• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What Rights Does Trump Have In the Impeachment Process?

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Yes.

I understood that you were not a Democrat. I offered what I said because although that is where I tend to vote, I would, at this point, greatly and deeply appreciate any sincere, intelligent and ethical person in office.

Any party in power needs a good foil to help to expose exaggerated approaches. If I mainly vote Democrat, I still want good Republican candidates to challenge those Democrats.

I am, myself, a registered Independent. Always have been.
I didn't mean to contradict you, more like expanding.
For most of my life I didn't much care for political parties, I voted for the candidates I wanted. The only politician who always got my vote was a Republican.
But that started changing back in the 90s. The Republicans started demonstrating that partisanship was more important to the party than the welfare of the country as a whole. It took the Republicans until 2010 to completely lose me.
Tom
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Also Cruz. He's a dangerous theocrat.
But Kasich was a great possibility. Too bad he was too centrist and competent to win the Republican nomination.
Tom
Kasich seems to have a talent for sounding reasonable, and he is a real “never Trumper”. But he is twice the theocrat that Cruz ever was. Be careful and don’t be fooled.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Kasich seems to have a talent for sounding reasonable, and he is a real “never Trumper”. But he is twice the theocrat that Cruz ever was. Be careful and don’t be fooled.
Really?
Any links?
I liked him, based on what I learned in the lead up to the nomination. What did I miss?
Tom
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Really?
Any links?
I liked him, based on what I learned in the lead up to the nomination. What did I miss?
Tom
Here is one.
On abortion, Kasich is no moderate

Laws signed by Kasich prohibit almost all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, mandate ultrasounds before a woman can get an abortion and require abortion clinics to establish formal written agreements with local hospitals about emergency care — a provision that has been repeatedly modified to be even more restrictive and make it harder for clinics to comply. Several other states have enacted similar laws ...

All these measures “add up to a big deal,” said Stephanie Kight, president of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio. “The fact is the culmination of over 17 direct cuts and restrictions — completely unnecessary restrictions — have made it much more difficult for women to access safe legal abortion in a timely manner.”

...

Eight Ohio clinics have closed since Kasich took office, and another is open only because of a court order.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Really?
Any links?
I liked him, based on what I learned in the lead up to the nomination. What did I miss?
Tom
Here is a second one:
Is John Kasich Actually a Moderate on LGBT Rights?

...
a couple of years ago Kasich was fighting against the ability for LGBT couples to get married in Ohio, supporting the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Kasich was one of the original defendants in the case that became Obergefell v. Hodges, whose 5-4 Supreme Court decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. (Yes, that is the same Hodges who attended the gay wedding recently with Kasich.) The case began as James Obergefell v. John Kasich in 2013, when Ohio under Governor Kasich refused to recognize the marriage between James Obergefell and John Arthur as legitimate, even though it had been performed in Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal at the time. As a defendant, Kasich argued to prevent Obergefell from being recorded as the surviving spouse on John Arthur’s death certificate as he deteriorated from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

The GOP hopeful has refused to create statewide laws in Ohio that prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation. “You can still be denied a mortgage or service in a restaurant for being gay,” wrote Ohio State Senator Schiavoni. “Kasich’s willingness to attend a wedding does nothing to improve the lives of LGBT Ohioans that he could protect.”

I don’t trust this guy.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I really don’t know what is going to happen with the impeachment, but one thing I can predict wth high confidence. It is not going to be civil.

I think it is just for optics for 2020. The GOP controlled Senate will not convict unless there is something drastic uncovered. Both sides are playing a game at this point. The GOP could propose a House Resolution with whatever access they complain they lack at any time. They don't. At least if they bothered a vote or dismissal would be put to the House thus a record of voting. If the Dems shoot it down there is ammo for the GOP. If the Dems vote for it the GOP gets want "claims" it wants.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
I think it is just for optics for 2020. The GOP controlled Senate will not convict unless there is something drastic uncovered. Both sides are playing a game at this point. The GOP could propose a House Resolution with whatever access they complain they lack at any time. They don't. At least if they bothered a vote or dismissal would be put to the House thus a record of voting. If the Dems shoot it down there is ammo for the GOP. If the Dems vote for it the GOP gets want "claims" it wants.
The constitution has all sorts of protections to keep a president from abusing their power, which trump ignores all of. No telling what they will find in just violating oath. Conviction in senate doesn’t necessarily mean removal, it would only take a simple majority to keep trump from running in 2020. Dems won the senate majority with yesterday’s elections going into 2020.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
The constitution has all sorts of protections to keep a president from abusing their power, which trump ignores all of.

Such as what?

No telling what they will find in just violating oath.

Speculation. Yawn

Conviction in senate doesn’t necessarily mean removal, it would only take a simple majority to keep trump from running in 2020.

Wrong. Impeachment requires 2/3 votes. Only laws in relation to specific crimes within a court not Congress prevents a person from running for office. Congress can not create legislation to block someone from running for elections.

Dems won the senate majority with yesterday’s elections going into 2020.

No they didn't. Yesterday's elections were governors not Congressional seats. The two special elections are pending. So if Dems win both seats GOP is still the majority. 53-2=51 The next Congressional elections are 2020. Try again. Maybe look up some of the concepts you are babbling next time.
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
Such as what?



Speculation. Yawn



Wrong. Impeachment requires 2/3 votes. Only laws in relation to specific crimes within a court not Congress prevents a person from running for office. Congress can not create legislation to block someone from running for elections.



No they didn't. Yesterday's elections were governors not Congressional seats. The two special elections are pending. So if Dems win both seats GOP is still the majority. 53-2=51 The next Congressional elections are 2020. Try again. Maybe look up some of the concepts you are babbling next time.
Just the beginning and public hearings start next week.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
It takes a separate senate vote of simple majority to keep the president from running for a future office.
Here's how Trump could be impeached, removed from office, and still win re-election in 2020

It can not be a separate vote it must be part of the House Resolution for Impeachment. The Senate can not add to a House Resolution without the House signing off. The example in your articles are judges which is under sole vote of the Senate not Congress as a whole. Articles of Impeachment are legislative acts. More so Trump could just resign then run again. There is zero precedent for this. It can be challenged on Constitutional grounds if it happened.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I don't think you get this.
Precedent was being set back during the 90s with the Clinton impeachment.
And Obama was under fire from the get go, by "birthers" like Trump. The current rules for the proceedings were passed by Republicans planning to use them against Obama. Multiple investigations were initiated by the Republicans into Hillary's server, and Benghazi.

You're quite wrong thinking that this is the Democratic Party inventing all this rigamorole. The Republicans did, and now it's being used by Democrats.
Tom
How does your response tally with all the impeachment calls from democrats, some very prominent ones, the week of the inauguration ? How does it tally with the democrat paid for Steele Dossier, never verified, illegally used for FISA warrants to spy on American citizens ?

An impeachment inquiry is totally different from oversight committee hearings.

Clinton was given all the things the democrats are denying Trump when the Republican House had an impeachment inquiry.

The Republicans will not forget the democrat gutter tactics in trying to overturn an election before the inauguration, long before.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
How does your response tally with all the impeachment calls from democrats, some very prominent ones, the week of the inauguration ? How does it tally with the democrat paid for Steele Dossier, never verified, illegally used for FISA warrants to spy on American citizens ?

An impeachment inquiry is totally different from oversight committee hearings.

Clinton was given all the things the democrats are denying Trump when the Republican House had an impeachment inquiry.

The Republicans will not forget the democrat gutter tactics in trying to overturn an election before the inauguration, long before.
Please be specific. What rights did Clinton have that Trump does not?
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Please be specific. What rights did Clinton have that Trump does not?
The process was different then, much more public.

But again, it was the Republicans who changed the rules. They were planning to impeach Obama. But they couldn't put their plans into action. Because Obama's personal life was squeaky clean. He didn't lie on Twitter. He didn't encourage Putin to meddle in USA affairs. He didn't share state secrets, bragging over dinner.
Etc.

Etc.

But Republicans did write the new rules, for partisan purposes, and now the Demopublicans are using that weapon against Trump.

What I want is to break the partisan stranglehold the Republocratic party has on the USA. From the Clintons to the Bushes, from Soros to the Kochs, from McConnell to Pelosi, from Sanders to Trump*.

But I cannot help pointing out. What @shmogie refers to as "gutter tactics" are Republican tactics now being used by Democrats. I agree that they're gutter tactics. But the Democrats didn't invent them, they learned from the Republicans that they work and are now using them.
Tom

* Neither Trump nor Sanders was a member of the party they ran under until it was politically expedient.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The process was different then, much more public.

But again, it was the Republicans who changed the rules. They were planning to impeach Obama. But they couldn't put their plans into action. Because Obama's personal life was squeaky clean. He didn't lie on Twitter. He didn't encourage Putin to meddle in USA affairs. He didn't share state secrets, bragging over dinner.
Etc.

Etc.

But Republicans did write the new rules, for partisan purposes, and now the Demopublicans are using that weapon against Trump.

What I want is to break the partisan stranglehold the Republocratic party has on the USA. From the Clintons to the Bushes, from Soros to the Kochs, from McConnell to Pelosi, from Sanders to Trump*.

But I cannot help pointing out. What @shmogie refers to as "gutter tactics" are Republican tactics now being used by Democrats. I agree that they're gutter tactics. But the Democrats didn't invent them, they learned from the Republicans that they work and are now using them.
Tom

The Republicans established the rules for impeachment, by the impeachment of Clinton. The democrats changed. Where you get your information from, I don´t know.

I totally agree regarding the puppet masters and their control in both party´s. They are the political elite, and they protect one another across party lines.

Trump is a total anomaly. He is not connected to the elites, he certainly doesn´t talk or act like them, he is a NY verbal thug. They disagree with his policies, and except for Clinton, the elites keep their sexual exploits secret. Hell, until recently Congress had a slush fund to pay off sexual harassment claims. Taxpayer money was paid out for members of both parties to shut up those they abused.

The elites go unaccountable. Hillary is a distinguished member of this group, and she will never be held accountable for her crimes. The Trump DOJ will do nothing, just like the FBI changed the law to protect her.

Way back, Ford protected Nixon by a pardon on the same day he became president.

That is how someone can go into the white house with modest capital, and come out a multimillionaire.

The entire system has become corrupted.



* Neither Trump nor Sanders was a member of the party they ran under until it was politically expedient.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The process was different then, much more public.

But again, it was the Republicans who changed the rules. They were planning to impeach Obama. But they couldn't put their plans into action. Because Obama's personal life was squeaky clean. He didn't lie on Twitter. He didn't encourage Putin to meddle in USA affairs. He didn't share state secrets, bragging over dinner.
Etc.

Etc.

But Republicans did write the new rules, for partisan purposes, and now the Demopublicans are using that weapon against Trump.

What I want is to break the partisan stranglehold the Republocratic party has on the USA. From the Clintons to the Bushes, from Soros to the Kochs, from McConnell to Pelosi, from Sanders to Trump*.

But I cannot help pointing out. What @shmogie refers to as "gutter tactics" are Republican tactics now being used by Democrats. I agree that they're gutter tactics. But the Democrats didn't invent them, they learned from the Republicans that they work and are now using them.
Tom

* Neither Trump nor Sanders was a member of the party they ran under until it was politically expedient.
Much of the original investigation was not public, just as the Early investigation of Trump was private. But you are right. The Democrats followed the Republican rules. And now they have the public investigation that they asked for. Why are they still complaining? Is it because they know Trump is guilty?
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
But I cannot help pointing out. What @shmogie refers to as "gutter tactics" are Republican tactics now being used by Democrats. I agree that they're gutter tactics. But the Democrats didn't invent them, they learned from the Republicans that they work and are now using them.
Tom
Yup. And when Dems go dirty, the Reps copy their tactics next turn. It's an escalation or spiral of just being dirtier and more corrupt each turn.
 
Top