Jump to content

clark1mt

MotownSports Fan
  • Content Count

    2,578
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by clark1mt

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. I see him accepting a pardon without the understanding of the admission of guilt.
  8. He doesn't need to. He can see it live.
  9. 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.
  10. It's like people don't realize we remember 2016.
  11. 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.
  12. In a sane world this would be a story in the Onion, not the freakin' New York Times.
  13. Here's an article which fleshes it out a little more. https://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-graham-south-carolina-young-black-jaime-harrison-1538026
  14. Even with 25th Amendment legislation in place setting up a commission with the authorization to remove the president, the Amendment still allows the president to dispute his removal from power. If he does so, it still requires not just 2/3 of the Senate, but also 2/3 of the House to affirm the removal. So it remains a higher standard than impeachment if the president contests it.
  15. He won't. His only argument for holding it in person is to be able to scream and bluster, which somehow scores points with his base. If it's virtual, he can easily be cut off if he breaks the rules. But with his Covid diagnosis, Trump can't hope to swing public opinion his way on that; NOBODY (at least swing voters, anyway) is going to fault the debate commission, or Biden, for not wanting to be in the same room as him so soon. So Trump's backup plan has to be to say he won't participate and hope the debate is just canceled. This is a very possible outcome, but it's a gamble against the debate going on without him and just giving Biden 90 minutes of free national airtime, while the narrative will be Trump's cowardice after how the first debate went. So Trump will be hammered by his team about how badly that would go over for him, and he'll backtrack and participate.
  16. This also assumes that Trump wouldn't continue to commit federal crimes during a second term.
  17. I wouldn't be surprised if they're using Hope Hicks's positive test to claim they themselves now have it in order to give Trump an excuse to skip the remaining debates, which is something he probably wants given how badly he did at the first one.
  18. I believe this one was originally scheduled to start at 3 along with the others. The prospect of afternoon rain led them to move the time up, which clearly wasn't enough.
  19. In most cheating cases, it is (or largely appears to be) an individual acting on his own accord, usually as much for his personal benefit as for "the team, the team, the team". The difference in Houston is that it was pretty much an institutional problem, seemingly sanctioned by the organization and tolerated, if not encouraged, from the top of management on down to the players.
  20. I think his hands aren't quite big enough to get around player necks.
  21. On the other hand, the Royals have been far more consistently bad in that time, making the playoffs a mere 3 times. Since the switch to three divisions in 1994, the Royals have finished 4th or 5th 16 times out of 26 seasons. From 1985, they've only won their division twice and finished above .500 9 times. By direct comparison, the Tigers made the playoffs 6 times, finished 4th or 5th 13 out of 26 times since 1994 (okay, only a little better) and since 1985 have won the division 5 times and finished above .500 14 times. So while over the long term the two teams appear closely matched, the Tigers are more likely to be good in any given year. The Tigers also were able to have sustained success (2011-2014 playoffs, and 6 out of 7 years >.500 including 5 years in a row, plus the mid-80s at the beginning of this period) while the Royals only managed to hit .500 in three consecutive years (twice).
  22. Alan Trammell subs as first base coach for the day, and Tigers batters celebrate by not getting anywhere near him in the 1st inning.
  23. That's the Pfizer vaccine, and it will require two doses. So will the Moderna vaccine, which has to be stored at "only" -4°F. I read an article yesterday (can't seem to find it now EDIT: Here it is) that did at least mention that the ultra-low temperature storage requirements were only for longer-term storage (like weeks), and that the vaccines would still be viable for hours at room temperature and a few days in normal refrigeration. Even if a vaccine were approved by November while somehow not taking shortcuts and skipping critical safety checks, there would still be the issue of getting that much vaccine out to the public. Aside from the shipping and storage concerns, the sheer number of people who will need to be vaccinated means that once things get underway, it might still be a long time before the average person gets it. Consider that if a million people can be poked every day in the U.S. alone (which seems like an impossibly high rate), with the two-dose requirement, it would still take two years to fully inoculate the country.
×
×
  • Create New...