refer to or draw attention to.

And as I said, Trump is/was a womanizer and is a swaggering ass in this wise. I neither condone nor defend his behavior.

Why, exactly, are you arguing with me over this?

:dunno:
Sorry, I really didn't mean the post to be argumentative, just more of a comment.
No biggy.
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,628
Reaction score
717
Points
140
You couldn't be more wrong. They're separate votes. They're also separate from a vote to convict. The Senate first votes on a verdict. That requires 2/3rds to pass. If it passes, then they vote on removal. That too requires 2/3rds to pass. Then they vote on disqualification. That requires a simple majority to pass. And since they're separate votes, they can vote not to remove; and then vote to disqualify. In Twice Impeached Trump's case, if he's convicted, which seems damn near impossible, they would skip the vote to remove and proceed directly to the vote to disqualify.
False. I was with you in the above, but now you've said something that is not correct. The Senate does not vote on removal per the plain reading of the Constitution and precedent. Removal is axiomatic:

Article II, section 4 provides that officers impeached and convicted "shall be removed from office"; Article I, section 3, clause 7 provides further that "judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office. . . ."​
. . . The plain language of section 4 seems to require removal from office upon conviction, and in fact the Senate has removed those persons whom it has convicted. In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote. This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote, the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote ( Judgment - Removal and Disqualification ).​
Yes, you're correct. There is no second vote to remove.
It looked to me that you understand the matter just fine and, perhaps, simply misremembered something in the second post.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top