- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The faux Impeachment Schedule: Odds that it makes it past today?
Posted on 2/9/21 at 9:31 am to PhDoogan
Posted on 2/9/21 at 9:31 am to PhDoogan
quote:
The likelihood of Trump's conviction has waned as the premeditation evidence mounts, and now Democrats once gleeful they could end the 45th president's ability to ever hold office again are now pressing to get the trial over quickly as acquittal seems assured.
Dims overplayed their hand? No way holy shite
0
Posted on 2/9/21 at 9:32 am to AggieHank86
quote:
there is Senate precedent for doing so. (Grant's Secretary of War)
Two distinctions regarding that precedent: 1) Belknap resigned in order to avoid removal by impeachment (may not matter from a purely jurisdictional standpoint); 2) he was a cabinet member and not the president whose impeachment absolutely requires the Chief Justice to preside. While there is historical precedent, we are again reminded that impeachments at their core are political and not legal proceedings.
Interesting historical perspective on Belknap on the grounds why he was impeached:
quote:
An impeachment trial for a secretary of war occupied much of the Senate’s time during May 1876.
At issue was the behavior of William Belknap, war secretary in the administration of President Ulysses Grant. A former Iowa state legislator and Civil War general, Belknap had held his cabinet post for nearly eight years. In the rollicking era that Mark Twain dubbed the Gilded Age, Belknap was famous for his extravagant Washington parties and his elegantly attired first and second wives. Many questioned how he managed such a grand lifestyle on his $8,000 government salary.
By early 1876, answers began to surface. A House of Representatives committee uncovered evidence supporting a pattern of corruption blatant even by the standards of the scandal-tarnished Grant administration.
The trail of evidence extended back to 1870. In that year, Belknap’s luxury-loving first wife assisted a wheeler-dealer named Caleb Marsh by getting her husband to select one of Marsh’s associates to operate the lucrative military trading post at Fort Sill in Indian territory. Marsh’s promise of generous kickbacks prompted Secretary Belknap to make the appointment. Over the next five years, the associate funneled thousands of dollars to Marsh, who provided Belknap regular quarterly payments totaling over $20,000.
Funny, this kind of behavior now qualifies you to be POTUS.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 9:34 am to AggieHank86
quote:
There will be 52-55 votes to proceed.
So the vote today to proceed only needs a simple majority?
Posted on 2/9/21 at 9:35 am to LSU316
quote:Correct.
So the vote today to proceed only needs a simple majority?
I almost hate to keep referencing the Belknap impeachment, but it does provide some useful instruction.
In that case, ALMOST enough Senators agreed that they lacked jurisdiction, but more than half voted that they DID and could proceed. After the trial, the vote was essentially the same as the procedural vote, but it did not reach 2/3 so he was not convicted on the articles of impeachment.
This post was edited on 2/9/21 at 9:37 am
Posted on 2/9/21 at 9:37 am to AggieHank86
quote:
There will be 52-55 votes to proceed.
Which is for all intents and purposes the final vote. No one is going to vote against it proceeding then vote to convict. They could end the whole dog faced pony show after that vote today.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 9:41 am to PhDoogan
quote:Agreed. In another thread, I discussed the fact that this distinction exists. Agree that it is probably a distinction without a difference, on the procedural question.
Two distinctions regarding that precedent: 1) Belknap resigned in order to avoid removal by impeachment (may not matter from a purely jurisdictional standpoint)
quote:That is DEFINITELY an important distinction in designating the presiding officer. I don't think it makes one whit of difference on the jurisdictional question.
2) he was a cabinet member and not the president whose impeachment absolutely requires the Chief Justice to preside
Posted on 2/9/21 at 9:45 am to The Boat
quote:A few folks in the Belknap case voted differently on the procedural vs substantive issue, and THAT Senate was almost as fractured as this one.quote:Which is for all intents and purposes the final vote. No one is going to vote against it proceeding then vote to convict. They could end the whole dog faced pony show after that vote today.
There will be 52-55 votes to proceed.
It DOES raise an interesting question, to me.
If a Senator LOSES on such a procedural point, does his oath on the impeachment trial (to act as an impartial fact-finder, in essence) REQUIRE him to attempt to set aside that disagreement and to address the substantive issue separately and objectively?
I think that the answer to that question is "yes," but I don't think that most Senators in this adversarial political environment will have the fortitude to do so.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 11:06 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Correct.
I almost hate to keep referencing the Belknap impeachment, but it does provide some useful instruction.
In that case, ALMOST enough Senators agreed that they lacked jurisdiction, but more than half voted that they DID and could proceed. After the trial, the vote was essentially the same as the procedural vote, but it did not reach 2/3 so he was not convicted on the articles of impeachment.
What a huge fricking waste of time and taxpayer money.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 11:34 am to ItzMe1972
I will never understand why trump did not file in fed court a motion to stop this. Clear violation of constitutional rights.
Easy for court to rule constitution not followed without being political.
Easy for court to rule constitution not followed without being political.
Posted on 2/9/21 at 4:28 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Pretty close.
There will be 52-55 votes to proceed.
56 votes to proceed.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News