Jump to content

clark1mt

MotownSports Fan
  • Content Count

    2,580
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Excellent

About clark1mt

  • Rank
    MotownSports Fan
  • Birthday 03/12/1984

Converted

  • Location
    DC Environs

Converted

  • Occupation
    SatMan

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Will the campaign videos be known as PP tapes?
  2. It's not so much a lie as it is their lawyers told them how much trouble they're in. It's damage control.
  3. I think SCOTUS would only get involved if a trial led to conviction AND included the punishment of prohibition from future office. Before that, at worst Congress is just wasting time on political theater. Once there is punishment, then the impeached person could seek a determination on whether that punishment can be enforced. If the person was out of office prior to the impeachment vote, I could buy an argument that they have then impeached a private citizen (which they can't) and then the punishment would be void. However, since Trump has been impeached before leaving office, I think Congress can proceed as they see fit. It would be a little like suing someone who then dies, and seeking relief against that person's estate. In this case, obviously conviction would be meaningless in itself, but it would open the door to the barring from future office punishment (akin to collecting a judgment from a dead person's estate). Because of that, I can believe that Republican senators might go for it, especially those who might have designs on a 2024 run and want Trump out of their way.
  4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/13/impeachment-blount-belknap-trump/ (Paywalled) The gist of it is that: 1797: William Blount, Senator, was expelled from the Senate and then impeached. Because he was already out of office due to the expulsion and because the question of impeaching someone at that stage was in question, they dropped the case before trial. 1876: William Belknap, Secretary of War, was accused of accepting bribes. He resigned, but was impeached anyway. In that case, there was a trial, but only a simple majority voted to convict, rather than the 2/3 necessary.
  5. It's temporary; it likely wouldn't even be being discussed even now except for the shortness of Trump's remaining term. It's not even a removal from office, just a temporary removal of power. Trump would still be the president if the 25th is invoked, but Pence would have the legal powers of the presidency. Trump could contest the invocation, at which point Congress would have three weeks to decide whether or not he's really incapacitated, and it would require a 2/3 vote in both houses to sustain it. Obviously it's very unlikely that would actually happen, but since Trump is out in less than that anyway, at the very least the House would just sit on it until the 20th. But yeah, the only means of anything lasting past the next 13 days is impeachment.
  6. I read somewhere else that they get sworn in when Georgia certifies the runoff election. That is apparently not till the 22nd, so useless in this discussion.
  7. If the 25th was meant only for physical incapacity, it wouldn't lay out a process for a president to object to an incapacity declaration. Also, because the 25th allows 3 weeks for Congress to decide a dispute over an incapacity declaration, during which the president would be out of power, doing it now wouldn't require the 2/3 affirmations by Congress, since they could just run out the clock on Trump. So if the concern right now is wresting the nuclear codes from his hands etc., that's the simplest way to do it. It's not clear to me that enough GOP senators would vote to convict on impeachment (thus putting them on record and risking their phony baloney jobs) when the 25th is an available path.
  8. 1. How rich is he really? He's almost certainly underwater in debt. 2. At 12:01 on January 20, he won't have any actual power either. Any power he does retain will come from his followers, but once he's no longer useful to them, how many people will stick by him? If he had a competent legal team, he wouldn't be using Rudy Leaks so much.
  9. I see him accepting a pardon without the understanding of the admission of guilt.
  10. He doesn't need to. He can see it live.
  11. Someone on one of the channels a few days ago opined that Trump on the ballot is a huge driver for Republican turnout. It's why 2018 was such a "Blue Wave"; the Trumpers didn't care enough to vote when they couldn't vote specifically for him. 2022 should be interesting. Historically the incumbent's party does poorly in midterms, but the Senate seats that are up for election are majority Republican, much like this year. Among the D seats, only AZ and maybe NV are likely at risk of flipping. For R seats, WI, IA, PA at a minimum should be competitive, if not sure flips (especially WI). GA, NC, and FL (and OH) could also be close, depending on who runs and especially who wins the GA runoff for the special election.
  12. It's like people don't realize we remember 2016.
  13. It's true that donors don't necessarily equal votes, but there probably is a correlation. Donors are probably more likely to vote (because now they have a "stake" in the outcome), and thus donors can be viewed as a function of enthusiasm for a candidate, which transfers into voting. In other words, if people aren't excited enough about Trump to bother donating to his campaign, they might also not be motivated enough to actually make the effort to vote for him. Of course, there are caveats, mainly the idea that you'd have to account for the ability of people to be able to afford to donate to a candidate, and how the people who can't are distributed on the political spectrum.
×
×
  • Create New...