• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Impeachment on the Way

n1oty said:
If this past election had comported with the recommendations of the Jimmy Carter/James Baker election report of 2005, we all could have rested easy in this election, win, lose or draw. The real PROBLEM is that this election ran COUNTER to every major recommendation of that report. I've read that extensive report a couple of times. The purpose of that bipartisan report was to try to instill voter confidence, which had been shaken badly in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Voting machine software?? It is discussed extensively in that report. A key recommendation was the need for a requirement for vendors to escrow their code that could be studied by experts operating under NDA agreements who would certify there was nothing malicious in the code. Boy, I wish that were in effect now because the Dominion machines have become such a flash point.

Mail in ballots and related problems. Yup, it is discussed EXTENSIVELY in that report as well.

The need for clean voter rolls?? It's in there.

All of the very issues that are currently ripping this country apart could have been avoided by following the recommendations of that report. Instead, parts of the country went in the opposite direction and...........................here we are.

I recommend to every one of you to read that report and enlighten yourselves. I know it is a long read, but well worth the education.
Click to expand...
the dominion stuff will come up during their defamation suit against Sydney Powell. If she doesn't want to pay out she will need to articulate that her claims are true. In reality there isn't a report that people will read after the election that is going to give them warm and fuzzies. They will never have enough oversight of their own to buy into it so at some point you need to trust what you are being told.
 
groundscrapers said:
The implication is that it was done to help the dems leaving the republicans to vote how they voted correct? They didn't even show up for the run off and if you believe that there is this national conspiracy at the voting booths than I doubt a single thing anyone says or does as it pertains to an audit, etc... will change your mind. Have fun never bothering to vote again because by your logic they never were legit and will never be legit.
Click to expand...
I never said there was a National conspiracy at the voting booth. There was ample evidence of severe irregularities in a few key precincts in a handful of swing states that was aided by a complicit media, tech sector & government agencies including the Judiciary. One of the more egregious cases happened in Fulton County Georgia (Atlanta). Unless you’re ok with denying access to election observers, dumping tens of thousands of ballots that were not signature verified in the middle of the night, almost all of which went for Biden and he was the only vote on the ballot. When Republicans obtained a court order the Fulton County Sheriff refused to enforce it. Hundreds of whistleblower sworn affidavits attesting to all of this, not a single one who was contacted by the FEC, FBI, DOJ. None of the above is disputed, it’s just being ignored by the media and the swamp.

If you think this is how elections are supposed to be run then yeah, go on about how turnout mattered in Georgia, how it’s Trump’s fault they lost the runoff etc.

Have fun exercising your right to vote in Georgia where the elections are actually not legit anymore.
 
groundscrapers said:
I won't sit here and say ever election is infallible... no one can say that and they never will be because of human involvement. I can understand the hesitation to get stuck with that kind of case but can you buy into all of them responding that way?
Click to expand...

Yes, easily. Nobody wants to be "that guy" with this level of scrutiny. Do you think the average judge (even a relatively conservative one) is going to put their neck out for the sake of the most controversial US president since richard nixon? [laugh] Yeah good luck with that one. You could wrongly sentence a few people to death and you wouldn't get as much heat as you would be the guy that was willing to push forward on trump's fraud case.

I also think, btw, there's a great possibility that in terms of legal mechanics, trumps lawyers sucked pretty bad and f***ed the whole thing up. Problem is, who is going to admit that
in public without risking libel etc? good luck with that. The judge isn't going to come out and say "Well, its pretty obvious, this case COULD have had wings, but because Trump's counsel was completely incompetent at their jobs, they could not posit the claims in such a way that they would be legally actionable. It's sort of a travesty, actually, because had the case been formed correctly, I would have supported going forward with it. "

There are all kinds of outs judges have on these kinds of things.

Also lets not forget these judges don't live alone in a chalet in the swiss alps or something, unreachable. They live in the US, among us, reachable. And their families are reachable, too. Reachable by bad actors who would gladly f*** with the judge's family, etc.
 
f3cb0f677068827c6018b548b784797dad19fe76.jpg

hotair.com

McConnell warns Dems: I will go scorched earth on your asses if you nuke the filibuster

hotair.com hotair.com
 
Last edited:
www.americanthinker.com

How the Destruction of Grammar and Logic Got Biden into the Oval Office

Many people snickered at the claim made in Texas v. Pennsylvania that there is only a one in a quadrillion chance that Joe Biden won all the swing states as currently claimed. The true meaning beneath the statistic is simple: the vote coun...
www.americanthinker.com www.americanthinker.com

www.breitbart.com

Sen. Murphy: Still a Chance Trump 'Is Going to Incite Another Attempt at the Capitol'

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said Tuesday on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" that there was "still the chance" that former President Donald Trump could "incite another attempt at the Capitol." | Clips
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com

nypost.com

Impeaching Trump gets more divisive by the minute: Goodwin

Apparently believing his first week in the White House has been flawless and the public will be extra patient with him, Joe Biden did a very foolish thing. He decided to ride the tiger of impeachme…
nypost.com nypost.com

www.breitbart.com

Hans von Spakovsky on Impeachment: Constitution 'Limits Removal'

The Constitution reserves impeachment for those currently holding public office, explained Hans von Spakovsky.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com
 
LOL at strongly-worded letters.

Next thing you know the impeachment people will be calling Trump a rapscallion.... [rofl]

I like how the moon bats are maintaining this capital assault faggotry as if some angry people with flags going into a gov building were/are a full blown coup.... [rofl] they're just pissed because there weren't a bunch of pictures of corpses and shit for them to use over and over again after it happened....
 
www.americanthinker.com

Debasing the Constitution: Why Chief Justice Roberts is Not Presiding over Trump’s Impeachment Trial

As Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial begins today, not enough attention has been paid to the fact that Chief Justice Roberts will not be presiding. Senate Democrat Richard Blumenthal, a lawyer, former federal prosecutor and member of t...
www.americanthinker.com www.americanthinker.com
www.breitbart.com

Paul: If We Are Going to Criminalize Speech -- Schumer, Maxine Waters, Ilhan Omar Should Be Held Accountable

During this weekend's broadcast of "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) argued if Democrats were going to proceed by operating on the claim former President Donald Trump incite violence on Capitol Hill, then the standard should be applied to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and...
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com
 
jpk said:
Does anyone really care what comes from the arm flapping going on in the senate because everyone KNOWS it doesnt pass constitutional muster?

Cant impeach a private citizens and the Constitution states that presidential impeachment SHALL be presided over by Chief Justice of SCOTUS

Neither of the above are true so its nothing more than arm flapping.

If only there were a way to calculate the CO2 emissions from the proceedings in the upper chamber......
Click to expand...
You're stating your opinions, not a fact or a precedent. Both questions are, in fact, undecided. Unless you can backup your statements with some sort of precedent, you should correct yourself.

In at least two cases, the House has impeached and the Senate has tried people for actions in an office they no longer held. In each case a majority of the Senate determined that they did have the right to try those individuals and in each case two-thirds of the Senate failed to convict on those charges. No one has been convicted on charges steming from the time in an office they no longer held. But they have been tried. No court has ever ruled on the issue. So, it is still very much an open questions.

There are viable arguments both ways, but the majority of legal scholars (but far from all) believe that an ex-president (or any other former official) can be tried for actions while they held office.

The above is not my opinion, it is actually fact. But I do agree this is 'arm flapping'. Trump will not be convicted of anything. The only thing that will be accomplished is another chapeter in the Democrate vs. Republican pissing contest.
 
jpk said:
Its not opinion its fact

"When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside"

SHALL.....not, Might, May, Can appoint an alternate......."SHALL"

No chief justice = no impeachment

Further, "Impeachment" is a political process as per section 4......and only applies to POTUS. VPOTUS and civil officers of the United States
Section 4


Further.....they're not going to get 2/3 majority in Senate to impeach

Even if they did......it would not hold up in court because if SCOTUS denied the case they would be giving away the power of the chief justice and set a precident
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Can you say high theater, show trial?
 
jpk said:
Its not opinion its fact

"When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside"

SHALL.....not, Might, May, Can appoint an alternate......."SHALL"

No chief justice = no impeachment

Further, "Impeachment" is a political process as per section 4......and only applies to POTUS. VPOTUS and civil officers of the United States
Section 4


Further.....they're not going to get 2/3 majority in Senate to impeach

Even if they did......it would not hold up in court because if SCOTUS denied the case they would be giving away the power of the chief justice and set a precident
Click to expand...
Wow, you're really off the mark. You're attempting to throw out a couple of out-of-context quotes from the Constitutions is hardly a compelling argument when put up against the majority or legal scholars and, more importantly, precedent. This has happened before and in each case when a former official has been impeached by the House, the Senate has determined that it had the power to try, convict, and impose judgement on that official. They just have never actually convicted a former official by the required two-thirds majority.
done it.

Or is it intentional? I suspect you're in the 'if we just repeat the lie long enough......' crowed. In that respect you'll 'win' this exchange because I suspect you're willing to hold out and get the last word long after I've lost interest and moved on.

  • First, you fail to appreciate the difference between 'impeach', 'try', 'convict', and 'judgement'. Former President Trump as been impeached, by the House, for a second time, that's done.
  • Next, the Senate this very day is debating the issue of whether they have the power to 'try' a former office holder. Just as they've done before, a majority of Senators will decide that they have the power to try a former official. Whatever way you or I want to interpret the Constitution doesn't matter. It is the Senate has the final word here.
  • You're point about the Chief Justice is irrelevant and can only be supported by applying poor reading comprehension skills. The President is not being tried here, the former President is being tried. There's sufficient precedent including in numerous state constitutions to support the position that there's a distinction. .
  • The question of how SCOTUS would rule should the Senate vote to convict Trump is irrelevant because they won't convict him. If they did, there really is not legal basis for seeking review from the high court. With only a couple of exceptions, they have traditionally declined to review impeaches precisoiuly becuase it is a political process.
You're really do no more here than spreading disinformation.
 
Last edited:
Why is the NG and a fence line still up?

"And the truth will set you free!"

D-RI David Cicilline paraphrased " as long as the Capitol is surrounded by fences and armed guards"
 
HARRYM said:
This is all over Clinton and his trial over getting a hummer in the WH.....
Click to expand...

Clinton's trial was over perjury. Not him sexually abusing interns.

Knuckle Dragger said:
  • You're point about the Chief Justice is irrelevant and can only be supported by applying poor reading comprehension skills. The President is not being tried here, the former President is being tried. There's sufficient precedent including in numerous state constitutions to support the position that there's a distinction. .
You're really do no more here than spreading disinformation.
Click to expand...
If Congress was doing this to anyone other than Trump you'd being noting what a farce this is Congress deciding what parts of the Constitution to follow and ignore as it suits them. Roberts isn't there because he doesn't want to touch this farce with a 40' pole.

I've lost all respect for you.

The opening arguments are submitting doctored video as 'evidence'. In any other court that would be enough to throw the entire case into the shitter in the first five minutes.

You have ORANGEMANBAD so far up your ass you aren't willing to call it out for what it is while your country gets turned into a Maoist shithole.

This sham of a trial is a much larger embarrassment than some provocateurs and LARPERs running around the Capitol and will do FAR more damage to the Republic.
 
Waher said:
Clinton's trial was over perjury. Not him sexually abusing interns.


If Congress was doing this to anyone other than Trump you'd being noting what a farce this is Congress deciding what parts of the Constitution to follow and ignore as it suits them. Roberts isn't there because he doesn't want to touch this farce with a 40' pole.

I've lost all respect for you.

The opening arguments are submitting doctored video as 'evidence'. In any other court that would be enough to throw the entire case into the shitter in the first five minutes.

You have ORANGEMANBAD so far up your ass you aren't willing to call it out for what it is while your country gets turned into a Maoist shithole.

This sham of a trial is a much larger embarrassment than some provocateurs and LARPERs running around the Capitol and will do FAR more damage to the Republic.
Click to expand...
Well....that depends what your definition of sex is......
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Wow, you're really off the mark. You're attempting to throw out a couple of out-of-context quotes from the Constitutions is hardly a compelling argument when put up against the majority or legal scholars and, more importantly, precedent. This has happened before and in each case when a former official has been impeached by the House, the Senate has determined that it had the power to try, convict, and impose judgement on that official. They just have never actually convicted a former official by the required two-thirds majority.
done it.

Or is it intentional? I suspect you're in the 'if we just repeat the lie long enough......' crowed. In that respect you'll 'win' this exchange because I suspect you're willing to hold out and get the last word long after I've lost interest and moved on.

  • First, you fail to appreciate the difference between 'impeach', 'try', 'convict', and 'judgement'. Former President Trump as been impeached, by the House, for a second time, that's done.
  • Next, the Senate this very day is debating the issue of whether they have the power to 'try' a former office holder. Just as they've done before, a majority of Senators will decide that they have the poser to try a former official. Whatever way you or I want to interpret the Constitution doesn't matter. It is the Senate has the final word here.
  • You're point about the Chief Justice is irrelevant and can only be supported by applying poor reading comprehension skills. The President is not being tried here, the former President is being tried. There's sufficient precedent including in numerous state constitutions to support the position that there's a distinction. .
  • The question of how SCOTUS would rule should the Senate vote to convict Trump is irrelevant because they won't convict him. If they did, there really is not legal basis for seeking review from the high court. With only a couple of exceptions, they have traditionally declined to review impeaches precisoiuly becuase it is a political process.
You're really do no more here than spreading disinformation.
Click to expand...

I wish people would just speak up against this obvious banana republic bullshit instead of treating it like an esoteric legal board game.

I know a Soviet show trial when I see it.
 
Last edited:
HARRYM said:
Well....that depends what your definition of sex is......
Click to expand...
Again, Clinton's impeachment had nothing to do with sex. It had to do with a pattern of financial crimes surrounding the Clinton family. The investigation stumbled into Clinton perjuring himself over an affair and rather than go after the serious crimes, Ken Starr made the mistake of going after what he considered to be the easiest to prove misconduct in a bid to get Bill to resign. Ultimately the criminal penalty Bill paid was losing his law license and I think some fines. If Bill had resigned it's very likely Al Gore would have won the 2000 election.
 
Waher said:
Again, Clinton's impeachment had nothing to do with sex. It had to do with a pattern of financial crimes surrounding the Clinton family. The investigation stumbled into Clinton perjuring himself over an affair and rather than go after the serious crimes, Ken Starr made the mistake of going after what he considered to be the easiest to prove misconduct in a bid to get Bill to resign. Ultimately the criminal penalty Bill paid was losing his law license and I think some fines. If Bill had resigned it's very likely Al Gore would have won the 2000 election.
Click to expand...
My comment was a joke....Bill tried to weasel out of it by claiming he never had sexual relations with Monica.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
You're point about the Chief Justice is irrelevant and can only be supported by applying poor reading comprehension skills. The President is not being tried here, the former President is being tried. There's sufficient precedent including in numerous state constitutions to support the position that there's a distinction. .
Click to expand...

Holy irony Batman!

Let me get this straight. So the section that vests authority to the Senate to try to the President in cases of impeachment is irrelevant because he’s not the President? But only the parts that they aren’t adhering too. Those ought to be ignored. But the parts they are (the whole trying him for impeachment) is relevant because it’s the only part in the Constitution that gives them authority in the first place.

Wow. You hate Trump so bad this is your logic?

Either clause 6 of section 3 applies or it doesn’t. If it does apply, the Chief Justice shall preside. He’s not so it’s not legitimate. Or the section does not apply, and the Senate has no authority to try him to begin with.

Picking and choosing only the parts that fit is absurd. But that’s what the left is known for.
 
thenationalpulse.com

Dem Impeachment Case Leans on Legal Scholar Who Says Their Use of His Position is Based on Erroneous CNN Claim. - The National Pulse

Democrats invoked the words of legal analyst Jonathan Turley in their opening statement on the second impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. The only problem? Turley says they’ve misrepresented him as a result of a falsehood perpetuated (and uncorrected) during a CNN interview. Rep. Neguse...
thenationalpulse.com thenationalpulse.com

View: https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1359243284896489475


View: https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1359244906334683139
 

Similar threads

The First Amendment Is Getting In The Way Of Government Removing Posts It Doesn't Agree With
Replies
20
Views
404
Uzi2
U
Solve the supply problem one way, so of course .......
Replies
3
Views
286
paul73
paul73
For those who question the strength of M2A1 vs M2A2 ammo cans, here's an interesting article on the subject.
Replies
12
Views
370
Uzi2
U
Interesting Article on the "Notching" of Firearms to Keep Track of "Kills"
Replies
8
Views
358
clampett
clampett
Smart gun will put fingerprint, facial recognition technology to work: Biofire has called it the 'first and only biometric firearm on the market'
2
Replies
37
Views
496
Animal357
A
Back
Top Bottom