well that will give them time to read our constitution...esp the part where it says in regards to impeachment "the president shall be"  nobody else, not a private person, not the mayor, not the police chief, but the President and only the President...also because our founders hated the old school of England and their ways we have a constitution that protects a citizen from broad attack upon its citizens

As I've said numerous times, the left's idea of unity is to have any opposition just shut the hell up and sit down because, wellllll,  differing opinions are divisive/unacceptable!!!

But don't worry, the direction Biden et.al. are taking us, disivion may end up the least of our problems.

BTW,  this impeachment is just another statement by the Dems asserting that they can do anything they want.  I hope enough people realize what's going on before the midterms.

After 50 court cases are thrown out, largely by Republican appointed judges, Trump attempts an illegal act of throwing out the legitimate electors.  Essentially a coup.  And your response is for the sake of unity there should be no consequences for his actions.  

Mind boggling.  Unity is one thing.  Appeasement is something entirely different.

Kind of like Susan Collins voting 'no' in the first impeachment because she thought "Trump has learned his lesson."  He learned alright.  No consequences means I can do whatever the hell I want.

MM, I know how passionate you are about the climate issue.  Short of Biden completely converting to your side of the debate, I cannot imagine him gaining your support.   I expect Biden bashing from you for the next 4 years.  Can you please label these threads "Biden Bashing" going forward?  Thanks.  ;-)

Thanks joj!

It's true that Biden's climate policy and mine are totally different but I was not a NEVER Biden guy and have been willing to give him a chance, trying my best to be objective and to let his actions, not my cognitive bias determine how to perceive him.  Fortunately, I can prove that.

                I will vote for Biden            

                            5 responses |              

                Started by metmike - Nov. 1, 2020, 12:26 p.m.      

      https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/60637/

So you can also see how important unity was for me in that post. Yes, much more important than pinning an impeachment on Trump, who CLEARLY DESERVES TO BE IMPEACHED by every objective standard. I am furious with Trump's actions after the election(spent much of 2 months here trying to do damage control to the brains he stole from).

However, I'm not vindictive and sometimes justice is not served because in the big picture it would do more harm than good. If our country was not the most divisive since the Civil War, we could afford to impeach Trump. But the political divisiveness of the country is destroying our country............even personal relationships of good friends. An impeachment trial of  Trump WILL with certainty,  maximize that. Now, they've gone and delayed it. What's wrong with these people? This just adds a couple more weeks for the most divisive issue imaginable to tear us apart even more/longer.

Back to Biden, I was totally expecting him to sign up with the Climate Accord and lead the way but his other energy market crushing decisions, right out of the gates, while consistent with that and not a shock are what they are and I was not the first one to bring them up. Joe Lund who makes a living in the ng business did(he runs ng rigs).

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/63970/#64563

Joe's post made me think of all the US/Canadian lives that will be substantively hurt by these decisions, while doing exactly zero for the climate. It's just virtue signaling at the expense of our economy and people. Yes, this is going to be a long 4 years on that issue but expected and with me posting the science and facts and never hating Joe Biden.  I actually understand what he and the UN stand for in helping the less fortunate in  our world and their redistribution of wealth plan. On this, in theory I am in Joe Bidens corner, especially with his ability to cooperate with the rest of the world on doing so.............but I will not tolerate junk science and lies to accomplish the altruistic agenda. You should read all my posts below to understand that.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/64526/#64538

Sorry but I will not call it Biden bashing because I am going to be objective as possible with him. He can do a lot of things to get  compliments from me............like helping the less fortunate/poor, introduce improvements to the health care industry that make sense(I'm for socialized medicine) and slow down the bleeding(gushing blood) by at least making a statement that recognizes and addresses the divisiveness of the impeachment. Delaying it would have been the absolute last/worst thing to do this.

Right now, the focus should be on RIGHT NOW. This is where he has his biggest chance(first impressions count the most) to prove if he really means it about representing the 74,000,000 Americans that didn't vote for him, most of whom DO NOT want impeachment. It's not about what the majority wants either. It's about giving the minority something they really want as a sign of good faith without hurting yourself or the country...........in fact, it greatly helps the country.

Yeah, it would really upset the far left but they already won the fight. Stop kicking the loser and extend your hand to help the loser get up instead of giving them a few more kicks in the head.

He is obviously not going to change his agenda(some of his agenda, I like but most Trumpsters do not, so I will be easier to please). The only thing he could really do RIGHT NOW is stop the impeachment or make a statement that our country is much more important than just pinning an impeachment on 1 man, that is no longer in office that deserves it.

I am not giving up hope that Biden will do this. I think that he has it in him. He's a good man deep inside(despite his corruption to help his family members(I've been hard on him there because of the facts but can see how the attraction to help the family that he's devoted to enticed him) and needs to tell the extreme left to shut up for once and do what HE knows is right for the country. 

CLEARLY DESERVES TO BE IMPEACHED by every objective standard.

Unless of course, you read the constitution, which apparently we're not doing anymore.

Thanks Tim! Great point. 

The Impeachment and Trial of a Former President January 15, 2021

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10565

"Though the text is open to debate, it appears that most scholars who have closely examined the question have concluded that Congress has authority to extend the impeachment process to officials who are no longer in office. As an initial matter, a number of scholars have argued that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention appeared to accept that former officials may be impeached for conduct that occurredwhile in office. This understanding also tracks with certainstate constitutions predating the Constitution, which allowed for impeachments of officials after they left office. It also accords with the British impeachment of Warren Hastings two years after his resignationas the governor-general of Bengal. The impeachmentoccurred during the Convention debates and was noted expressly by the delegates without expressing disapprovalof the timing.While the Framers were aware of the British and state practices of impeaching former officials, scholarshave notedthat they chose not to explicitly rule out impeachment after an official leaves office. But the Framers nonetheless made other highly specific decisions about the impeachment process that departed from the British practice, such as requiring a two-thirds majority in the Senate for a conviction when the British system allowed conviction on a majority vote.That said, there are textual arguments against Congress’s authority to apply impeachment proceedings to former officials."

metmike: My comments, actually referred to whether President Trump deserves consequences..........accountability/justice for his diabolical  behavior and any objective mind that knows the facts well would likely see what he did was VERY WRONG and cost lives as well as other great losses measured in significant permanent damages to our future electoral systems use and political divisiveness.

Do you think that this was ok and he should not have accountability?(forget the Constitution). Let's just deal with what's right and wrong.

I think Trump making a speech using apparent lies was wrong.  Using that as a guide,  we can impeach a lot of politicians...       But,  it's not against the law.

Oh, and they found some "legal scholars" who think congress has the authority to impeach a former president? Zounds!!!

But they're wrong.

So, the only option is to charge him as a private citizen and try him in court.   Problem there is, there is no evidence that could be used to get a conviction.

No, You Can’t Try an Impeached Former President - WSJ

Now that Donald Trump is a private citizen, the Senate should dismiss the article of impeachment against him for lack of jurisdiction. The Constitution is clear: “The president . . . shall be removed from office on impeachment . . . and conviction”—not by the expiration of his term before the impeachment process is complete. It also mandates that “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal and disqualification“—not or disqualification.

When the Constitution was written, several states allowed impeachment of former officials. The Framers could easily have included that provision, but they didn’t. They also explicitly chose to prohibit the British practice of trial by legislature—excepting only impeachment—and “bill of attainder,” any punitive legislative act against a specific person. The courts have held that the punishments prohibited by the Bill of Attainder Clause include disqualification from holding office. Moreover, the Constitution requires the chief justice to preside “when the president of the United States is tried.”

"I think Trump making a speech using apparent lies was wrong.  Using that as a guide,  we can impeach a lot of politicians...       But,  it's not against the law."

Thanks Tim,

You're totally mischaracterizing what really  happened to justify your position. 

Instead, why don't we use what actually happened.

For 2 months, Trump tried to sell the stolen election lie everyday. He used hundreds of people and paid millions of dollars that made frivolous allegations and even proven fraudulent allegations to try to trick people into thinking that the most secure election in US history was actually stolen from him........and showed ZERO evidence of systemic fraud that could have come close to overturning any of the states that he targeted with his diabolical scheme.

All his legal challenges were lost, some were laughable but at least most were legal. What he did in the above paragraph was create permanent damage to the credibility of future election results and ramp up divisiveness and........where he should be held accountable, he enraged and encouraged  tens of millions of supporters, some to the point of taking actions. 

Every time that he was proven conclusively wrong by every objective standard............and there were many dozens at least, his response was to reject the proof and continue with the false narrative of the election being stolen from him and trying to sell lies to his supporters the entire time.

He even tried to use his influence/power as president to pressure elected officials(GA phone call for instance) to change the results for him.

I think that Trump, who already had a touch of functional delusion, which was just hurting his credibility before.........had something snap in his brain after this loss as he was clearly clinically delusional and probably believed alot of the hogwash, despite having zero evidence.

However, his mental illness does not excuse him from the behavior and massive damage that he caused from 2 MONTHS worth of a contrived/intentional actions......not just "making a speech"

I think there are legitimate questions about the election that have not been answered.  I have 1st hand experience with our local county election board.  The voter data base is a shambles and they like it that way.  They have knowledge of people voting in 2 states, and thats fine with them.  I doubt this is unique to Gwinnett county and I think that sweeping it under the rug has far more long term impact than anything Trump did. Our SOS thinks issues should be dealt with at the county level and our county sees no need for action in spite of reams of data indicating problems.

You seem to want to hold Trump responsible for a riot that was planned and began before he completed his speech.  The one where he insisted on non-violent protest. You are certainly entitled to your opinion,  but there is no legal criteria for prosecution.  If there were, I can name a few dozen politicians that are at least as liable for riots off the top of my head.

There are a lot of questions about this riot that have also not been answered. Amazing that this group was able to gain access to the capitol, normally a very secure place,  as it should be.  But in this case,  guards allowed them through the barricades and practically escorted them into the building.  Doesn't that make you the least bit curious?

The attempt to impeach Trump is placing the emphasis on the wrong things.

And you know me Tim.

I defended President Trump many dozens of times when he was being unfairly attacked, often with made up and ludicrous stuff intended to obliterate him because of the hate for him.

Many people, after being conditioned to the Dems and MSM and DOJ doing that for 4+ years, think that this is just another case of it.

Yeah, it's hard to know when people have a legit case based on the reality when their past reveals so much biased dishonestly.

They have a whopper of a good case this time, in contrast to the first 2 totally political impeachment hearings/disgraces/frauds that embarrassed our country. 

The smartest and best thing that President Trump could have done, was in the last couple of days in office...............RESIGNED.

Doing this before the house impeached him, which he knew was coming would have stolen their thunder and eliminate the chance of him getting impeached also in the Senate. 

 This would have eliminated what we all have to go thru now in the impeachment trial and been best for our country.

But as I mentioned, I think that he actually believed much of what he stated the last 2 months and probably really believes he didn't really do anything wrong.

But this time, he really did do something diabolically wrong.

So it's not easy for me to suggest that he should get off from being impeached.

We do agree on that part Tim.

Are you absolutely certain the dems would not have impeached him, had he resigned?  I'm certainly not.

BTW.  Seems a bit odd that you ignored my observations of pbviously flawed voter data.   Why?

I watched the hearings.  I heard these statements.   First Hand.

"BTW.  Seems a bit odd that you ignored my observations of pbviously flawed voter data.   Why?"

Tim,

I just got back from a 5 hour meeting and dinner. The last thing I did was send that last post and didn't have time to check to see if there were any new ones. You know me well enough to realize that  I would never ignore anybody intentionally in a conversation.

With regards to voter fraud. Absolutely there was voter fraud. I was pointing it out myself here, as you probably forgot by now. This has always been the case in elections and without question,  even in this one that was the most secure ever based on the record scrutiny and investigations that proved to show very little substantive fraud and no systemic fraud

                353 counties in 29 states with voter registration over 100%            

                            Started by metmike - Nov. 9, 2020, 6:35 p.m.          

  https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/61031/

With regards to any uncovered or swept under the rug fraud like you describe, surely there was some of that in other areas.  Note my post above. One side had 2 months and they threw everything but the kitchen sink , including frivolous and fraudulent/dishonest allegations, millions of dollars, many hundreds of people........but they still didn't come up with anything close to even being in the vicinity of something that could have swung more than a small  fraction of the votes needed for even 1 state.

It was crystal clear who won the election by every reasonable objective standard. 

Some fraud that always happens does not change that. They did 3 separate hand counts in GA for instance. It would be one thing if they come up with SOME significant fraud SOMEwhere. But no big fraud was found anywhere and they needed it in NUMEROUS places in NUMEROUS states. On what planet does this equate to a stolen election?

The biggest fraud turned out to be from  the ones claiming fraud. If you represent the truth, your main battle plan to expose fraud isn't based on using lies/fraud.

On the riot, yes I agree that it was strange how easily that people were able to get in.  The left used the opportunity to tell us how it was so unfair that their BLM rioters(mostly white) were not treated so nicely to point out how racist cops are.

Maybe because the rioters earlier in the month were not pelting the cops with bricks and bottles and trying to kill them from the get go..............(like BLM rioters often do) but some of them did end of killing and injuring cops, sadly. 

Maybe some folks wanted them to get in to make Trump look bad, like you are suggesting?

Funny how the same thing is perceived completely opposite.

The left thinks the cops were nice because the rioters were white/right.

The right thinks the cops were nice because they wanted them to riot to make Trump look bad.

Funny thing is that I don't care much about the riots in my belief that Trump deserves being impeached. His diabolical behavior, as I already described in a previous post, that did not mention the rioting is plenty deserving. 

"Are you absolutely certain the dems would not have impeached him, had he resigned?  I'm certainly not."

I'm pretty sure, as I mentioned that the Senate would not have impeached him if he resigned. They require a 2/3rds majority and resigning would make it hard for republicans to vote impeachment after he resigned without catching some huge flack.

Most of the dems probably would still vote to impeach because its so political and based on hate but they could have caught more flack because Trump's resigning would have greatly weakened their reasoning for impeachment. 

In court, when somebody is convicted of a crime by a jury and goes before the judge for sentencing, does the defendant/criminal get a worse sentence if he has been loudly/rudely interupting the trial contstantly by claiming the prosecution, that has been using widespread, solid/by the book evidence is FRAMING ME! Or is the sentence worse if he acknowledges the crime and that he was wrong.......which resigning by Trump might have done?

Part of the justice to fit the crime involves paying the price needed to learn a lesson.

If the convicted criminal behaves in a way that tells us they learned a lesson and realize they were wrong.......the justice system usually sees less need to impose a tougher penalty. 

Trump would still have those that want maximum blood if he resigned but XX% number of those would be satisfied and want to end it there ...............that are not satisfied right now. 

I had to chuckle a minute ago about this thread.

On my position that Trump deserves to be impeached but should not because it would amplify the dangerous political division in our country right now.

One side strongly  disagrees with me because they think Trump SHOULD be impeached.

The other side also strongly disagrees with me too because they think Trump doesn't deserve to be impeached.

Too funny!

Not because I am right or wrong about either position and of course we encourage all views here, especially those that disagree with the moderator............but it's funny to have both sides disagree with me at the same time!

Law Professor Dershowitz Outlines Legal Possibilities for Senate on Upcoming Trump Impeachment Trial

https://www.theepochtimes.com/law-professor-dershowitz-outlines-legal-possibilities-for-senate-on-upcoming-trump-impeachment-trial_3668584.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-01-23-4

Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz shared his expert opinion on free speech and the second impeachment of former President Donald Trump in an interview with The Epoch Times.

He noted that Trump asked for peaceful and patriotic demonstrations. And in America, it has been a custom to differentiate the advocate and the actor, meaning the law should go after the people who commit the crimes, and not the speaker, saying that this principle goes back to a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1801.

He commented on what options the Senate could take.

“They also have the option of voting against trying the case, they won’t do that, because all you need is a majority, to try the case you need two thirds to convict. But they have a majority now and they will vote to have a trial and that trial will be unconstitutional,” he commented.

The law professor also gave his personal views on what the Senate could do at this juncture, he said:

“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.”

Dershowitz thinks that if the trial goes on it would take a long time and the spotlight would go back to Trump, which would not be beneficial for Democrats or America.

Finally, on the question of what recourse Trump could follow to uphold the Constitution, Dershowitz said that he could file a lawsuit in the federal district court, stating that he’s been subject to an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

Dershowitz also noted the “massive movement” in the direction of censorship from a group of people that are of “goodwill, zealous, but without understanding,” rendering it more difficult to counter.

He believes that since those people are cloaked with a veil of progressivism and have good intentions, the movement becomes vastly more dangerous than McCarthyism, which didn’t have the backing of the mainstream media.

In a state with a margin of victory of about 12K,  it matters.     As that is the only first hand knowledge I have,   I can't speak for other states,   but I hardly think we're all the unique.