4
4635851
Guest
Needs to be barred from running for office again in the Senate trial too.
So the US constitution states "he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
I'm guessing that means he can't be pardoned by Pence (if his oversized ego would let him step-down on the 19th) for the insurrection, nor can he blanket pardon the MAGA Rioters?
If McConnell had actually tried and removed him a second impeachment would not have been necessary AND he'd still have a Republican president by the name of Mike Pence. McConnell and the entire Republican majority in the Senate chose instead to collude with Trump's obstruction of justice by abrogating their Constitutional duty to put Trump on trial.
They're about to do it again.
If McConnell had actually tried and removed him a second impeachment would not have been necessary AND he'd still have a Republican president by the name of Mike Pence. McConnell and the entire Republican majority in the Senate chose instead to collude with Trump's obstruction of justice by abrogating their Constitutional duty to put Trump on trial.They're about to do it again.
Well, at least 10 Republican representatives, turned out to have their heads screwed on right, and voted for impeachment.
Congress needs to pass and Biden needs to sign legislation holding all social media platforms accountable for content.
Trump says he'll veto defense bill over Section 230, social media
That's exactly what Trump wanted in order to victimize social media companies which flagged his misleading content - via lawsuits. That's why Trump tried to force Congress to repeal the section 230 safeguard for social media companies last December by threatening to veto a defence spending bill if Congress didn't do his bidding. Congress passed the bill with a veto proof majority then, and won't do what you want when Biden is president. As with lpsg, the social media subscribers are responsible for what content they post and subject to the moderators and TOS of the social media company.
Trump says he'll veto defense bill over Section 230, social media
That's exactly what Trump wanted in order to victimize social media companies which flagged his misleading content - via lawsuits. That's why Trump tried to force Congress to repeal the Section 230 safeguard for social media companies last December by threatening to veto a defence spending bill if Congress didn't do his bidding. Congress passed the bill with a veto proof majority then, and won't do what you want when Biden is president. As with lpsg, the social media subscribers are responsible for what content they post and subject to the moderators and TOS of the social media company.
Well that's how stupid Trump is. Making social media platforms responsible for content posted by its users would have silenced him long ago! As it is no social media platform silenced him permanently until now. Nor has the avalanche of misleading and false information across social media abated at all... Nor would he have been nominated or elected without them. Nor would he and his followers been able to network so easily to rally and attack the Capitol last Wednesday or in 50 state capitals on inauguration day. As it is the platforms publishing the content which led to the attack will suffer no legal jeopardy because of Section 230. The billionaires who own them are backpedalling now but laughing all the way to bank.
Putin never had it so easy. No leader of a country without a free press has. Goebbels would be jealous.
The GOP would not have silenced Trump long ago. T
Indeed but it's too little too late and far too few from the Republican side of the aisle.
Mafia Don Donald Trump still has them shaking in their boots because up until now he has controlled the Republican base via social media. We'll see if that continues...
Your suspicion about McConnell and the Trump fearing Republicans was correct. At first he was all for a Senate trial, but now McConnell and 45 other Republican senators are against it. It is quite likely that Trump will escape conviction - yet we will see who had the courage to vote for his conviction:
Its not going to happen, there was a vote taken that Rand Paul initiated a vote whether the trial was constitutional or not and the Senate voted that it was not constitutionalNeeds to be barred from running for office again in the Senate trial too.
Its not going to happen, there was a vote taken that Rand Paul initiated a vote whether the trial was constitutional or not and the Senate voted that it was not constitutional
Its not going to happen, there was a vote taken that Rand Paul initiated a vote whether the trial was constitutional or not and the Senate voted that it was not constitutional
The opposite of what you stated happened. The Senate voted in favor of the trial - 55 for and 45 against. Rand Paul's motion, not have a trial on what he perceived as being unconstitutional, failed.
Could we all please start posting news and opinions about Trump's possible Senate impeachment trial to @Freddie53's new thread that is specifically about that topic?... Let's keep it organized and simple.
The Trump Senate Impeachment Trial - 2021
Ah yes, you are correct, but there will not be enough votes to impeach, and I think that's what Rand Paul was after.The opposite of what you stated happened. The Senate voted in favor of the trial - 55 for and 45 against. Rand Paul's motion, not have a trial on what he perceived as being unconstitutional, failed.
See Post #14