ADVERTISEMENT

Drain the Swamp?

R

RobUCF

Four-Star Recruit
Jan 12, 2011
350
307
63
So Trump gets elected on a platform pledging to "drain the swamp" and as one of his first actions issues an executive order that prevents his appointees from engaging in lobbying activities and working on behalf of a foreign government after they leave government service.

Then, as he leaves office he revokes the order? What happened to the swamp draining?

Trump frees his appointees from ethics commitments
 
DaShuckster said:
Nope. Their usefulness to Trump is over now so he doesn't give a sh*t about them. It's now in his best interest to disavow them to avoid getting convicted in the Senate.
Click to expand...
Oooh. Our resident morons were actually wrong?
 
DaShuckster said:
Nope. Their usefulness to Trump is over now so he doesn't give a sh*t about them. It's now in his best interest to disavow them to avoid getting convicted in the Senate.
Click to expand...
They can't legally prosecute him in the senate. He's now a citizen, and citizens can't be held on trial in the senate. Not to mention the direct intent of impeachment is for the removal of a sitting president. If they do this, they are setting the precedent that the house and senate can dictate who is and who isnt able to run for president. That's not a good thing.
 
Crazyhole said:
They can't legally prosecute him in the senate. He's now a citizen, and citizens can't be held on trial in the senate. Not to mention the direct intent of impeachment is for the removal of a sitting president. If they do this, they are setting the precedent that the house and senate can dictate who is and who isnt able to run for president. That's not a good thing.
Click to expand...

I think these arguments as to what the senate can and can't do are kind of funny. The key word that makes your statement incorrect is "legally". There's nothing "legal" about this process. Impeachment and trial are a political process. The Senate - as a body - gets to decide whether or not it is appropriate and that's where the story ends.

I think the argument is weak though. It implies that any federal official could avoid Senate conviction simply by resigning before the vote is held. If the ONLY remedy at the Senate's disposal was removal, then the argument is stronger, but since the Senate also has the authority to bar the individual from federal office after conviction, it makes no sense to give the defendant the power to limit his own sentence through resignation and strip the Senate of a constitutionally described authority.

There will be a trial and Trump's defense will make this argument. My guess is that if he's acquitted, it will be because enough Republicans chose that argument as an offramp. They can condemn Trump, say they would have convicted if he was still in office, but vote against the articles citing this rationale.
 
Boosted87 said:
I think these arguments as to what the senate can and can't do are kind of funny. The key word that makes your statement incorrect is "legally". There's nothing "legal" about this process. Impeachment and trial are a political process. The Senate - as a body - gets to decide whether or not it is appropriate and that's where the story ends.

I think the argument is weak though. It implies that any federal official could avoid Senate conviction simply by resigning before the vote is held. If the ONLY remedy at the Senate's disposal was removal, then the argument is stronger, but since the Senate also has the authority to bar the individual from federal office after conviction, it makes no sense to give the defendant the power to limit his own sentence through resignation and strip the Senate of a constitutionally described authority.

There will be a trial and Trump's defense will make this argument. My guess is that if he's acquitted, it will be because enough Republicans chose that argument as an offramp. They can condemn Trump, say they would have convicted if he was still in office, but vote against the articles citing this rationale.
Click to expand...
Ok. Replace the word "legally" with "constitutionally".
 
Boosted87 said:
I think these arguments as to what the senate can and can't do are kind of funny. The key word that makes your statement incorrect is "legally". There's nothing "legal" about this process. Impeachment and trial are a political process. The Senate - as a body - gets to decide whether or not it is appropriate and that's where the story ends.

I think the argument is weak though. It implies that any federal official could avoid Senate conviction simply by resigning before the vote is held. If the ONLY remedy at the Senate's disposal was removal, then the argument is stronger, but since the Senate also has the authority to bar the individual from federal office after conviction, it makes no sense to give the defendant the power to limit his own sentence through resignation and strip the Senate of a constitutionally described authority.

There will be a trial and Trump's defense will make this argument. My guess is that if he's acquitted, it will be because enough Republicans chose that argument as an offramp. They can condemn Trump, say they would have convicted if he was still in office, but vote against the articles citing this rationale.
Click to expand...
This
 
Crazyhole said:
Ok. Replace the word "legally" with "constitutionally".
Click to expand...

Explain. Plain text of constitution gives the Senate two remedies - removal and ban from future office. You're argument means that the accused - by resignation - strip's the Senate from a power expressly granted to it in the constitution. I know this argument is being made. I don't think it's unreasonable to propose. But the arbiter is the Senate themselves. If they decide it's constitutional, then it is - they have the sole power to make that decision.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; ​
​
Ignore Trump for a minute. Your argument means a sitting POTUS could attempt a violent coup during his last days, fail, be impeached, and the Senate has to say "oh well. Let's hope this populist demagogue doesn't get re-elected in 4 years! from prison!". This is a democratic republic with checks and balances. The Senate's ability to bar from future office is one of those checks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaShuckster
Now that Trump is out of office, I can see the Senate finding him guilty. It's in Mitch McConnell's and the Republican Party's own best interest to see to it that Donald can't run for President again.
 
Boosted87 said:
Explain. Plain text of constitution gives the Senate two remedies - removal and ban from future office. You're argument means that the accused - by resignation - strip's the Senate from a power expressly granted to it in the constitution. I know this argument is being made. I don't think it's unreasonable to propose. But the arbiter is the Senate themselves. If they decide it's constitutional, then it is - they have the sole power to make that decision.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; ​
​
Ignore Trump for a minute. Your argument means a sitting POTUS could attempt a violent coup during his last days, fail, be impeached, and the Senate has to say "oh well. Let's hope this populist demagogue doesn't get re-elected in 4 years! from prison!". This is a democratic republic with checks and balances. The Senate's ability to bar from future office is one of those checks.
Click to expand...
But the prerequisite to disqualification is removal after impeachment. They can no longer remove Trump from office, so they also can't disqualify him from holding office in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sk8knight
I always thought “The Swamp” was what he called the pus filled cyst on his back that Melania had to de-pus every night. I figured he became president for the health insurance so Melania could get some gloves at cost.
 
Crazyhole said:
But the prerequisite to disqualification is removal after impeachment. They can no longer remove Trump from office, so they also can't disqualify him from holding office in the future.
Click to expand...
The whole thing is a waste of taxpayer dollars. They should have removed him from office using the 25th if he was a danger. He’s not president anymore. Ridiculous
 
Ucfmikes said:
The whole thing is a waste of taxpayer dollars. They should have removed him from office using the 25th if he was a danger. He’s not president anymore. Ridiculous
Click to expand...
Part of me wonders if they aren't going to use this to delay everything else they want to do for political purposes. The senate has to resolve this issue before anything else can be brought to the floor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ucfmikes
Crazyhole said:
Part of me wonders if they aren't going to use this to delay everything else they want to do for political purposes. The senate has to resolve this issue before anything else can be brought to the floor.
Click to expand...
Why? What's the hurry? Trump is out of office now. This is an important issue, but certainly not an urgent one. It's about: 1) accountability; and 2) prohibiting him from holding office again.

Even if Nancy sends the article to the Senate soon, our elected leaders there should be able to multi-task like the rest of working America does.
 
Ucfmikes said:
Still afraid of Trump? I thought that he’s not ever capable of winning again. Right guys?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, this has to do with the future of the Republican Party.

Given what's happened, I honestly don't believe Trump could ever win a general election again. But I do think his hold on the GOP is strong enough to destroy anybody else's chances of the nomination in 2024 if he were to decide to run again.

Frankly, Trump running again would give the Democrats an easier road to holding on to the White House. But do we all want to replay 2020? The campaign would be as divisive as hell and distrust in our elections would be raised all over again. That wouldn't help our democracy one bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ucfmikes
DaShuckster said:
In my opinion, this has to do with the future of the Republican Party.

Given what's happened, I honestly don't believe Trump could ever win a general election again. But I do think his hold on the GOP is strong enough to destroy anybody else's chances of the nomination in 2024 if he were to decide to run again.

Frankly, Trump running again would give the Democrats an easier road to holding on to the White House. But do we all want to replay 2020? The campaign would be as divisive as hell and distrust in our elections would be raised all over again. That wouldn't help our democracy one bit.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that Trump is going to run again. 4 years is a long time away
 
Ucfmikes said:
I don’t think that Trump is going to run again. 4 years is a long time away
Click to expand...
There was a report that he became an independent in the last couple of days. He could really screw the Republicans by running that way. 3 or 4% and no way they have a chance in hell of winning. The whole impeachment thing is about Washington swamp insiders rallying together. They all want to make damn good and sure another trump never happens again.. It is a club that both parties use to gain wealth and power. They have no desire to screw the club up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: major.tom.foolery and Ucfmikes
DaShuckster said:
Why? What's the hurry? Trump is out of office now. This is an important issue, but certainly not an urgent one. It's about: 1) accountability; and 2) prohibiting him from holding office again.

Even if Nancy sends the article to the Senate soon, our elected leaders there should be able to multi-task like the rest of working America does.
Click to expand...
When impeachment articles are sent to the senate, they arent able to conduct any other business until its resolved. Multi-tasking isn't an option.
 
Crazyhole said:
The rules of the senate.
Click to expand...
Apparently there are a whole bunch of Senators who don't know the rules then since they are the ones claiming they can address an impeachment trail and pressing agenda items like a stimulus bill at the same time.
 
DaShuckster said:
Apparently there are a whole bunch of Senators who don't know the rules then since they are the ones claiming they can address an impeachment trail and pressing agenda items like a stimulus bill at the same time.
Click to expand...
Does that surprise you?
 
DaShuckster said:
I'll put my money on a sitting Senator knowing more than you do. :)
Click to expand...
Maybe you shouldn't have so much faith in those senators.

"In general, all Senate business ceases once articles of impeachment are sent to that chamber from the House and an impeachment trial begins. During that time, other legislative or executive business cannot occur unless the chamber meets in a separate session that could require unanimous consent to convene".


Just think about it for a second. If the point of impeachment was to remove a sitting president, which is the intent, why would they pass other legislation in the interim to send to the guy that might be removed?
 
Dems are truly terrified the orange man is going to come back and beat them in 4 years. Let it go already, you are in charge.
 
I’m glad they’re delaying the Senate trial. This country has a hell of a lot more pressing agenda items to deal with right away than an it’s idiot ex-President.
 
DaShuckster said:
I’m glad they’re delaying the Senate trial. This country has a hell of a lot more pressing agenda items to deal with right away than an it’s idiot ex-President.
Click to expand...

I promise to not give a shit about Trump from January 20th, 2021, forward. Scout's Honor.

-Shucky
 
DaShuckster said:
Reading comprehension is underrated.
Click to expand...
I promise to not give a shit about Trump from January 20th, 2021, forward. Scout's Honor.

You’re pretty weak minded. You can’t honor your own statement. Remember that gem?
 
Ucfmikes said:
I promise to not give a shit about Trump from January 20th, 2021, forward. Scout's Honor.

You’re pretty weak minded. You can’t honor your own statement. Remember that gem?
Click to expand...
Just curious, what was it about my comment that the Senate has more pressing items to address right now than an impeachment trial clued you in to my Trump obsession?
 
DaShuckster said:
Just curious, what was it about my comment that the Senate has more pressing items to address right now than an impeachment trial clued you in to my Trump obsession?
Click to expand...
I promise to not give a shit about Trump from January 20th, 2021, forward. Scout's Honor.
 
Ucfmikes said:
I promise to not give a shit about Trump from January 20th, 2021, forward. Scout's Honor.
Click to expand...
Duh, I don't give a shit about Trump. That's why I'd rather have the Senate focus on more pressing agenda items -- like getting all of Biden's Cabinet members approved -- than bother with this moron's trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

UCFChargeOn

Is Georgia the next Baylor?

Replies
24
Views
2K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
litehedded
L
DaShuckster

The Lead-Up to 2024: Law & Order - The POTUS Edition

Replies
30
Views
1K
The Water Cooler
goodknightfl
goodknightfl
Brandon

American Athletic Conference Concludes Successful 2021 Annual Meeting

Replies
10
Views
2K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
Knightro2003
Knightro2003
T

Heather Cox Richardson February 14, 2020

Replies
0
Views
331
The Water Cooler
Trigeek
T
EweSeaEff

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

Replies
85
Views
2K
The Water Cooler
MACHater02
M
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back