I definitely question the timing now!
[Chicago Sun Times] - From mid-November until last weekend, indoor service had been banned in all 11 regions of the state — though many businesses openly defied Pritzker’s order — in an effort to stem a brutal resurgence in coronavirus cases. The one thing the media will never tire of is this incessant panic porn, approaching an entire fucking year at this point. I don't even give a flying fuck about the politics on this one - their first reflex is to scare the shit out of their readers. They're natural born scumbags - in other words, perfect Democrats.
But tell me this, Mitch (author) - why did that little rhetorical flourish of yours not match the facts you reported on next?
But with most of the state’s infection numbers back down to their lowest levels in three months, Pritzker has allowed regions to begin easing some restrictions if they meet his COVID-19 hospitalization and positivity benchmarks. Assholes like this guy will still pretend to wonder about the continuing decline in the trust of American media.
Bayed news hounds, "A temple defiled!"
Straight-faced, "Out of bounds!" as they piled
On Republican bitches
And licked their own snitches,
Pretending they'd never run wild,
Jaded jackals in packs. Anpu smiled.
What did the Kossacks used to say - 'I question the timing'?
[Detroit News] - Lansing - Indoor dining at restaurants and bars in Michigan will resume on Feb. 1, 75 days after it was suspended amid a surge in COVID-19 infections.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer announced the reopening Friday morning, the latest signal that health officials believe the state is moving past a second wave of the virus that struck in the fall.
Under a new epidemic order that will last from Feb. 1 through Feb. 21, restaurants and bars will be allowed to offer indoor dining at 25% capacity with up to 100 people, and they must close by 10 p.m. each night. Tables must also be six feet apart with no more than six people per table.
[Powerline] Today comes word via Senator Rand Paul that Chief Justice Roberts will not preside over any Senate impeachment trial of President Trump: the text of the Constitution only requires the Chief Justice to preside over the trial of "the President." Trump is no longer "the President." Roberts’s presence is therefore not called for.
Trump is of course a private citizen at this point. The constitutional text does not appear to contemplate the impeachment or trial of a private citizen, although such impeachments took place once in the eighteenth century and once in the nineteenth. Former Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Luttig argues in this Washington Post column that a Senate trial of Trump would be unconstitutional.
Judge Luttig argues: "Once Trump's term ends on Jan. 20, Congress loses its constitutional authority to continue impeachment proceedings against him‐even if the House has already approved articles of impeachment." The Constitution's impeachment clauses presuppose that impeachment and removal of a president happen while in office.
As an example, Judge Luttig cites Article II, Section 4: "The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
He also cites Article I, Section 3, which reads in part: "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."
Note that "removal" accompanies "disqualification." If a private citizen can no longer be removed, can he simply be disqualified? Perhaps, but disqualification is conjoined with removal.
Judge Luttig concedes that some scholars argue that Congress can impeach a former president from two instances in which early Congresses impeached "civil officials" after they had resigned their public offices ‐ the impeachments of Sen. William Blount in 1797 and the impeachment of Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876. He further concedes that these cases "provide some backing for the argument that Congress can conclude that it has the power under the Constitution to impeach a former president." Please note that the case of William Blount ‐ summarized here by the Senate ‐ is ambiguous at best in relevant respects. (Alan Dershowitz rightly ignores it in his column quoted below.)
...even if the House has already approved articles of impeachment.
Maybe I'm nitpicking here, but that doesn't square with this:
Article II, Section 4: "The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
In other words, it doesn't matter if the House approves of articles of impeachment - they need to hold the vote and actually impeach him. Since that didn't happen, everything else is moot and another obvious scumbag move by the Democrats to harass Trump well after he's out the door.
Its an attempt by the Hate-o-crats to end run the Constitution and effectively make a Bill of Attainder.
Article 1, Sections 9 and 10.
“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.”
The ban reinforces the separation of powers by forbidding the legislative branch of government from engaging in judicial or executive acts.
This is EXACTLY what the Congress is attempting to do: Engage in a Judicial Act, outside of its Constitutional boundaries. Trump is no longer a sitting federal official and is therefore unable to be impeached. That means Congress cannot do anything more to him, legally speaking.
Why havent the GOP opened this up and sued the House for unconsitutional violation of the impeachment clause and the violation of Article 1, Sections 9 and 10.
Pretty clear cut - they should chop this off at its knees.
Your thinking the 'Republicans' are on Trump's side. With few exceptions the've always hated him - almost as much as the Democrats. Remember the '16 election? Trump ran against the Democrats, and the leadershit (spelled correctly) of his own party. Now that he's out of office (and won't be re-elected in 20) they will turn on him like a pack of democrats.
It's not Republicans verses Democrats - they are just different cheeks of the same ass - its really the American Nobility (i.e. Elites) verses Americans.
Raj, it's quite simple.
The President is impeached by a majority vote of the House.
He must then be convicted by the Senate.
If he is, the penalty is removal from office.
Can you be removed from office if you've already left office?
Well removal from office comes with consequences. A President removed from office (even if removed after he left) loses privileges (pension etc.).
And of course he can - after conviction - be barred from public office. So a conviction DOES matter.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
01/24/2021 19:17 Comments ||
BZZZZT. Wrong. Again? Constitutional Lessons™ by furriners?
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/24/2021 21:54 Comments ||
Ref #5: And of course he can - after conviction - be barred from public office. So a conviction DOES matter.
I doubt he desires another foray into public office. It's a simple 'pile on' to divert attention from an ailing, sundowner plagued plugs and his perverted, thieving son. Somewhere about 74,000,000 Americans know precisely what took place. There really is no spoofing these voters.
[Kentucky Standard] The leadership of the Nelson County Republican Party unanimously approved issuing a formal rebuke of U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell Tuesday evening.
The unanimous vote of the 11 members of the executive committee came about six hours after McConnell took to the U.S. Senate floor and said President Donald Trump provoked a violent mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
A censure, or formal rebuke, issued after the vote accused McConnell of "implying (Trump) and his administration lied about the election," and that "McConnell has abandoned his Republican base that put him in office."
The censure resolution "demands (McConnell) retract his statements impugning the honor of President Donald J. Trump."
The comments that sparked the special meeting came just after noon on Tuesday when McConnell issued his strongest comments to date rebuking the president and his actions.
"This mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the President and other powerful people. And they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like," McConnell said.
"But we pressed on. We stood together and said an angry mob would not get veto power over the rule of law in our nation. Not even for one night.
[NY Post] John McCain’s widow was censured by Arizona state Republicans for failing to support President Trump — and she took it in stride.
"It is a high honor to be included in a group of Arizonans who have served our state and our nation so well ... and who, like my late husband John, have been censured by the AZGOP. I’ll wear this as a badge of honor," Cindy McCain tweeted Saturday evening.
[Red State] Are you ready to fight domestic terrorism?
In the battle against such, a former presidential candidate has questions.
Erstwhile Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard appeared on Fox News Primetime Friday to talk about a new era’s America-protectin’ moves.
Namely: a proposed bill to topple terrorism.
Of the domestic kind, that is.
To hear Tulsi tell it, looming legislation seems downright dastardly.
Host Brian Kilmeade asked the peculiar politician — a Democrat who opposes censorship and introduced legislation to protect abortion survivors — her opinion of "extra surveillance on would-be domestic terror" being pushed by the Powers That Be.
[CBS] Nine members of Congress, appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, will soon walk through the Capitol and deliver the article of impeachment against former President Trump to the Senate. These members, known as the impeachment managers, will prosecute the case against the former president in the Senate.
Pelosi said the House will officially send the article of impeachment against Mr. Trump to the Senate on Monday. "We are respectful of the Senate's constitutional power over the trial and always attentive to the fairness of the process, noting that the former president will have had the same amount of time to prepare for trial as our managers, Pelosi said in a statement on Saturday. "Our managers are ready to begin to make their case to 100 Senate jurors through the trial process."
The House voted on January 13 to impeach Mr. Trump on the charge of incitement of insurrection, just one week after a mob of the president's supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attack that left five people dead.
D’Antuono (FBI Field Office head) did not say what, if anything, the FBI or other agencies did differently as a result of that information. Nor did he explain why he told reporters on Friday that there had been no such intelligence.
"If anyone out there in teevee land knows the identify or whereabouts of the persons of interest in this photo, please contact the Boston FBI Special Agent in Charge (SAC) at the following number....."
I understand there was traffic on Facebook days before the "insurrection", and if so, it would be rather difficult for Trump to have "incited" anything. Also, I believe Capitol Police were letting the demonstrators in even while Trump was talking. Come on, man.
They didn't do any investigation, they didn't produce any admissible evidence that would withstand review - in other words, they didn't do their job to produce an "indictment" that a bill of Impeachment is supposed to be. They just slapped together innuendo and "news" reports that fall apart upon critical examination.
the whole thing is a farce. And its moot - Trump is already ofut of office. You cannot impreach someone who is not holding federal office. To do so violates Article 1, Sections 9 and 10, against legislative actions against citizens. And whether they like it or not, Trump is not a federal official anymore, so not eligible for impeachment, and as a private citizen, he is protected agains legislative judgment against him.
Trump should take this to the Supreme Court and get an injunction. Or if the GOP in Congress had any balls, they would take it to court for an injunction, and filibuster the hell out of it until they get a hearing.
If this does somehow actually got to a full "trial" the GOP should stand up and walk out en-masse, and simply vote "present" pointing out it is an illigetimate trial.
[AnNahar] Donald Trump ...The tack in the backside of the Democratic Party... 's US Senate trial will begin in the second week of February, days after a fresh impeachment case against the former president is transmitted by the House, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer ...Senator-for-life from New York, renowned for his love of standing in front of cameras and microphones. Schumer has been a professional politician since 1975, when disco was in flower, which is 45.13604 years. Senate minority leader as of 2017... said Friday.
Continued on Page 49
any kind of powder or other substances will probably get you a visit by Secret Service this week, or at least until "President" Biden cuts off protection
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/24/2021 16:04 Comments ||
The Senate is not really going to dignify another shit show? I thought this was illegal once Trump was out of office? He is a citizen now. If the Dems can impeach him, they can impeach any one of us.
The Pubs ought to counter with impeaching a different Dem every week.
[PJMedia] Joe Foreign Policy Whiz Kid Biden ...Candidate for president in 2020. Old, boring, a plagiarist, fond of hair sniffing and grabbing the protruding parts of women, and not whatcha call brilliant... had barely been in the Oval Office long enough to exile the Winston Churchill bust yet again when he repealed the notorious "Moslem Ban," and so now Americans can rest easy. We have repudiated one of the hallmarks of the Bad Orange Man’s administration, put "racism" and "Islamophobia ...the irrational fear that Moslems will act the way they usually do... " behind us, and resumed our role as a refuge for the tired, the poor, the woke masses. And so as a glorious new multicultural era dawns in America, after a four-year-long speed bump, will come the reminders that virtue-signaling is never a risk-free proposition.
Continued on Page 49
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.