What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Josquius]

NSFW

Folks have just lost their minds

https://twitter.com/Cleavon_MD/status/1348869092837523457?s=20

There any context to this?
Who is the guy?
Could be someone with tourettes for all we know.

[The Larch]

News from Buffalo Head guy:

Jacob Chansley, AKA Jake Angeli, Arizona man makes first court appearance in for charges related to storming the U.S. Capitol. His mom says he hasn't eaten since Friday because the detention facility won't feed him all organic food.

[The Brain]

Damn mineral food.

[garbon]

I guess we know what happens when Trumpites actually get persecuted. They turn into snowflakes.

[The Larch]

I guess we know what happens when Trumpites actually get persecuted. They turn into snowflakes.

See, for instance, all the Fox News personalities and guests whining about their lost Twitter followers in the wake of the latest QAnon purge which has removed around 70k accounts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FFxeu2ad4o

[grumbler]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/11/impeachment-wont-keep-trump-running-again-heres-better-way/

The text details how to keep Trump from running again, the sure way, without an impeachment trial that could/would likely still see him acquitted by the GOP, since it requires 2/3 of the Senate.

Cliff notes?

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Congress can, according to the authors, simply pass a resolution by simple majority stating that Trump has engaged in insurrection (or given aid and comfort to the insurrectionists), which bars him from further office.

[Savonarola]

Of all the headlines of the past week, I think this may be the most shocking:

Trump acknowledged he bears some blame for Capitol riot in conversation with McCarthy: sources



(Admittedly this is also a third hand anonymous source, as neither Trump nor Kevin McCarthy have said this publicly.)

[Maladict]

Deutsche Bank is dumping Trump, interesting.

[The Larch]

Sheldon Adelson, one of the GOPs largest donors, has passed away.

[Grey Fox]

That's good news!

[grumbler]

Of all the headlines of the past week, I think this may be the most shocking:

Trump acknowledged he bears some blame for Capitol riot in conversation with McCarthy: sources



(Admittedly this is also a third hand anonymous source, as neither Trump nor Kevin McCarthy have said this publicly.)

Indeed, and even if McCarthy said it, that doesn't mean it's true.  McCarthy ahs powerful reasons to make Trump sound more reasonable than he is.

[DGuller]

Sheldon Adelson, one of the GOPs largest donors, has passed away.

A lot can be said about him, but in the interest of decorum, none of it should be said right now.

[celedhring]

He's the guy that tried to get Spain to waive its labor regulations in order to put some trash Eurovegas in Madrid.

[viper37]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/11/impeachment-wont-keep-trump-running-again-heres-better-way/

The text details how to keep Trump from running again, the sure way, without an impeachment trial that could/would likely still see him acquitted by the GOP, since it requires 2/3 of the Senate.

Cliff notes?

House Democrats' plans to rush through an impeachment of President Trump won't work, for a simple reason: The Constitution envisions impeachment only as a tool for proceeding against a president while he remains in office. Impeachment is meant to protect the country, not punish the offender. But that needn't be the end of efforts to prevent Trump from again holding federal office. There is another, little-known constitutional provision that can achieve precisely that without distorting the Constitution's meaning.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, bars Trump from holding another federal office if he is found to have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the Constitution of the United States.

The finding could be accomplished by a simple majority vote of both houses, in contrast to the requirement in impeachment proceedings that the Senate vote to convict by a two-thirds majority. Congress would simply need to declare that Trump engaged in an act of "insurrection or rebellion" by encouraging the attack on the Capitol. Under the 14th Amendment, Trump could run for the White House again only if he were able to persuade a future Congress to, "by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Section 3 was enacted to bar any "civil or military" officer who had served the United States before the Civil War from regaining a position of authority if he betrayed his country by supporting the Confederacy. During the height of Reconstruction, a number of former Confederates were, in fact, barred from holding office. It was only in 1872 that Congress once again allowed these men to serve the United States by passing an Amnesty Act with the requisite two-thirds majorities.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) seems to believe that the only way to disqualify Trump from running for a second term is to gain House support for a second impeachment while he is still in office, even though the Senate trial can't begin until Jan. 20 or 21. Since impeachment is designed to remove officials from office, the constitutionality of such a trial is problematic. But even if it were legitimate, the trial would come with heavy costs to the country and to the incoming Biden administration.

First, the trial could well lead to Trump's acquittal if most Republican senators decide that a vote to convict would damage their reelection chances by alienating their right-wing base. What message would that send? Second, having the Senate's time consumed in holding a trial would delay President-elect Joe Biden's efforts to secure confirmation of his Cabinet and other nominees and divert attention from other initiatives of the new administration. Third, it would further divide the country at precisely the time Biden is seeking to bring America together.

Of course, this being a litigious country, Trump could appeal to the courts to declare that Congress's determination that he had engaged in an "insurrection or rebellion" was not justified by the facts. But this would be risky, since Trump would be required to testify under oath in response to detailed questioning by the government's lawyers about his precise conduct during the attack.

Moreover, if the judiciary finally upheld the congressional determination, its judgment would undermine claims by the extreme right that Trump is a victim of a partisan vendetta.

Even more fundamentally, the law is the law. Not only is it in the political interest of the protagonists to heed the express instructions of the 14th Amendment; it is even more important to demonstrate to all Americans that their representatives in Washington take the Constitution seriously.

Now is the time to take a step back, call a halt to the House's rush toward a last-minute impeachment — and deploy the constitutional means to the important end of making sure Trump is out of office for good.
Want to understand the Capitol attack? Learn about political sectarianism. | Opinion

[Tonitrus]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/11/impeachment-wont-keep-trump-running-again-heres-better-way/

The text details how to keep Trump from running again, the sure way, without an impeachment trial that could/would likely still see him acquitted by the GOP, since it requires 2/3 of the Senate.

Cliff notes?

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Congress can, according to the authors, simply pass a resolution by simple majority stating that Trump has engaged in insurrection (or given aid and comfort to the insurrectionists), which bars him from further office.

I know I wouldn't be very comfortable with Congress being able to declare anyone they (don't) like as being guilty of rebellion or insurrection by a simple majority vote.  There is a significant political danger in setting that kind of precedent.