This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Articles of Impeachment- can they retroactively revoke pardon power

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

I have been reading the constitution and a simple majority is needed in the house to get an article of impeachment approved. It is my argument that the house should be able to have an article of impeachment which renders any attempted pardons ab initio void as a matter of public policy. The Senate would have to convict and in their order of impeachment state that any Presidential pardon connected to the conspiracy is void. They would also have to pass legislation which said the removal of a pardon does not amount to double jep. and the charged or convicted person must proceed as if no pardon was given.

This immediately would go to the Supreme Court, and the constitutional question will be, can the Courts limit an Enumerated Presidential Power of the pardon. If the players knew that this would be included in a bill of impeachment, Mueller will have canaries singing.

View user profile
Won't happen.

The only way to get rid of Trump will be at the ballot box on November 3, 2020.

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:The only way to get rid of Trump will be at the ballot box on November 3, 2020.  

Unless Mueller offers airtight, indisputable evidence of corruption or obstruction of justice on the part of Trump. Then enough Republicans in the Senate might vote to impeach--especially if the 2018 election goes very badly for them. It's unlikely but not totally out of the realm of possibility.

View user profile
I would put the percentage of probability of a criminal conspiracy among Trump's son and his father at over 90%. Impeachment will require financial connections with Russia, or explicit evidence of seeking Russian assistance in the election which compromised Americans, and our elections.

I believe that the part which is going to be far more difficult is winning the house back for the Democratic Party. Pence provides a buffer for senators and reps in the 2020 election where they need distance from Trump. I just spent the morning at a pig farm where we have gathered with Quincy College graduates who have been getting together for 40 years. I heard somebody say that our hosts could lose 200k this year on the farm.....and folks think that Senators from Agricultural States will not vote for impeachment.....the only thing standing between impeachment is the House. Trump will not even get a chance to run in 2020. He knew about the Russian meeting. He lied. They planned to get assistance from the Russians, and lo and behold the information on Hillary was released. Is that enough in the senate now......wait until the midterm and fall harvest.....you will have senators who will vote for conviction.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:  Impeachment will require financial connections with Russia...

Ah, there's the rub and I think it's going to be overcome with evidence of money laundering in Trump real estate--and there seems to be a lot it.

This is from U.S. New and World Report, a very reputable journal, back in January:

Trump Had Ties to Russian Mob Figures: Testimony


THE FOUNDER OF AN opposition research firm that assembled a now-infamous dossier on Donald Trump during his presidential campaign told congressional investigators in November that Trump, as a real estate developer, had ties to Russian mafia figures who appeared to be laundering money through Trump-owned and Trump-licensed properties.


https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-01-18/trump-had-ties-to-russian-mob-figures-fusion-gps-founder-testifies



This is from July in Real Clear Politics, a leans-right source. The article has a great graphic to show how the laundering worked:

Craig Unger: Donald Trump Would Not Be President Without The Russian Mafia

The September issue of the 'New Republic' is set to be titled "Married to the Mob: What Trump Owes the Russian Mafia." It examines how the Russian mafia has used the president’s rental properties to launder money and hide assets for decades. 'Democray Now!' speaks with the author, investigative journalist Craig Unger.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/07/21/craig_unger_donald_trump_would_not_be_president_without_the_russian_mafia.html


And now there's a new movie coming out, Active Measures, that lays out the whole scam in excruciating detail.

Active Measures director says Trump's Russian mob ties are his biggest legal vulnerability

Shell companies buy condos

Active Measures shows how foreign investments made by Russian oligarchs bolster the Kremlin's ambitions to exert influence in the west. The key is money laundering — the export of Russian wealth with the knowledge and approval of Putin.

Bryan says mobsters were Trump clients as early as 1985.

"He sells three condos to a man named David Bogatin, who's a Russian mobster," Bryan says. "This is in Trump Tower. And the reason they did Trump Tower is that it was the second building in New York where a shell company could purchase a condominium. And so it makes it much more easy to launder dirty money."

When Trump's fortunes fall, the Russians smell blood.

"Once he loses out in Atlantic City, once he can't get a loan from a bank, that's when the Russian mafia says: 'We have an opportunity here,'" says Bryan.

That's when Trump becomes less of a partner for Russian mobsters and more of a mark.


https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-388-trump-s-mob-ties-new-brunswick-flood-muterkelly-p-k-subban-s-dad-mercury-13-and-more-1.4646381/active-measures-director-says-trump-s-russian-mob-ties-are-his-biggest-legal-vulnerability-1.4646401


I think this is eventually going to take Trump down. Rest assured, Mueller knows all about this and all the stuff we've been reading lately about Trump's many scandals and outrages, may just be misdirection until he's ready to spring his trap.  This money-laundering scam has been going on for years and my feeling is that it's what really frightens Trump.

View user profile
Agree, and I still think there are American mob connections.

View user profile
Deus X wrote: ....
Craig Unger: Donald Trump Would Not Be President Without The Russian Mafia  ....



Well, I'm not saying Trump hasn't been in bed with Russian money-laundering.  Seems pretty plausible to me from everything that's come out thus far.  But nevertheless .... truth is that Donald Trump is President because of about 80,000 voters in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Of course Hillary's own e-mail, Benghazi, uranium, and other alleged scandals the Republicans managed to pin on her didn't help her either.  Whatever merit there was/was-not to those is irrelevant .. The Republicans managed to pin them on her in the minds of enough voters.  And that's her own fault

And but of course, the Russians hacking the DNC's email system and releasing the contents to Wikileaks helped her lose as well ... but they could have / might have done that without there having to have been any big conspiracy with the Trump campaign.   Shame on her & the DNC for having such lousy computer security .... and for doing sneaky party stuff to shut Bernie down.

Really though ... Hillary was such a bad candidate if you ask me that I think a number of the other Republican contenders could have beaten her by a wider margin than Trump did without there having to have been any big conspiracy between the Russian government and the Republican campaign.  Trump getting the R nomination was just as astonishing to me as his winning of the general election.

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:
Deus X wrote: ....
Craig Unger: Donald Trump Would Not Be President Without The Russian Mafia  ....

Hillary!, Benghazi!, uranium! blah, blah, blah...

You're apparently suffering from Conservative Dementia Syndrome, a malady characterized by extreme episodes of misdirection and whataboutism.

Try to stick to the subject at hand, Pop. Maybe have your caregiver read the post to you. Slowly.

This might help:

http://modernangels.ca/services/dementia-alzheimers-care/

View user profile
Trump probably thinks he can get impeached and then win the 2020 election, but the constitution says that congress can bar him from future office.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:Trump probably thinks he can get impeached and then win the 2020 election, but the constitution says that congress can bar him from future office.  

He should be worried about criminal prosecution after he's out of office. There's a lot of evidence for this money laundering scheme and he could end up getting fitted for an orange jumpsuit. This was a massive criminal scheme.

View user profile
I think when the investigation is over, they probably would be able to impeach Trump. Republicans might even want to, because he'll be so hamstrung by the scandal-stank on him that a purging and then re-set button is all that could save their party.

But, as excruciating as it'll be, I'd rather see him limp along and then get ousted, big-time, by voters in 2020. Trump's followers are a full-blown cult now, believing all kinds of idiotic conspiracy theories, and they need to see that the rest of the country rejects him... and them. They don't need to be given any kind of "out" where they can feel like they were robbed of something, or that most people were really with them but the "deep state" took away their play-pretty. Just for the sake of national health, I'd rather Trump be taken out at the ballot box, so there can't be any doubt of the nation's verdict upon him.

Impeachment doesn't always mean removal from office, so I'm thinking he might get censured instead, like Bill Clinton was. And meantime he can be hobbled with a Democratic House (and hopefully Senate, although that's less likely) that'll keep him from doing too much damage until voters vote him out in 2020. And by then his economic bullshit will probably have caught up to the rest of his tainted legacy and maybe some states that aren't usually blue will be.

I don't think we're going to have to worry about Republican anything for a while after Trump gets pitched out. His supporters are celebrating that they're "winning," but all they're really doing is giving the public a really good look at their ugly nastiness and building up a big backlash. The only thing about that I'm not crazy about is that it'll probably make "Democratic socialism" viable, just as a reaction, which isn't my ideal form of governance. Anything's better than conservatives, though. A lifetime in Mississippi's taught me that much...

View user profile
zsomething wrote:   The only thing about that I'm not crazy about is that it'll probably make "Democratic socialism" viable, just as a reaction, which isn't my ideal form of governance.  

They call themselves Democratic Socialists but what the actually are is Social Democrats. None of them want government ownership of the means of productions which is what Democratic Socialism implies. What they want is a move to the Nordic model and I don't see any problem with that. Just look at healthcare and education here.

Capitalism in this country has really fucked things up--just look at 2008. Financial firms almost DESTROYED the economy and NOBODY WENT TO JAIL. Even Ayn Rand's acolyte, Alan Greenspan, admitted that he was wrong about his understanding of economic reality.

The largest companies HAVE to be broken up, they're too big. Apple has a market capitalization of over $1 TRILLION. That's bigger than the GDP of all but 19 countries!

They could bust the five largest companies into five parts each and the economy would explode. Just two examples, Standard Oil in 1911 and AT&T much more recently--both got broken up and look at all the different successor companies that came out of that. If we busted up the five largest companies into five parts each every five years we'd all be a lot better off.

American capitalism has a profound flaw and it's the predominant theory of "grow or die". Let me give you a recent example of the problem. This is from an article in The Week magazine:


Once, Airbnb or Uber could sweep through cities “like a wrecking ball,” knocking down competitors and setting up shop before regulators knew what hit them, said Christopher Mims. Now those regulators have wised up and are forcing firms to work with them.
...
Once they’ve established a beachhead, tech firms can use regulations they helped shape to protect their business and keep competitors out. That’s a strategy companies in established industries have long known about, and it offers lucrative rewards.


http://theweek.com/print/406674/70012/article


"Use  regulations they helped shape to protect their businesses and keep competitors out"! Does that sound like Free Markets to you? THAT'S the problem. All this squawking about free markets is bullshit, all large companies want to do is LIMIT competition and they do it by buying or otherwise influencing legislators and regulators. This stifles innovation because small innovators that threaten large companies are either bought out or destroyed.

CAPITALISM IN THIS COUNTRY IS A MESS and needs to be reined in. Don't get me started...

View user profile
zsomething wrote:I think when the investigation is over, they probably would be able to impeach Trump.   Republicans might even want to, because he'll be so hamstrung by the scandal-stank on him that a purging and then re-set button is all that could save their party.

But, as excruciating as it'll be, I'd rather see him limp along and then get ousted, big-time, by voters in 2020.   Trump's followers are a full-blown cult now, believing all kinds of idiotic conspiracy theories, and they need to see that the rest of the country rejects him... and them.  They don't need to be given any kind of "out" where they can feel like they were robbed of something, or that most people were really with them but the "deep state" took away their play-pretty.  Just for the sake of national health, I'd rather Trump be taken out at the ballot box, so there can't be any doubt of the nation's verdict upon him.  

Impeachment doesn't always mean removal from office, so I'm thinking he might get censured instead, like Bill Clinton was.   And meantime he can be hobbled with a Democratic House (and hopefully Senate, although that's less likely) that'll keep him from doing too much damage until voters vote him out in 2020.   And by then his economic bullshit will probably have caught up to the rest of his tainted legacy and maybe some states that aren't usually blue will be.  

I don't think we're going to have to worry about Republican anything for a while after Trump gets pitched out.  His supporters are celebrating that they're "winning," but all they're really doing is giving the public a really good look at their ugly nastiness and building up a big backlash.   The only thing about that I'm not crazy about is that it'll probably make "Democratic socialism" viable, just as a reaction, which isn't my ideal form of governance.   Anything's better than conservatives, though.   A lifetime in Mississippi's taught me that much...

If things get bad enough for Trump that he can't see his way to winning in 2020 ... he could always just cite "health reasons" or some other such thing to bow out and hand the nomination over to Pence.   The Party may even urge him to do that.  If things get bad enough.

But Trump's always been kind of a wild-card, so I'm not making any 2020 predictions at this point.  Not till I see how the Mueller investigation and the economy goes. Or who knows? ..... we could be in a big honkin' war next year or the next. Wars always tend to shake up the political dynamics of things.

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:But Trump's always been kind of a wild-card,

No shit, and yet the Republican party allowed him to become the nominee for the office of President of the United States. Way to go, assholes, you just committed political suicide.

View user profile
zsomething wrote:I think when the investigation is over, they probably would be able to impeach Trump.   Republicans might even want to, because he'll be so hamstrung by the scandal-stank on him that a purging and then re-set button is all that could save their party.

But, as excruciating as it'll be, I'd rather see him limp along and then get ousted, big-time, by voters in 2020.   Trump's followers are a full-blown cult now, believing all kinds of idiotic conspiracy theories, and they need to see that the rest of the country rejects him... and them.  They don't need to be given any kind of "out" where they can feel like they were robbed of something, or that most people were really with them but the "deep state" took away their play-pretty.  Just for the sake of national health, I'd rather Trump be taken out at the ballot box, so there can't be any doubt of the nation's verdict upon him.  

Impeachment doesn't always mean removal from office, so I'm thinking he might get censured instead, like Bill Clinton was.   And meantime he can be hobbled with a Democratic House (and hopefully Senate, although that's less likely) that'll keep him from doing too much damage until voters vote him out in 2020.   And by then his economic bullshit will probably have caught up to the rest of his tainted legacy and maybe some states that aren't usually blue will be.  

I don't think we're going to have to worry about Republican anything for a while after Trump gets pitched out.  His supporters are celebrating that they're "winning," but all they're really doing is giving the public a really good look at their ugly nastiness and building up a big backlash.   The only thing about that I'm not crazy about is that it'll probably make "Democratic socialism" viable, just as a reaction, which isn't my ideal form of governance.   Anything's better than conservatives, though.   A lifetime in Mississippi's taught me that much...

I have to disagree. I expect Drumpf to be gone long before 2020, and each day he's in office is a negative for our country. Just watched Rick Wilson, Republican strategist, on Morning Joe.

MJ forced to bleep out Rick Wilson when he calls GOP 'chickensh*t' who secretly hate 'assh*le' Trump



I don't agree with everything stated here, especially don't buy the story that they're shocked by racism in the Republican Party. Plus, Putnam can stuff it.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:But Trump's always been kind of a wild-card,

No shit, and yet the Republican party allowed him to become the nominee for the office of President of the United States.

The "Party" simply acceded to the will of the primary voters.  As they are supposed to do.

(Unlike the Democrat Party in the case of Bernie Sanders where the official Party apparatus actively worked against Sanders in the primary to ensure Queen Hillary received her nomination crown.)

If you want to assign blame for Trump's success in the primary, more blame lies at the feet of the MSM (including CNN and MSNBC, not just Fox) for jumping on the Donald-Trump-Show and continually giving him coverage of his speeches, tweets, and rallies during the primary ...., way far and beyond what they gave to the other R primary contenders. Trump manipulated the media well and they willingly went along for the ride.

View user profile
Floridatexan wrote:

I have to disagree.  I expect Drumpf to be gone long before 2020, and each day he's in office is a negative for our country.

That's definitely a factor... he is draining the place. I'm just not sure if it corrects more damage taking him out prematurely, or by letting the voters do it. His followers are such a cult... if they're given any chance to build a conspiracy theory they're likely to get even more radicalized.

Either way to get rid of him does have built-in shortcomings... I'm just not sure which would be worse in the long run. I still stick by the vote-him-out idea, but then again, two more years of this bastard giving Russia free reign and setting people against each other? I'll admit that is pretty hard to take.




 
Just watched Rick Wilson, Republican strategist, on Morning Joe.  

MJ forced to bleep out Rick Wilson when he calls GOP 'chickensh*t' who secretly hate 'assh*le' Trump



I don't agree with everything stated here, especially don't buy the story that they're shocked by racism in the Republican Party.  Plus, Putnam can stuff it.

Rick Wilson is one Republican I'm liking lately. Smile I may have to buy his book when it comes out. I think he's right about a lot of the GOP hating Trump, but they're just too cowardly to face the wrath of his cult. I mean, if you check out how right-wingers are attacking John McCain now for standing up to Trump, it's crazy. They hate McCain worse than they do Pelosi, and just a few years ago he was their candidate for president. That's how diseased the Republican base has become.

View user profile
zsomething wrote:  ...  I'm just not sure if it corrects more damage taking him out prematurely, ...  

You'll have to find a provable violation of the law first.  

Sorry, but rumors, innuendo, coincidences, and the opinions of talking heads on cable teevee aren't going to be enough.


zsomething wrote:
....  or by letting the voters do it.  ...

Well, that's the other way.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
zsomething wrote:   The only thing about that I'm not crazy about is that it'll probably make "Democratic socialism" viable, just as a reaction, which isn't my ideal form of governance.  

They call themselves Democratic Socialists but what the actually are is Social Democrats. None of them want government ownership of the means of productions which is what Democratic Socialism implies. What they want is a move to the Nordic model and I don't see any problem with that. Just look at healthcare and education here.

Capitalism in this country has really fucked things up--just look at 2008. Financial firms almost DESTROYED the economy and NOBODY WENT TO JAIL. Even Ayn Rand's acolyte, Alan Greenspan, admitted that he was wrong about his understanding of economic reality.

The largest companies HAVE to be broken up, they're too big. Apple has a market capitalization of over $1 TRILLION. That's bigger than the GDP of all but 19 countries!

They could bust the five largest companies into five parts each and the economy would explode. Just two examples, Standard Oil in 1911 and AT&T much more recently--both got broken up and look at all the different successor companies that came out of that. If we busted up the five largest companies into five parts each every five years we'd all be a lot better off.

American capitalism has a profound flaw and it's the predominant theory of "grow or die". Let me give you a recent example of the problem. This is from an article in The Week magazine:


Once, Airbnb or Uber could sweep through cities “like a wrecking ball,” knocking down competitors and setting up shop before regulators knew what hit them, said Christopher Mims. Now those regulators have wised up and are forcing firms to work with them.
...
Once they’ve established a beachhead, tech firms can use regulations they helped shape to protect their business and keep competitors out. That’s a strategy companies in established industries have long known about, and it offers lucrative rewards.


http://theweek.com/print/406674/70012/article


"Use  regulations they helped shape to protect their businesses and keep competitors out"! Does that sound like Free Markets to you? THAT'S the problem. All this squawking about free markets is bullshit, all large companies want to do is LIMIT competition and they do it by buying or otherwise influencing legislators and regulators. This stifles innovation because small innovators that threaten large companies are either bought out or destroyed.

CAPITALISM IN THIS COUNTRY IS A MESS and needs to be reined in. Don't get me started...

I agree that capitalism is a mess. I still think it's the best method, but it's like any other system -- it needs some restraints. Pure capitalism is bad, just like pure socialism is bad. And I agree with a lot of what you're saying.

I'm not terrified of social Democrats the way the right-wing are, but many of the ones I've been seeing have plans that just don't ring true to me, and I don't know that they have realistic ways to implement them. I'm not fully trusting it. But, they do have some good ideas, too. It kind of depends on how far they try to swing it, and how much they're willing to compromise on them. Also, social Democrats work better for some areas of the country than they do for others... I'm not sure the country's ready for it on a national scale.

Politics is a pendulum. It tends to swing farther due to backlashes. After the hatefulness Trump is spreading, I know the Dems are going to be wanting revenge... and I love some revenge, but I'm not sure it's the best way to govern. Trump and his minions are taking great glee in trying to make all his adversaries miserable, and I'm a little worried the pendulum may swing too far the other way just out of a desire to make the Trumpers miserable in return. Like it or not, the country's pretty split, and somebody's got to try to be a president for everybody. O' course, I'm not sure that's possible anymore... I thought Obama put forth a great effort in that regard and made a lot of concessions (which made the left furious with him), and the right still reacted to him like he was Stalin or something. I'm not sure there's middle-ground left when so much of the public doesn't care about governance and just wants to "piss off the libs."

Anyway, we may end up giving social Democrats a try. Maybe it'll work out, maybe it'll just cause more craziness. Guess we'll see. I'll definitely be voting for 'em over conservatives, whatever happens... conservatives are a proven dead-end, seeing 50 years of their rule consistently result in failure -- and seeing them grow only more crazy and radicalized -- is more than enough proof for me to make the GOP a no-go.

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:

You'll have to find a provable violation of the law first.  

Sorry, but rumors, innuendo, coincidences, and the opinions of talking heads on cable teevee aren't going to be enough.



See, that's the thing -- no matter what Mueller uncovers, or how hard proof he gets, I'm not sure there's anything that the Trump cult would accept as proof. They're committed to their view of Trump as being some savior, and that the rest of the world is "out to get him," and you could probably bring out footage of Putin walking Trump on a leash and they'd just claim it was CGI or a body-double or whatever. No matter what proof is finally brought out, they'll just willfully not accept it.

I mean, these are people who convinced themselves Obama was born in Kenya, and find it reasonable to think somebody planted birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers 50-some years ago because they already planned way back then to install this newborn as president... there's really no talking sense to people who can make themselves believe things like that. They'll give Trump a pass no matter what he's proven to have done.

View user profile
zsomething wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:

You'll have to find a provable violation of the law first.  

Sorry, but rumors, innuendo, coincidences, and the opinions of talking heads on cable teevee aren't going to be enough.



See, that's the thing -- no matter what Mueller uncovers, or how hard proof he gets, I'm not sure there's anything that the Trump cult would accept as proof.   ....  

Well, of course not.  But if you're talking impeachment you have to look at the Party establishments (both of 'em) and what level of proof they would require.  My guess is it would have to be a clearly indictable offense.  And even then I don't know that they would. 

Remember it takes 2/3 of the Senate to remove a President.  You really think the D's are gonna do that well in the mid-terms!  Dream on.

We're all just guessing whether Mueller actually has anything on Trump himself.  We won't know till we know.

As to public perception of the voters of Trump's conduct  .... well, that gets settled at the ballot box in 2020.

I'm fairly skeptical Mueller will pin an indictable offense on Trump that would clearly and immediately stick.   Trump will challenge anything Mueler comes up with in court which would drag on for months and months and months ... and even then Scotus could well decide in the end it's a politically charged matter to be settled politically (via impeachment proceedings or at the ballot box) rather than judicially.

And if the offense is having been part of a conspiracy to launder money - unrelated to his Presidential campaign (likely, IMO),, well ... can a sitting President be indicted for past acts that have nothing to do with his/her Presidency prior to being impeached?  Apparently there's some legal controversy.  

.... The textual argument that the criminal prosecution
of a person subject to removal by impeachment may not precede conviction by
the Senate arises from the reference to the “ Party convicted” being liable for
“ Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment.” This textual argument draws support
from Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of this Clause in The Federalist Nos.
65, 69, and 77, in which he explained that an offender would still be liable to
criminal prosecution in the ordinary course of the law after removal by way of
impeachment. ....

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum