There’s a Surprisingly Plausible Path to Removing Trump From Office

Not quite. "excepting such Parts as may in their judgment require secrecy."

 

Oh they would have squealed like mice had we done to Obama what they do to Trump. Trump was besieged by the press and Democrats the same day he was sworn into office.

 

Your post was so hilarious that I totally missed that you think double jeopardy could ever apply here

 

I don't know that that particularly applies to votes but to deliberations. Votes are not announce periodically but immediately.

Quite frankly I would hope there would be a total public outrage it a secret vote was taken to overturn and election and remove a President and only shows how desperate are the TDSers getting.

 

"I suspect", "I also suspect", "could still be".

Did you actually read what you posted? You call that something to hang the removal of a president on?

 

Trump will resign after he loses in November, he will Pardon his family and have his VP pardon him like Nixon's did, Pence will be President for about a month

I want republicans votes to be public and in the history books

 

We are well aware of what it means. We were unable to persuade our own Senate to convict Clinton. So how will this differ vs Clinton?

1. Clinton was found guilty in a court of law.
2. Clinton was forced to pay a huge fine to a victim.
3. Clinton was shamed publicly and apologized.
4. Clinton lost his right to practice law for 5 years.

I do not see any of this happening to Trump.

 

Why should votes be public? Is YOUR vote public? Should it be?

Secret votes keep people from being threatened if they make their opinions known. Should fear of reprisals be a motivation in people's voting?

 

Possibly true. But the Report left a lot of loose ends, which are still being worked in different federal jurisdictions. My guess is that IF there are people sitting in jail waiting for a pardon, they will get increasingly nervous as Trump's conviction upon impeachment or chances for re-election increase/decrease. He could possibly try and pardon them after an election loss, but before he leaves office, but that's questionable. He has a lot at risk, if he loses the election, such as all of those potential "obstruction charges." If he starts pardoning people after an election loss, there will be public pressure to move ahead with those charges. And, if it turns out that the pardons were part of obstruction, then they become invalid. And, of course, the longer he postpones "promised pardons" (if any), the riskier it becomes for both him and those awaiting the pardons.

 

That is possible. However not plausible. The crimes committed by Clinton were no impediment for Obama. So of course the votes will be public. I have shamed our republicans in office during Clinton for not studying the actual evidence against Clinton yet do you hear much about that evidence today? Schippers wrote all about this evidence. Said it should have put Clinton behind bars.

 

Which of them is in jail for working with Russians?

You guys go ahead and run with your obstruction fantasy. I'd explain but it would largely be a waste of time.

 

Removal from office for the offense for which the person was impeached is the ONLY judgement made and yes it prohibits holding of a future office "of honor". During the Clinton impeachment some Democrats wanted to censure, a lessor penalty, but it was determined that was not possible in an impeachment trial.

 

So Democrats can legislate from the bench and win the White House?

 

Are you asking why the people we vote for to represent us should have their votes be public?

Is that really hard to understand?

 

He will not and there are no criminal charges pending or speculated against anyone including himself. I want Democrats votes to be public and on record especially Senator Doug Jones.

 

Who is he losing to, just to flesh this out.

 

Testing that premise. I argue often that the Congress owes America a law that makes abortion legal in the law. I know all about the SC decision but that is not a code section of law. So if the secret ballot you want outlaws Abortion, are you also fine with that?

Give you a good example. The SC validated slavery was legal. So the Congress created a new law and solved that problem. Easy peasy to take care of abortion. This charade it is a privacy issue is a fatal flaw of the decision in Roe v Wade.

 

The charges against Trump could be far, far more serious. Clinton lied to a Grand Jury over a sexual affair with an intern. The honor and integrity of the office was hurt, but it probably did not have much impact on national security. Trump's transgressions may. IMO, the public would weigh the two as Clinton being a philander and liar, with the other being a philander, liar, and traitor via conspiracy with a foreign power for personal gain (su object certainly to an abuse of power, if not treason itself).

 

Actually, he lied about trying to cover up lying about having a sexual affair with an intern.

 

Clinton plea bargained the criminal charges with IP Robert Ray the day he was leaving office. Ray judged that Clinton having paid the plaintiff in the Federal Civil Rights lawsuit $900,000, the court fining him $90,000 for the civil contempt for the criminal charges he held and his agreeing not to fight his lost of his license to practice law for 5 years would satisfy the law. Clinton of course having no defense for the charges jumped all over the plea bargain agreement.

 

The votes of those that the people elect into congress absolutely should be public and fear of reprisals (you know, elections have consequences) should absolutely be a motivation for elected representatives and senators. It's how a representative government works. But you know this, right?

No, my vote shouldn't be public. I'm not an elected official. I'm the guy that elects those officials, along with the rest of the population.

 

Trump no more harmed Ukraine than Obama harmed his favorite group, the Muslims.

When you get a chance, hopefully today, go back and read the actual charges made against Clinton. What you said does not resemble the actual charges made. When one lies to a grand jury, the nature of the lie is less important than the fact that under oath a person lies.

First, we have yet to see proof it was Trump holding up funds. So far we need to read the wording in the law that stipulates a president is not to hold back funds. We then compare that to the fact Ukraine got the funds. And we need to hear from Zelensky that he was compliant to what he was asked to do and who he responded to.

i shall ask Democrats to supply such a law until they are dizzy. So far nobody shows us the law.

 

Uhhh huhh. Clearly knows the case.

 

Probably Biden

 

It was not a matter of national security, although there was a case to be made that MOSSAD had learned of it and was blackmailing him but that is for the conspiracy section. It was a matter of his using his position of power in government, including as President, to reward and give special privileges to subordinate workers who granted him sexual favors and threatening those who did grant those favors. The affair and special treatment he gave to Monica Lewinsky for those sexual favors became material to the Paula Jones lawsuit and under the Molinari amendment which he signed into law he was compelled to give testimony to any such behavior by him with subordinate employees. The affair with Lewinsky damaged his case and buoyed Jones against him and he knew could threaten his Presidency so he engaged in the perjury and obstruction of justice with Lewinsky to hide it and deny Jones her rightful day in court. Perjury, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury are all high crimes but the Democrats said did not warrant removal from office.

Clinton was a boss who sexually abused and harassed subordinate employees and committed felonies to try and cover it up. There is no Trump conspiracy with a foreign power for personal gain. That a perfectly reasonable request, and required by treaty, to Ukraine to assist in a DOJ investigation into possible corruption by a high official may have somehow helped in some way is of no matter, political opponents do not get immunity from such investigations.