Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by ASU2003, Dec 31, 2018.
Rogue49 finished his post first .
The key is, the Senate does everything now and can do most anything, anytime.
They vote on each thing. (Whoever is present)
here i go being a dumbass lol
Why can the senate vote with whoever is present? why is it not mandatory for all of them being present for a vote? especially one like that?
Do we really want trump running around the world knowing what he knows (as far as from being president) without SS attached to him? Whats to stop him from going
to Russia or wherever and telling them all our "secrets"?
can the city of New York actually cut ties with him like that? without any repercussion?
I’ll field it...
Again, not a dumb question...everyone is getting an education in American government these days.
Ok, the Senate has incredible amounts of discretion.
Actually just one Senator can put a hold on things.
In this case, it’s a hold over from old days when politicians couldn’t fly or drive back and forth over long distance.
Much less other obstacles back then.
Now, they use it as an “abstain”
So they don’t have to go on record.
Then they can spin it anyway they want.
BUT you vote doesn’t count then.
I don’t then Majority leader has as much power as the Speaker of the House. He cannot force them to do anything. Just maybe make them feel pain in assignments and such. (Correct me if I’m wrong anyone)
On the security note...
That’s been my argument for a long time
He’s a National security risk...and shouldn’t be allowed to travel
Since his integrity has shown to be lacking and can’t keep his mouth shut.
I wouldn’t let him go.
BUT, that’s up to Pelosi as Speaker, whoever becomes majority leader in the Senate, Harris because as VP she’s tiebreaker and Biden who will be prez.
They have to decide whether to put him under house arrest. First, through the trial...and if they convict vote to keep him locked up.
And that’s just Federal, New York is going after him for fraud and financial...Georgia may too for interference in election. And who knows else state wise. They can also hold him.
Last, for New York contracts...it depends on how the contract was written. These things are as law.
But most have an ethics out clause...allowing to cut ties if there’s an ethics breach in any way. For either his Impeachment, the NY investigation/grand jury or other things.
T can always try suing them, which he likely will knowing his trend...but NY has a good case.
Hooo, lots of info
FYI...a good Followup
And tons of info on Impeachment from experts
‘The Genie is Out of the Bottle’ — POLITICO
For you TLDR folks
Turns out that ousting a prez and conviction , requires 2/3 votes. (66)
BUT anything else is simple majority
So the Dems can vote to not give T a chance at not taking office again
And many other penalties
Because Harris as VP would be tiebreaker
There are several interesting issues and possibilities for the Senate trial of Trump following yesterday's House impeachment.
On the earlier question of why the full Senate is not required to be present for the Senate impeachment trial, the Constitution simply states that only a quorum (simple majority) of Senators be present to undertake any official business and that would include the impeachment trial.
One option for Senate Republicans who would like to see Trump convicted but not be on the record is to simply not show up so that it would take fewer that 67 votes (2/3 majority) to convict. If 20 of the 50 Senate Republicans stay home, leaving 80 Senators present for the impeachment trial, it would only take 53 to convict (2/3 of 80) and that would be the 50 Democrats and 3 Republicans already on the record to vote to convict. This scenario is highly unlikely.
Another scenario involves the Senate Majority Leader, currently a Republican (McConnell). When the State of Georgia officially certifies the vote of the two recent Senate special elections (this should happen in the next few days), then the Democrats will take over the majority and the new Majority Leader fSchumer) would be in charge. As a first step of the Senate trial, the 'rules" for the trial are proposed by the Majority Leader and must be approved by the full body (simple majority vote). McConnell submitted, and the full Senate approved, the 'rules" from the Senate trial of Bill Clinton for Trump's first impeachment trial. The present 'rule" states that the vote to convict or not is by voice vote with each senator's vote recorded and announced publicly. One change that Schumer could propose is to make the voting by secret ballot. Many Republican senators would like to convict Trump but are afraid to do so publicly. This would almost assuredly result in Trump's conviction, but it is a cowardly and non transparent approach. This scenario too is highly unlikely.
And one final issue that is uncertain. The Constitution states that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the impeachment trial of the President but does not address the issue of a "former president" as would be the case if the Senate trial begins after Jan 20 when Trump is out of office. The consensus is that the Chief Justice would still preside but the legality could be challenged. The president of the Senate (the current Vice President) presides over the trials or lesser officials who have been impeached (judges, cabinet officials and other executive branch officials). The Democrats could raise the issue that VP Kamala Harris should preside, and not the Chief Justice, since Trump will no longer be president. Another highly unlikely scenario.
None of the above are likely but all raise interesting questions and possibilities.
--- added ---
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution:
"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside. And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present."
What about when the impeached president is a "former president" and no longer the President of the United States?
More on who should preside over the Senate impeachment trial...
Will Chief Justice Roberts preside at Trump’s impeachment trial? Maybe
I can see some of the Republican senators skipping the vote,
saying they are "protesting against the trial."
It could be a convenient, although not safe from political opponents and savvy voters, way to dissent and consent.
I accidently deleted the secret ballot portion of the quote. I can see some of the cowardly Republicans supporting this.
Removing Conman Trump's pension and privileges is highly appealing.
Allowing politicians, regardless of party affiliation, to operate is secret is deeply concerning.
I say protest away.
It means one less vote to count and more likely to convict.
Frankly, we’re likely to see an upset of the count anyway in the long run.
You’re going to see a lot of criminal, sedition and corruption indictments coming soon.
Once the majorities change and the Dept of Justice switches hands.
No vengeance, but accountability
The coming group will be more “play by the rules” oriented and won’t allow shenanigans.
The foxes have ruled the henhouse for 4 years.
Now there’s new roosters with a big stick.
Hey, you break the rules and law, there will be a price to pay...this includes politicians.
The Dems will get away with it under the terms of “rule of law”. And the GOP will have trapped themselves.
It’s a shame, I wish they had behaved themselves
I wish we weren’t here.
This why we can’t have nice things.
I hope we get through this quick and get back to normal
We need some quiet
BUT not quiet just for the sake of, letting bad folk off.
There’s a new sheriff in town.
Absolutely hold folks responsible. Make them face the consequences of what they did.....and didn't do.
This is going to be a long term project (so to say), and many issues will need to be addressed. This is especially true if Biden is able to move forward with plan he outlined yesterday.
The Senate will most likely have juggle the impeachment trial with other business. Hopefully competent people will properly prioritize issues and keep things moving.
I want the "new" Dept of Justice to thoroughly investigate the Trump administration. Trump is not smart or competent enough to completely cover his tracks, and his NPD probably has him believing he doesn't need to. Hopefully his cabinet and other staffers kept detailed records as a precaution for rainy Trump days. They had to recognize, sooner or later regardless of initial loyalty, Trump's instability and vindictive nature towards his own people. And the DOJ should charge and prosecute accordingly.
The Republicans need to look in the mirror:
They secretly rejoiced (IMO) when Trump moved forward with actions and programs they couldn't openly support.
They humored him when he needed to be reigned in.
They accepted him as the face and future of the GOP. This eventually meant backing Trump when he was very clearly in the wrong. Of course the clearest and most recent example is the election fraud claims.
They humored Trump when he made ludicrous claims of voter fraud, and stupidly continued to do so after legal challenge after legal challenge was rejected. And while the frequently claimed "proof" was declared insufficient, or most often never produced. In many cases it went way beyond humoring, it was total support.
The Republicans kept digging the hole even after the instability became apparent. My guess is they thought Trump would get reelected, and they would be able to work around him when necessary, and use his popularity when his transgressions became public. Trump's stupidity in handling the Covid-19 pandemic helped derail his (almost certain?) reelection.
What amazes me is the GOP's misguided, and then continued, loyalty to Trump despite his numerous shortcomings and liability becoming painfully obvious during his first term.
I missed some things.
Made numerous typos.
Some thoughts aren't clearly presented.
Mapping videos of the capitol seige
Folks seen this interactive map of the terrorists uploads to Parler ?
I don't do twitter but man it's hard not to laugh at death by tazed nuts as well as trampled while carrying a don't tread on me flag.
I guess that's part of the whole trump world, so filled with anger that it just invades your thoughts all the time and it's so corrosive.
It's been 2-3 weeks of talking heads on news every night. I wouldn't usually but it seems so important to keep up even though it doesn't affect actual day to day life aside from the failure of letting the virus spread like wildfire.
It all makes me want to just go to sleep for a long time.
--- Double Post Merged, Jan 15, 2021, Original Post Date: Jan 15, 2021 ---
Trump blocks banks from limiting loans to gun and oil companies
Now this is bullshit. Can't force banks to loan and not bakers to bake gay wedding cakes.
At least in my pov.
--- Double Post Merged, Jan 15, 2021, Original Post Date: Jan 15, 2021 ---
The Boogaloo Bois Prepare for Civil War
Sounds like the troubles will visit again nationally, or at least attempt to in some places.
My research in unusual sexual proclivities shows
"boi" to be a term for a
feminized, usually thoroughly sissified, male.
Is it the boy or the misspelling boi about it ?
I'm over the deliberate misspelzz
The specific boi spelling is used.
Evidence is nice.
Posting their propaganda is giving the radical groups a voice.
I'm just saying, it's all crazy.
But I get you.
Bevis and Butthead corrupted my brain a bit back in the day.
That's my titleng below their event flyers/posters.
Georgia Certifies Senate Victories of Warnock and Ossoff
I don't know about the rest of the chamber...but at least this gets McConnell out of control.
I'm not keen about Schumer, but he won't be as Machiavellian as MM.
Opinion | Good Riddance, Leader McConnell
I doubt they'll get much through...but I do hope for what can be bipartisan interests, like Infrastructure.
Separate names with a comma.