Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Sally Vix wrote:

welp wrote:

This is rich and thick with irony.

Pretty damn certain The Founders would unanimously vote to convict Trump on multiple accounts.

Multiple banking accounts? But seriously, for what?

Yes, that's what republicans love to do these days. Bury their heads in the sand and act as if they haven't been party to #45's assault on our country's democracy.

"Huh? What did he do? Didn't realize......."

Sally Vix wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Responding to an earlier post of yours, Clinton was not impeached for "BJs.". He was impeached for perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. Those are not trivial crimes and The Founders would agree

As far as the impeachment trial, how it can be anything but a sham trial? A juror, who is a partisan hack, will be the presiding judge. I was surprised to hear that he was still alive. This trial is going to be a circus.

With more time to reflect I think Congress could have censured Trump for how he dealt with the Coronavirus. Just a crime how he shrugged it off as a nothing burger

And why was Maxine Waters not impeached for inciting violence?

It was for BJs and the country agreed. The result was Clinton's ratings rocketing to the 70s, the GOP getting crushed in the 1998 elections, and Newt getting a boot to his chest (remember his predictions? LOLz). Compare that to the aftermath of trump's impeachment. The country saw that the GOP was going all out trump over party and nation, and decided they wanted Dems in charge. Why does the GOP love to go against the will of the people so much?

welp wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Multiple banking accounts? But seriously, for what?

Yes, that's what republicans love to do these days. Bury their heads in the sand and act as if they haven't been party to #45's assault on our country's democracy.

"Huh? What did he do? Didn't realize......."

And don't forget "But but but Hillary!"

trump lovers lose again

https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1358913660224221197?s=20

nothing to see here

https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status/1358959878421811207?s=20

Don't you love how somebody who puts himself forward as an expert on the Constitution talks of "impeaching" a U.S. Representative?

qy3 wrote:

Don't you love how somebody who puts himself forward as an expert on the Constitution talks of "impeaching" a U.S. Representative?

He's not even good at trolling despite at least a decade of practice. It must kill these trump lovers to see a Democrat working hard to improve the country.

qy3 wrote:

Don't you love how somebody who puts himself forward as an expert on the Constitution talks of "impeaching" a U.S. Representative?

Do know what impeachment means? It means to bring formal charges against. A criminal indictment is akin to impeachment.

The United States Constitution (Article I, Section 5, Clause 2) provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."

Trollminator wrote:

qy3 wrote:

Don't you love how somebody who puts himself forward as an expert on the Constitution talks of "impeaching" a U.S. Representative?

He's not even good at trolling despite at least a decade of practice.

Exactly.

And then he'll no doubt try to switch from the Constitution's meaning of "impeachment" that his post *in context* was clearly using, to a more general meaning of impeachment...to try to cover up having demonstrated his ignorance. A U.S. Representative CANNOT be impeached--in the sense of the formal Constitutional process, which was how the word was being used at that point in the discussion.

So not just a troll and @sshole, but an ignorant one as well. I too am ignorant about tons of stuff, but I try not to advertise it like that.

qy3 wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

He's not even good at trolling despite at least a decade of practice.

Exactly.

And then he'll no doubt try to switch from the Constitution's meaning of "impeachment" that his post *in context* was clearly using, to a more general meaning of impeachment...to try to cover up having demonstrated his ignorance. A U.S. Representative CANNOT be impeached--in the sense of the formal Constitutional process, which was how the word was being used at that point in the discussion.

So not just a troll and @sshole, but an ignorant one as well. I too am ignorant about tons of stuff, but I try not to advertise it like that.

More trump lover logic

Trollminator wrote:

nothing to see here

https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status/1358959878421811207?s=20

It's SOP. The right to pardon should be taken away from any POTUS.

Trollminator wrote:

More trump lover logic

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/02/impeachment-trump-republican-senate-acquit-mob-steal-election.html

Great link--thanks. "The soft authoritarian Republicans consider their unwillingness to break with Trump and offend his voters a fixed and nonnegotiable fact of political life. Forcing them to confront Trump’s crimes therefore serves no purpose other than embarrassing them."

Bingo. "*Screw* the country and the Constitution--we need to stay in power!"

I may have missed this but can someone help?

If today's argument is going to be about whether its constitutional to hold an impeachment trial for a former President, does that mean that people are arguing that a sitting President can do anything they want in the last few weeks of their term as there isn't time to hold an impeachment trial?

So a President could, for example, have a real estate rival whacked by special forces and we couldn't do anything while they were President (as a sitting President can't be indicted) and couldn't do anything after they were President (because the timing isn't right)?

range wrote:

I may have missed this but can someone help?

If today's argument is going to be about whether its constitutional to hold an impeachment trial for a former President, does that mean that people are arguing that a sitting President can do anything they want in the last few weeks of their term as there isn't time to hold an impeachment trial?

So a President could, for example, have a real estate rival whacked by special forces and we couldn't do anything while they were President (as a sitting President can't be indicted) and couldn't do anything after they were President (because the timing isn't right)?

Yes, this is one of the flaws in the "it's unconstitutional to try a President after his/her term ends" argument.

It creates a window of time when the President is effectively above the law, and can do anything he/she wants without any possibility of punishment. It denies the Congress the Constitutionally granted power to impeach for some unspecified length of time at the end of a President's term.

You say it could impact the last few weeks of a President's term, but it could be much longer than that. Who knows how long it could take to impeach and then try a President? Could be months.

Trollminator wrote:

It’s sad but the GOP’s acquittal will go down as proof that a POTUS who loses can get away with a violent coup attempt in a bid to stay in power. How will the GOP ever try to impeach another president for lying about BJs after this? They didn’t lower the bar for trump, they stomped it down to subterranean levels.

Perhaps I'm a little slow on the uptake, but it didn't occur to me until today that it seems quite wrong that the WORST thing that can happen to a president who tries to resist democracy is to be told that they can't run for office again. Am I missing something?

How the hell is that much of deterrent? If I succeed, I've destroyed democracy in this country and get to stay president. If I fail, at worst, I just can't run for office again. Wow.

And the fairly harmless idiot who wandered into the Capitol after it had been breached might spend time in a jail cell (no tears here, of course), but the president that orchestrated it (and not just Trump, but also someone else who MORE explicitly orchestrated it) just gets barred from running again?

range wrote:

I may have missed this but can someone help?

If today's argument is going to be about whether its constitutional to hold an impeachment trial for a former President, does that mean that people are arguing that a sitting President can do anything they want in the last few weeks of their term as there isn't time to hold an impeachment trial?

So a President could, for example, have a real estate rival whacked by special forces and we couldn't do anything while they were President (as a sitting President can't be indicted) and couldn't do anything after they were President (because the timing isn't right)?

I'm no lawyer, but we've all heard "No one is above the law" (in this country). If the Trump era has shown us nothing else, it's that that simply isn't true. Amazing. And we go around the world and teach/preach to people about the rule of law? Shameful.

But we could fix it. Will we? Probably not.

These past four years has demonstrated that the POTUS IS effectively above the law for the entire four years of his/her presidency., and can do anything he/she wants without any possibility of punishment as long as his/her party controls the Senate (and his/her party is the GOP).

Regarding the first part, is it on someone's To-Do list in the Biden administration to dust of that (supposed?) DOJ "POLICY" (seriously, a freakin' mere "POLICY"??) that says that a sitting president can't be indicted ??? Again, no lawyer, but how is that NOT the POTUS being above the law? At best, impeachment removes him from office (and stops him from running again, and....?). But what about REAL criminal charges/punishments to which every other American would be subject?

Did the founders really think that in the history of this country a president wouldn't ever do anything REALLY bad ?

Trollminator wrote:

trump lovers lose again

https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1358913660224221197?s=20

There is a possibility that Trump will be indicted by the state of Georgia. But some things need to fall into place.

The Secretary of State's office will do their investigation and then they will have the option to turn the matter over to Georgia Attorney General Christopher M. Carr.

Brad Raffensperger, GA Sec of State, is done in politics. He is seen as a traitor to Trump. So there is nothing stopping him from doing a real investigation and doing the criminal referral to Carr.

From what I gather, Carr is a traditional mainstream Republican. He was active in the Federalist Society and was Chief of Staff for U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson for six years.

The Federalist Society is now starting to turn against Trump since they already got everything they wanted (judges) from their unholy alliance.

Johnny Isakson is the most moderate Republican Georgia has sent to Washington in the last 25 years. So Carr probably also leans moderate.

However, Carr is running for re-election in 2022. His likely Democratic opponent is already criticizing him for a robocall that encouraged Trumpers to ascend upon the Capitol in January 6th. Carr chairs the organization that made the robocall but says he had nothing to do with it.

So one could argue that the best way to put the issue to rest would be to prosecute Trump. Of course, Carr would probably then be defeated in a primary, but if he can figure out how to deal with that problem (maybe by running as an independent?), it might put him in good shape for the general.