US Politics Hamsterwheel V3.0
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,415
Originally Posted by magyarflyer
so now it goes to the senate where you need a 75% majority vote to impeach with 50/50 republican/democrat participation
care to guess what is coming next?
care to guess what is coming next?
This is all a waste of time and smells mostly of politics to satisfy your voters in your next election.
We would waste our time a lot less if the Senate would refuse to even vote unless the house has presented their action for impeachment with a two third majority.
I don't know why some imagine that if the Senate votes to impeach the blonde hair will go away. It may just be replaced by a bloke with a horned hat and a hairy chest who comes out of the mud
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 81
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by wtsmg
Quite agree. For such self proclaimed devotees of Christ, they sure do love a spot of killing.
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Norwich
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by ORAC
Two-thirds majority of those present, 66.6%.
Meaning 67 senators, or perhaps less, depending on how many absent themselves by finding urgent business elsewhere.
Meaning 67 senators, or perhaps less, depending on how many absent themselves by finding urgent business elsewhere.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 73
Posts: 808
Mitch McConnell has been making noises today to the effect that the Senate won't be in a great hurry to reconvene to try Trump. Given that there will be a Biden administration in charge, with a majority (or a casting vote anyway) in the Senate, would delaying the trial now merely put it off until the Democrats are in office, more or less ensuring a loss for Trump?
I was amazed by the BBC news item this evening saying there are more troops in Washington now than in both Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Despite my dislike of Trump and all he stands for, I have to say it makes me sad to see a great country reduced to this. And it worries me to think of how this could all play out ultimately if the right wing nut jobs get any more excited.
I was amazed by the BBC news item this evening saying there are more troops in Washington now than in both Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Despite my dislike of Trump and all he stands for, I have to say it makes me sad to see a great country reduced to this. And it worries me to think of how this could all play out ultimately if the right wing nut jobs get any more excited.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,931
Given that there will be a Biden administration in charge, with a majority (or a casting vote anyway) in the Senate, would delaying the trial now merely put it off until the Democrats are in office, more or less ensuring a loss for Trump?
With an eye on the votes if Trump supporters, and with Trump already out of office, it’s almost impossible to see that happening.
I was amazed by the BBC news item this evening saying there are more troops in Washington now than in both Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,952
Donny has just released a vid condemning violence and telling everyone NOT to do other than peacefully protest. Tone was very different. Very, 'getting it on the record', almost like he might need to use it in evidence in a couple of weeks. No mention of stolen election or his new world record.
CG
CG
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Norwich
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by ORAC
Makes no great difference. There will be 50 Republican and 50 Democrat senators, so 17 of the Republicans would have to vote to convict.
With an eye on the votes if Trump supporters, and with Trump already out of office, it’s almost impossible to see that happening.
With an eye on the votes if Trump supporters, and with Trump already out of office, it’s almost impossible to see that happening.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,284
Conviction requires a 2/3rds majority of those present - we're all agreed on that. But I am advised that the Senate may (at its sole discretion) hold a separate vote to disqualify the individual convicted from holding future federal offices of public trust - a measure which requires just a simple majority.
What does not seem to be clear is whether the Senate require an impeachment conviction before they can hold such a vote. There are some legal specialists who are suggesting that they only require a simple majority on the articles of impeachment to then hold that vote. Others are suggesting this is not the case, and such a vote can only be held after a conviction. Does anyone have any authoritative answers on this?
PDR
What does not seem to be clear is whether the Senate require an impeachment conviction before they can hold such a vote. There are some legal specialists who are suggesting that they only require a simple majority on the articles of impeachment to then hold that vote. Others are suggesting this is not the case, and such a vote can only be held after a conviction. Does anyone have any authoritative answers on this?
PDR
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 10
A question one should ask oneself from time to time is: "What would i have done in 1930s germany? Would
i have opposed the regime? Would i have stood up?" And, luckily, it is a very theoretical question. Members
of the Republican Party have the answer now, they would have been enablers and followers of the Nazis. How
can these people look into the mirror in the morning?
i have opposed the regime? Would i have stood up?" And, luckily, it is a very theoretical question. Members
of the Republican Party have the answer now, they would have been enablers and followers of the Nazis. How
can these people look into the mirror in the morning?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,931
What does not seem to be clear is whether the Senate require an impeachment conviction before they can hold such a vote. There are some legal specialists who are suggesting that they only require a simple majority on the articles of impeachment to then hold that vote. Others are suggesting this is not the case, and such a vote can only be held after a conviction. Does anyone have any authoritative answers on this?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,733
Originally Posted by KelvinD
Why am I not surprised to see no comment here on last nights execution of a woman in the US? It seems almost as if Trump was in a tearing hurry to have this woman done away with before he leaves office. After all, Biden has said he would end the federal death penalty so Trump needed to have the deed done and dusted before the 20th.
It is a sad indictment of the US as a whole (and as of today) that this woman had to be killed. The crime she had been convicted of was dreadful, unparalleled in barbarity. Yet account was not taken of her background. As a child she had been repeatedly beaten and raped, principally by her father, including a gang rape by the father and a posse of his mates. She had a cousin who was aware of what was going on but, despite being a police officer, did nothing about it. With a background like that, one could understand if she was mentally wrecked. Police forces in the US (like ours here in UK) claim they are there to protect the people. Well, they failed to protect this woman during her childhood so perhaps the police are to some extent equally culpable in how things panned out.
Shame on the US!
It is a sad indictment of the US as a whole (and as of today) that this woman had to be killed. The crime she had been convicted of was dreadful, unparalleled in barbarity. Yet account was not taken of her background. As a child she had been repeatedly beaten and raped, principally by her father, including a gang rape by the father and a posse of his mates. She had a cousin who was aware of what was going on but, despite being a police officer, did nothing about it. With a background like that, one could understand if she was mentally wrecked. Police forces in the US (like ours here in UK) claim they are there to protect the people. Well, they failed to protect this woman during her childhood so perhaps the police are to some extent equally culpable in how things panned out.
Shame on the US!
Perhaps the best one can say, without irony, is life expectancy on death row for these hapless aberrations may be longer than the alternative of an impoverished hopeless existence living on the streets of the "greatest country in the world". A country which spends more on military defence than all its major allies and enemies combined.
Mjb
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,952
Originally Posted by PDR1
Conviction requires a 2/3rds majority of those present - we're all agreed on that. But I am advised that the Senate may (at its sole discretion) hold a separate vote to disqualify the individual convicted from holding future federal offices of public trust - a measure which requires just a simple majority.
What does not seem to be clear is whether the Senate require an impeachment conviction before they can hold such a vote. There are some legal specialists who are suggesting that they only require a simple majority on the articles of impeachment to then hold that vote. Others are suggesting this is not the case, and such a vote can only be held after a conviction. Does anyone have any authoritative answers on this?
PDR
What does not seem to be clear is whether the Senate require an impeachment conviction before they can hold such a vote. There are some legal specialists who are suggesting that they only require a simple majority on the articles of impeachment to then hold that vote. Others are suggesting this is not the case, and such a vote can only be held after a conviction. Does anyone have any authoritative answers on this?
PDR
CG
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,066
Originally Posted by ThorMos
A question one should ask oneself from time to time is: "What would i have done in 1930s germany? Would
i have opposed the regime? Would i have stood up?" And, luckily, it is a very theoretical question. Members
of the Republican Party have the answer now, they would have been enablers and followers of the Nazis. How
can these people look into the mirror in the morning?
i have opposed the regime? Would i have stood up?" And, luckily, it is a very theoretical question. Members
of the Republican Party have the answer now, they would have been enablers and followers of the Nazis. How
can these people look into the mirror in the morning?
What I find quite worrying is not the Republicans who chose not to support the impeachment, but those who actively defended Donald Trump, Ted Cruz in particular from whom, as a former candidate for the Republican nomination, I would have hoped for something rather less extreme
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 872
Could someone on the West side of the pond please explain to this bemused and sympathetic spectator why anyone is worried that Trump might do something dreadful in his final few days in office?
Politicians don't do things, they tell officials and other politicians what they would like done. This might even be in the form of a Command, Executive Order, whatever. Call it what you will, someone else must then tell someone else to get it done, and so on down through a hierarchy of officials or military chiefs and lesser chiefs, until the Command/Order finally gets to the junior person who actually presses the button, or takes whatever action is needed to carry out the Command/Order.
In the UK, our slowly stirring mass of reluctant officials have for centuries mastered the art of masterly inaction to frustrate the wilder excesses of the politician who thinks he or she is in charge. I would imagine that it's the same in any truly democratic country.
With a deranged, delusional idiot in the Oval Office for just a few more days, surely any order from him can be, and will be, quietly sunk in bureaucratic processes, even if it gets past the first and maybe still loyal link in the chain?
So what's the fuss all about?
Politicians don't do things, they tell officials and other politicians what they would like done. This might even be in the form of a Command, Executive Order, whatever. Call it what you will, someone else must then tell someone else to get it done, and so on down through a hierarchy of officials or military chiefs and lesser chiefs, until the Command/Order finally gets to the junior person who actually presses the button, or takes whatever action is needed to carry out the Command/Order.
In the UK, our slowly stirring mass of reluctant officials have for centuries mastered the art of masterly inaction to frustrate the wilder excesses of the politician who thinks he or she is in charge. I would imagine that it's the same in any truly democratic country.
With a deranged, delusional idiot in the Oval Office for just a few more days, surely any order from him can be, and will be, quietly sunk in bureaucratic processes, even if it gets past the first and maybe still loyal link in the chain?
So what's the fuss all about?
