Even democrats could not be that stupid.Nobody could impeachment somebody who arleady ceased to be president.
It is as logical as murdering corpse.
Please explain to me in simple words what is the sense of trying to impeach an ex-President?
Especially as I don't see the Senate impeaching him, as it is split 50-50? Seventeen R senators would have to flip?
It’s a glorified censure vote, but instead of a censure which would be a pretty much clear cut “you’re an asshole, knock it the fuck off”, the Democrats went with outright impeachment on the basis of “If we can pressure the GOP into convicting, it keeps Trump out of office forever and if they don’t convict, we have attack ads ready to go for 2022.” Never mind that this was another shitty impeachment job since it wasn’t really meant as more than virtue signaling.
Looking at history.....
*Snips things that are actually really off base again*
Look, I get that you have this weird obsession with the Roman Republic but it’s a
very different animal from the modern United States in multiple ways:
1) It was really all about a single city-state where a vast majority of its inhabitants didn’t actually have a vote
2) Its political leadership was an aristocracy where families married into one another just like the various European noble and royal houses of the old days, rather than actually someplace where people could run on merit. This includes your beloved Gracchi, who were actually members of a
very old Roman noble house, just one that happened to have both plebeian and patrician branches. They were most definitely
not common folk; hell, their maternal grandfather was the war hero Scipio Africanus. They may have been a bit too idealistic, but they were also completely oblivious to how Roman society
as a whole increasingly viewed them as a threat to the Republic. What the Gracchi really kickstarted were the idea of using the mob as a political force, rather than any actual concepts of “listening to the public” which the Gracchi didn’t do anywhere near as well as they believed.
Honestly, if history is any indication as we’ve seen in 1775-1800, 1840-1865, and 1920-1945, it’s that we go through cycles of political turmoil in the U.S. when faced with a major crisis, but only once has it resulted in civil war, and that was when most people viewed the United States as something akin to the European Union rather than a single country. What we are undergoing is a political sea change as the country tries to adapt to a new reality since what worked in 1945 no longer works today, and those who came up in the system are thrown for a loop because they don’t know how else to respond.
I have to say that “January exemption” that Rankin put out sound a compelling initially, but really doesn’t hold up when you actually think about. If POTUS commits a crime in his last days in office, and is out of office before he can be impeached, the remedy isn’t impeachment after the fact, it is to charge him with a crime like any other private citizen.
You can’t charge someone with something they couldn’t be charged for at the time; that’s a basic legal principle in the U.S. We do actually have precedents for federal officials being impeached after being removed from office; in fact, there was some suggestion floating around in 2016-2018 that if Hillary couldn’t be prosecuted for what she did in court, she
could be impeached and the truth of what happened could come out...BUT that would have interfered with Trump’s ability to get things done, not to mention there’s a general sense that if someone’s lost a presidential general election, their career is toast, so it comes off as just gilding the lily rather than a serious effort...especially when it would have been all over the news as a blatant political move regerdless of its merit.
No, there's plenty of decent republican lawyers. Trump has had a shitty taste in lawyers since Giuliani, followed by the Kraken crazies, then this. You don't seem to see any flaws in Trump, just as others only see flaws in him. Both are bad.
Part of that is that Trump has a reliable track record of screwing over every lawyer who doesn’t give him 100% of the results he wants, so most lawyers won’t take him on as a client because he’s already shafted them before. And plenty of others either don’t want their name associated with this whole mess, or they don’t agree with Trump’s legal “strategy” (in this particular instance, claiming he did nothing wrong at all
and that the election was totally stolen, which a majority of the country thinks is BS). Note that the latter reason is why his first defense team resigned
Actually they did find actionable wrongdoing... They just choose not to take action on it.
Just the server with classified info on it alone would have been enough to have anyone not named Hillary Clinton to loose basically their everything. This can be confirmed by talking to anyone with an actual classification level.
As I said above, it was a political calculation since it would have been seen as beating a dead horse, much like this is. While it might have been satisfying on a partisan basis, there’s also the fact that a fair amount of people thought that her getting the nomination she’d wanted for her entire career, only to lose and to lose it to a man she despised as beneath her, was enough of a punishment.
And honestly, while I supported the idea of impeaching Trump in the immediate aftermath, the way that it was handled with Pelosi’s stunts and lack of seriousness in making a case have made me reassess and go “You know what, him being voted out of office and then being banned from social media is enough.” Trump can’t get anywhere near the level of coverage and attention he craves, and for a narcissist like him, that’s pretty much the definition of hell.
Speaking of impeachment, has anyone else found it incredibly ironic that one of the managers for the Democrats is Eric “I was compromised by a ChiCom honey trap” Swalwell?