Austin ousts all Pentagon advisory board members as he roots out Trump appointees

So you don't think voters should decide who should be or should not run for office. You want to give that power to the Senate so they could keep competitors from taking their seats. That is a very extreme position. It certainly isn't the American way.

 

It's in the Constitution.

 

That isn't an answer to the question nor is it true. The constitution doesn't give congress the power to prevent someone from running for office. The founders never even suggested something like that. Elections are within the power of the states, not the federal government. The constitution is available to read on this very internet.

 

Try Article I, Section 3, last paragraph: "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; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment according to Law."

 

You're free to entertain yourself to your heart's content, but the reality is that this will be investigated, studied, and years from now, studied very seriously in history books.

 

One proven unqualified corrupt seditious competitor.... And it was the Constitution that gave the Senate that power, not moi.... which would seem to make it exactly the "American Way"...

 

Probably so. Until then it is all opinion and you know what opinions are worth. Taking politics seriously does seem a little silly to me.

 

Can the sewer rats that can’t be fired be reassigned to some far off place like Nome Alaska or maginalize them in some way?

 

1/6 happened. It's historical, not political. Taking history seriously isn't silly; it's essential.

 

It hadn't occurred to me that political office was an office of honor. I've always seen it as the opposite. Since removal from office isn't in the cards, none of the rest of it makes much sense to me. But I award you 20 brownie points for your due diligence.

 

I'm sure in some cases they can be, but it's hard to see how you can marginalize the Postmaster General of the US...

The best bet is that dedicated postal workers do their best to ensure his efforts to destroy their service fail... here are some examples from last fall.... Hopefully, efforts like these are continuing behind the scenes...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/29/usps-workers-election-mail/

 

2 things...

1. I still think it's unclear if the Senate couldn't hold a disqualification vote even if a conviction vote doesn't pass. As I read the section above, that comma before your uppercase section would allow that...
2. I think the better way to get T**** permanently disqualified after the impeachment trial will be the 14th amendment route...

Both covered in this

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...mp-be-barred-from-future-office-idUSKBN29I356

 

Happy to have taught you something.

 

I'll read the link. Personally, I'd rather see him indicted and prosecuted, then put him in jail for twenty years and give him a trial....oops! That's give him a trial and then put him in jail...right? IMO, he was breaking the law in plain sight.

 

There was a brief time, leading up to WW2 when the Nazis had not yet fully prepared for war. Nonetheless, they attacked Poland.
At the time, it was said by analysts that had France and Britain joined forces they could have likely stopped nazi aggression before it got stated and possibly changed the course of history.

However, weakness prevailed and Hitler was appeased on every front. He was feared and so left alone to grow his military and become a global threat.

in many ways, we are seeing a repeat of nazi tactics in the USA today.by the Left. Media propaganda, persecution of opposition and silencing of dissenters.

Because Americans have clearly chosen the same passive, deceptively easy path as Chamberlain and the French in the late 1930's, we are destined to see a repeat of the horrors of WW2
again, but on a much grander, more horrific scale.

 

On January 6th?? I think most believe that would be a hard case to make in a court of law, but it's a relatively easy case to make for an impeachment conviction for somebody who swore to uphold the Constitution....

 

I sure hope that folks in this country start actually recognizing this dark path democrats are leading them. They must. Cause if it doesn't stop, this, as you say, devolve, quickly. And while this happens, the people are voting with their feet, fleeing the tyranny of the democratic party. We've gone down this road, and the rust belt was the result. Kaliformia dreaming is nothing but nightmares now. NY is dying as folks flee. A shame that the census was already completed before the exidus started.

 

I'm reasonably confident that no matter how the impeachment trial turns out, there will be follow-on criminal indictments growing out of January 6th, with a good chance of the the former President being included among them. He's also running out of both money and friends and it's always good to have one or the other.

 

We shall see, but I suspect not for T****, for that...

I'd be looking more at Congress figuring out how to apply that 14th amendment section about "insurrection against the United States"

 

Yep forget about how qualified and successful you have been it's all about TRUMP!!!!!! Did you get the news about some governors wanting to disbar any attorney's who represented Trump simply because they represented Trump?
Is this our night of the long knives?

 

Trump put in many white nationalists

 

Personally, I would have gone with sedition. But they're similar. Seems "insurrection" applies to the overthrow of the government. Not sure he wanted that. He just wanted to stay as head of the Executive Branch. Sedition specifies, among various other reasons, trying to disrupt the government.

 

And I would say that instigating a disruption of the process that is officially required to change administrations could easily be considered 'overthrow of the government'.

But that's the text of the 14th Amendment, for better or worse... gotta use the tools at hand....

 

Yeah...but you can't put him in jail based on conviction on impeachment. But, perhaps you can explain something...why isn't the 14th amendment redundant given Article I, Section 3, last paragraph? Suppose it's the violation of the oath, which is specified in the 14th amendment, but is it necessary in this case? Couldn't he be convicted and prohibited from holding office again on the basis of the Article I reference, plus Article II, Section 4?

 

I suppose they seem a bit redundant, but assuming the impeachment conviction doesn't fly, it's another bite at the apple...

At this point, i'd be happy if he was disqualified from future office.... Prison is just a future dream at this point...