২৩ জানুয়ারী, ২০২১
"The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office."
Wrote James Madison in The Federalist Papers, Number 39.
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
To live freely in writing...
২৭৯টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 279 এর 201 – থেকে 279In regard to Dominion, I think it is really dangerous to have our elections tabulated by proprietary software without stringent auditing an logging capabilities. I have no problem with the hardware, but the software should be open source so everyone and anyone could review it. The logs and audits should also be public domain available for review by everyone and anyone.
This morning I wrote a little Python script to simulate (very simplistically) an election counting algorithm. I put in there a weighting factor (something Prof Shiva alleged that Dominion did) that would increase one candidates vote and decrease the others. This would always result in the preferred candidate winning; no surprise there, but I was surprised that a very small weight (.01 or .02) would produce some very plausible percentages: 51-49. The reason Prof. Shiva believed that weighting may have been involved is that according to the Dominion documentation the vote count variables were defined as floating point. Why would that be, since a count is by definition an integer (1-999999999)?
And Fransisco D cannot seem to comment sober.
Inga: "And Q told Drago that the FBI had absolutely NO reason to look into the Trump campaign’s dealings with the Russians, absolutely no reason, eh Drago?"
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
See?!
Told ya!
Inga STILL believes even though just this week we finally had released the documentation PROVING the entire FBI knew in July of 2016 that Steele was operating as a Clinton shill AND Steele admitted under oath (Inga despises under oath testimony) that he leaked his BS to the press because he was angry at Comey for the email snafu that Comey could no longer cover up for Hillary!
Inga STILL thinks this is January of 2017 and her lues carry weight!
Even for Inga this sets an astonishing new standard for stupidity and ignorance.
Its almost breathtaking in its stupidity!
It appears the only person here who listens/read q whatever is the resident, drooling ingacile.
Imagine going through life being the prime example of everything you accuse your opponents of being. And then being too stupid to realize it.
Banned, friendless, Gamblers Anonymous candidate ____! continues his attemmpts to turn Althouse blog into his own involuntary etch-a-sketch.
Conserving Conservatism..while recruiting minors for Weaver.
Lincoln Project: "God..this Chuck guy really delivers"
Francisco D: "What is the Resident Idiot bleating about now/"
See my previous comment.
Moron Inga "forgot" she was supposed to pretend to be "anti-conspiratorialist" and instead has jumped ALL THE WAY BACK INTO the russia collusian hoax.
And I do mean All. The. Way. Back. In.
Its literally as if this was the day of the Buzzfeed drop of the hoax dossier (something Inga ALSO STILL BELIEVES has been proven true!)
Gahrie : “ The only punishment upon conviction is removal from office.”
I understand why you say this Gahrie. You know most here are too ignorant to know this us false and too lazy to check. Nonetheless it’s is false and it’s falsity is proven in comments by non idiots on this very thread.
But good on you for seeing how hopeless the Althouse Trumpkins are.
In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote. This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote, the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.
So the controversy isn't over whether a second vote is needed, it's about the majority needed for the vote to pass.
Thats why Inga refuses to answer my oft proffered query: Carter Page, russian spy or no?
We now know Inga wont answer because her answer is......"YES!!".
The key sentence Trump uttered that is pointed to as fomenting insurrection was that the election was stolen and people won't stand for it. So I think that renders the question of whether the election was stolen relevant to his defense. But Roberts won't be there to rule on the admissibility of that issue, so I guess Kamala will rule on it.
Impeachment is not the road to unity. Plain and simple. Get down to governing for all the people. Or don't.
Gahrie continues his misrepresentation. I linked the constitution, so people can check. When he says the only punishment is removal from office *he is lying*.
Blogger wildswan said...
Impeachment is not the road to unity.
———
Indeed. That’s what Pelosi wants it.
Blogger Spiros said...
Article 1, Section 2 makes no mention of the "term of office." How reasonable is it infer that the Framers meant to prevent impeachment after the President ceases to hold that office?
Well, I guess you can start with the term "President", then try to deduce who is and who is not the "President", then make your way down to "removal from office" and see if that aids in the everlasting pursuit to discover the ever elusive "Framer's intent".
Interesting, the times, they are a changin’...
“The Republican Party of Kentucky's State Central Committee rejected a resolution Saturday that would have urged Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to fully support former President Donald Trump and condemn his second impeachment.”
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/23/kentucky-gop-rejects-call-mcconnell-condemn-trump-impeachment/6676484002/
Sorry Drago. You are wrong.
The Resident Idiot won't answer because she cannot formulate an answer. She needs to find the title of an apparent answer by a leftist writer and link to it without actually reading or understanding it. That is her well established M.O. because she is truly a sanctimonious idiot - the base of the Democrat party.
There is a reason I do not refer to her by name. It reduces the number of her pitiful retorts.
And..garners..Unity! with the termed out Turtle.
Obviously I hate Reagan.
Larry Tribe wondered whether we should have a secret vote for Impeachment II.
The "reason" the FBI had to investigate Trump's "dealings" with the Russians was that a man known to the FBI to be an agent of Russian intelligence was paid to say bad things about Trump by a British opposition researcher financed by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaigns. The FBI agents involved, of course, couldn't have possibly gotten a surveillance warrant on such a pretext, so they deliberately concealed the origin of the statements on the application for a warrant to the judge.
Every assertion in the previous paragraph is not speculation or conspiracy theory, but documented fact confirmed by released FBI internal documents and/or the Inspector General investigation of the FBI's actions.
"And Q told Drago that General Michael Flynn who is a Q adherent is a hero.”
Said the Rachael Maddow assassination cult member.
Larry Tribe wondered whether we should have a secret vote for Impeachment II.
Spoken like a true Soviet.
If Hillary won, would he be on the SCOTUS?
@Yancey Ward said "If you read the relevant clause in the consitution, it does imply that conviction brings with it the penalty of removal from office and the bar against further right to hold other offices under the US government."
What the provision actually speaks about is a bar against further right to hold "any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States".
What that last quoted phrase means is a very interesting question. I point you to this brief article in case you want to explore the point further: Constitutional Officers, a Very Close Reading.
My own view, for what it's worth is that Presidency is not an "Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."
What's clear is that the genius of the framers in 1776 eclipses the combined wisdom of 2021 pols. Change voting and accountability systems at the risk of falling down.
Good thing you imposed new moderation standards, Althouse. Things are really cleaned up.
How many people in the country are exhausted by the obscure technicalities of lawyers? How many of them have been screwed over? Financially? Personally? Emotionally?
Now you have a concentrated national focus of that in voter fraud followed up by an impeachment of the person who was defrauded.
Do you continue to rob the bank of good will? Do you continue to extort the character of the everyday person? It's not a recipe for peace. I see John Solomon and George Bush lauding the peaceful transition of power once again confirmed. I agree wholeheartedly with that concept but also perceive them both as fools to their warm beds.
A voting machine is easy. If it has a wifi connection its corrupted. The electronic chain of custody of a vote needs to be:
1. Sent encrypted over a private leased line to a state collection authority.
2. Sent as a paper copy to a secure warehouse with a strong catalog.
3. Sent as an SMS text to the voter.
no wifi. no internet.
The voterid objection because of voter suppression is a red herring in a time where the same people want to give you a covid identification. That judges still fall for this seems to suggest that any judge that does is a corrupt judge. And should be removed from office.
17 trimesters and in progress.
exhausted by the obscure technicalities of lawyers
Penumbras and emanations? Em-pathetic appeals? Semantic games, conceptual corruption, and conflation of logical domains? It's not lawyers, where nuance, deduction, and faithful reproduction meet religion ("law"), but rather The Twilight Fringe, projection, and secular pleasure and lucre.
As with the "17 intelligence agencies" that were such a big issue back in 2016, I don't think many of these "150 law professors" looked very deeply into the question. If you think an ex-president has committed crimes against the constitutional order and is such a threat that permanent exclusion from ever holding office again is necessary, you would be inclined to sign such a letter. That goes for some of those (few) law professors who may be right of center. If it's a question of lying about oral sex and you don't think permanent exclusion is necessary, you wouldn't think of signing a letter saying that a Senate trial of an ex-president is constitutionally possible. If you don't believe the ex-president has committed crimes that justify a permanent ban, the question of whether or not a trial is necessary becomes academic and moot. In other cases (Nixon, Clinton) this wasn't an issue since term limits prevented them from running again.
*
The Babylon Bee
@TheBabylonBee
Biden Grants Citizenship To Everyone Who Voted For Him
17 trimesters of witch hunts, warlock trials, JournoListic incitement, projections, and protests in progress.
Chuck said...
Good thing you imposed new moderation standards, Althouse. Things are really cleaned up.
** I've never understood your dislike for Trump. I was thinking it was a Freudian thing? More reflective of your past than of Trump? It happens. I don't think you are alone. I think a lot of women got vicariously slapped by Trump and couldn't find a way to recover. He was an emotionally bad memory for them.
Jobs and peace in the Mideast make him the best of the modern presidents. IMO. Trump stated when he went into office that the system he profited by was corrupt and that was the system he was going to change. Which is why most people disliked him.
Larry Tribe us the preeminent living scholar of Constitutional Law, but he is pushing 80.
Funny - RUSSIA RUSSIA BS conspiracy lunatic Inag - we never heard a peep about Q until the left decided it Q was a thing.
Even the FBI thought the media's insane reporting on "Russia Russia Russia" was inaccurate and wrong.
Peace in the Middle East? No more war with UAE, Morocco and Bahrain? Trump's presidency saw the worst numbers for job creation in modern times.
Blogger Francisco D said...
"What is the Resident Idiot bleating about now/"
For the answer to that you'd have to ask the hammers
Readering said...
"Peace in the Middle East? No more war with UAE, Morocco and Bahrain? Trump's presidency saw the worst numbers for job creation in modern times."
I don't think I've seen anyone here more hellbent on being an idiot than you. And that's a pretty high bar among your colleagues here.
The only reason to keep posting large numbers of comments that you know are going to be deleted as soon as they are seen is to force the site-owner to go back to moderating all comments all the time. That would make a lot more work for her, while making her site far less interesting for everyone, including her. Moderation makes any back-and-forth pretty much impossible, thus killing most arguments and conversations.
Who would do something like that? Only a truly spiteful asshole who hates everyone else on this site for having what he could have had if only he hadn't been such a spiteful asshole. As I've noted before, sometimes on the Internet, everyone knows you're a dog.
Good thing you imposed new moderation standards, Althouse. Things are really cleaned up.
The Althouse stalker is back, but since she learned about handguns I suspect she feels safe.
Ann Althouse said...
Chuck, you're doing clutter. You're causing me (and I presume others) to just have to scroll to get past your long and repetitive stuff. You need to change what you are doing or you will become one of the small group of people I call bad faith commenters, whose posts I delete without reading whenever I see them. I'm quite serious. You need to cut way back and keep it short. Stop repeating yourself. Everyone is bored and you are not cute. And don't argue with me in the comments. Stop doing clutter.
8/3/17, 2:16 PM
Trump's presidency saw the worst numbers for job creation in modern times.
Readering is approaching troll status. What do these lies accomplish ?
Trump ushered us into a great economic boom - until chi com misery-D showed up.
Because Q told you so, eh?
Q, teh Winged Serpent, heh!
If you believe, as i do, that Biden cheated, does that mean I also believe Trump still the president?
This is a difficult question.
Maybe the pipeline workers can form a co-op and revive Solyndra's good name.
turnabout is fair play.
Someday - we might get the chance to impeach Biden - then send he, his brother and his jackass son Hunter to prison. But that would be in a just world.
"Learn to grift."
Here's a sound move!
https://www.breitbart.com/border/2021/01/23/exclusive-biden-made-america-less-safe-with-single-pen-stroke-says-former-cbp-head/
Trolls on adderall. Nite All!
I interrupt this fascinating and scholarly discussion to mention that Yeoman Janice Rand just made an appearance on Gunsmoke (1962).
There was something vaguely familiar to her, but I couldn't place her and had to look it up.
Banned Leftist Commenter, who was banned LLR-lefty Chuck: "Good thing you imposed new moderation standards, Althouse. Things are really cleaned up."
Banned leftist commenter LLR-lefty Chuck rapidly comes to the defense of other Banned leftist commenter Inga.
Discuss.
Iman said...
Because Q told you so, eh?
Q, teh Winged Serpent, heh!
***********
Cheesiest movie ever, starring Michael Moriarty, IIRC.
In one scene the winged serpent is devouring some miscreants, with Moriarty urging him on:
"Eat'em Q...eat'em!!!
Ah, lurker21, you reminded me of the 51, or 151, whatever, large number of former and possibly some current intelligence officials who solemnly pronounced and put their names to the solemn pronouncement that Hunter Biden’s laptop carelessly left at a repair shop by the drug addled son of the Alzheimer’s addled POTUS was Russian disinformation that shouldn’t see the light of day. And of co the MSM, all of them, who have always believed everything that comes from intelligence officials immediately fell in line and absolutely refused to delve into the matter or cover it at all. And the fact checking gatekeepers of social media giants used the solemn pronouncement to ban any substantive discussion of Hunter Biden’s laptop.
And amazingly, Hunter Biden’s laptop turned out to be Hunter Biden’s laptop and not clever and obvious Russian disinformation. And the FBI sat on it’s contents. And is still sitting. It’s pretty clear from what has leaked is there’s child pornography on the computer in which one of the stars appears to be the computer’s owner Hunter Biden. But no big deal now, is it? Not like revealing the contents and emails in the computer would have changed any votes.
“I am sure that Biden will be pressed about his at his next press conference”.
There ain’t gonna be any press conferences.
By the way for days and days after 4 protesters were killed at KENT STATE, it was the top news story every night.
If you do not care who killed Ashli Babbitt, you are on the wrong side of history.
I haven't read all comments, but "continuance" is a synonym for "duration". Trump's duration in office ended at noon Jan 20.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-cornyn/prominent-senate-republican-warns-trump-trial-could-spark-more-impeachments-idUSKBN29S0O7
Can shareholders of a publicly traded corporation oust its CEO after that CEO has already resigned?
(asking for a worried former CEO)
Gospace said...
Ah, lurker21, you reminded me of the 51, or 151, whatever, large number of former and possibly some current intelligence officials who solemnly pronounced and put their names to the solemn pronouncement that Hunter Biden’s laptop carelessly left at a repair shop by the drug addled son of the Alzheimer’s addled POTUS was Russian disinformation that shouldn’t see the light of day.
**********************
At this point Inga should be chiming in:
"Hey, who are going to believe, 151 intelligence officers, or Gospace?"
It seems obvious to me that Former President is a civil office of the United States. Former Presidents get paid and get perks. When Trump resigns his Former President position, then we can talk about whether his impeachment trial is beyond the jurisdiction of the Senate. A bright line rule: if we’re paying you, we can impeach you.
Dershowitz makes sense to me: “My own view, and it’s not a view shared by other liberal academics, is that a Senate conviction would be null and void and Mr. Trump, citizen Trump could simply ignore the consequences. And if he decides to run for president in 2024, he should be free to do it. And the courts will have to decide whether the Senate had any authority to determine who the presidential candidates in 2024 are.”
And any court worthy of the name would laugh the notion of the Senate having that authority right out of the courtroom.
Why people hate lawyers, example 8,583,762.
The founders created a mechanism to remove an elected official between elections. The purpose could not be more obvious. Is there anything in the Constitution that EXPLICITLY expands this power beyond that?
and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit
The Presidency is NOT in this description. This describes positions other that any elective office. Judge appointments, Cabinet level positions, Ambassadorships. Those are offices one would enjoy, an office of honor, and trust, even profit. Non of this describes the President. The singular elected person would be President.
My problem with those wanting to prevent a President from seeking to run for election after being removed from office is you have an equation that is impossible to balance.
Impeachment is designed to allow for congressional removal because the election was to far in the future to have the people remove him at the ballot box. This is always a forgone conclusion...given a chance, the activity is so egregious there was never a doubt the VOTERS would remove the president.
That's one side of the equation. It is impossible to balance it with...
Congress must now remove any possibility for the PEOPLE to overrule the work of legislative bodies.
Is there any other legislative work that cannot be overruled by the people at the ballot box?
See? an equation that will not balance.
@James K, your 9:01 post with its quote from Dershowitz made me realize that a "late impeachment" of Trump may well be the best way to get Trump to run again in 2024. It would be a way for him to force a challenge to the conviction of impeachment into the courts. TDS is the strangest thing.
It seems obvious to me that Former President is a civil office of the United States.
By what definition is ex president a civil office. I need a definition.
It sure as hell is not a constitutional office.
Otherwise you have nothing but a line item expense approved by congress.
"It seems obvious to me that Former President is a civil office of the United States."
LOL
So the civil, Office of Ex President, would be a part of the Executive Branch. As such, the ex President would work for the sitting President. Serving at the pleasure of the President.
I love learning new stuff. The possibilities for mischief is unlimited.
It was also "obvious" to Left Bank that Burisma was hiring Hunter for his experise.
h said...
I haven't read all comments, but "continuance" is a synonym for "duration". Trump's duration in office ended at noon Jan 20.
--------===========
Perry Mason fan here says legal sense
us law - a postponement or an adjournment.
So Trump 2nd term Presidency has been delayed by D's and R's foisting Biden on USA.
and admittedly they want to make it permanent.
I realize that I am late to this party, but, from 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."
When "the President of the United States is tried..." is Trump *the* President of the United States?
So does that mean that the Chief Justice will not preside over the trial?
Original Mike said...
"It seems obvious to me that Former President is a civil office of the United States."
LOL
Well, if he can't hold civil office as former president if impeached, then I guess he would have to be President for Life since President isn't a civil office, and then he wouldn't be former....
All the perks former presidents have can be removed by an act of congress, which is what created them to begin with. Sort of like all the assistants and whatnot to FLOTUS- authorized by Congress.
D.D. Driver said...
But my greatest hope is that, yes, this really is Trump's defense. I want to see the evidence. I would so love to see these idiots and crackpots on the stand to get cross examined. And, then maybe, just maybe the light bulb will go on for some of you and we can move on.
If the democrats had actually defeated Trump the way you all are pretending they did, they would not have to bar him from running for office like this in a really stupid show trial.
You can pretend there is evidence that this trial was legit.
You can pretend there is no evidence there was fraud.
You can pretend the courts did not rely completely on appeals to authority.
But it is pretty obvious to everyone the democrats do not think they actually got more legitimate votes than Trump and they know they could not beat him in 2024.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
It seems obvious to me that Former President is a civil office of the United States. Former Presidents get paid and get perks. When Trump resigns his Former President position, then we can talk about whether his impeachment trial is beyond the jurisdiction of the Senate. A bright line rule: if we’re paying you, we can impeach you.
This is how stupid you have to be to vote for democrats.
Ann Althouse wrote:
""The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office." Wrote James Madison in The Federalist Papers, Number 39.
So...is the trial constitutional or unconstitutional? The Article of Impeachment was filed while Trump was still in office, without evidentiary hearing, and in the heat of a vengeance-seeking moment for the Dems. But he left office shortly thereafter. So the constitutionality of a Senate trial seems questionable, at best. But Dems, leftists, and NeverTrumpers will merely say that The Federalist Papers are philosophical, and not law, and that Trump deserves what's coming. They therefore risk the one thing they can't conceive of...Trump as a sympathetic figure, unduly persecuted by the Establishment and the elite.
"..Trump as a sympathetic figure, unduly persecuted by the Establishment and the elite."
Yep, and they're gonna ride that train full throttle to the gaping chasm where the bridge is out. As I said before. Trump is now the Republican party. They can anything they want to him now except praise him. No matter what they say or do it will make him politically stronger. Either way he's a lock.
Doesn’t all this demonstrate how hateful democrats are? A couple of prime examples in this commentary.
SCOTUS will keep trying to hide behind the fig leaf of "it's a political matter", i.e. icky.
Plus, in a lifetime appointment, you don't want to rile the wrong folks and get shut out of gatherings and harassed at restaurants.
Achilles said...
Left Bank of the Charles said...
It seems obvious to me that Former President is a civil office of the United States. Former Presidents get paid and get perks. When Trump resigns his Former President position, then we can talk about whether his impeachment trial is beyond the jurisdiction of the Senate. A bright line rule: if we’re paying you, we can impeach you.
This is how stupid you have to be to vote for democrats.
***********************
Left Bank's "logic" would mean that "we" can impeach every retired Senator and Congressman who gets a pension and other perks.
Why don't "we" start doing that, starting with Bill Clinton for going down to Epstein's Caribbean Porn Palace to frolic and cavort with under-age girls?
"No evidence", you say? Well, it's pretty obvious that "we" don't need no steenkin' evidence!
Can the former officials involved in Russiagate be "impeached"?
They are getting their pensions, no doubt.
Impeachment passed the House while Trump was still president. The House has not delivered the impeachment articles to the Senate yet, while Trump left office last week. The Senate has no constitutional authority to try a private citizen who no longer holds office. This is the same reason there was no trial in the Senate for Nixon, who had been impeached but who then resigned, rendering moot a trial.
The purpose of impeachment is to remove an elected or appointed official from their position, usually prior to criminal indictment and subsequent trial in a court of law. Given that Trump is no longer president, there is no longer the conditions that would allow for impeachment. If Pelosi had been serious about this, she would have delivered those articles before the 20th and had the trial start... but she and the Democrats aren't serious. This is just a way to hang another punch on Trump, to impeach him and not provide the opportunity for him to be acquitted, because everyone knows there aren't 17 Senators willing to commit political seppaku to aid the Democrats and Never Trumpers in their quest to put a stake in Trump once and for all.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন