for all the MoSports constitutional scholars and brilliant legal minds on here. For the sake of this question let's say Trump gets impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate before the 2020 election. Is there anything in the constitution, or our legal system, that says he can't be elected to office again since he would have only served one term? This could easily go right up to time for the party conventions and he could be on the ballot in all 50 states by the time it is resolved. What say you?
I have a question
- Thread starter 3Rfan
- Start date
Not a thing keeps him from being on the ballot as long as he meets the qualifications set forth in the constitution. Honestly I would love it
Should be interesting IF he would get impeached but I don't see the Senate having enough votes to convict, they're scare to death of him. I can't even imagine what he would do if he was re-elected after being booted out of office. He most certainly would think he was the king and not the president then!
There's nothing in the Constitution barring someone impeached from running again
There's nothing barring Congress from immediately impeaching that person again
After the testimony yesterday...buddy, do I have some news for you. Everyone with a pulse in Washington knows he's going to get impeached based upon the transcripts.
Do you really think the House will not vote for an impeachment trial in the Senate? What is the source of this belief?
Simple common sense!
If the House impeached, every member up for re-election will be on record, the narrative would then be in Republican hands, the facts would not be as presented by Schiff but as they are in reality, Schiffs dubious actions would once again be made known, and Trump would not be convicted of anything. As it is, Schiff can make as many accusations as he wants with no way to dis-prove any of it. The Dems get everything they want except removal of Trump now and lose all of it and still don't get Trumps removal if they vote.
The facts aren't being presented by Adam Schiff; they are presented by witness under penalty of perjury and by that really disastrous call readout that the White House itself released.
How can you say witnesses are presenting facts when the transcripts aren't being released? Schiff is leaking what he wants out without a way to rebut it.
There was NOTHING inappropriate about that call! The transcript shows Trump asking for help finding election interference by Ukraine and other corruption involving Ukraine.
Then why did virtually EVERYONE (pubs and dems) go nuts about it. Fact is they know more than you do.
That call transcript was absolutely horrible.
1. It's quite clear from the pattern that he wanted a personal benefit from Ukraine. Not something in the interest of the US. That's wrong
2. The Cloudstrike part of the call was insane - the President is chasing nonsense conspiracy theories
I agree they're selectively leaking stuff, but if the transcripts were helpful...don't you think the Rs on the committee would be leaking parts that made them look better?
Why did a number of the people on the call immediately go report how wrong it was?
It's quite clear Trump was ASKING Ukraine to do something. Where is the personal benefit that is "quite obvious"?
The Crowdstrike (cloudstrike?) part shows it was about 2016 since the DNC was the ones using them, IN 2016! The DNC claims they are hacked by Russians, the FBI wants the servers to investigate, the DNC says no that they are using Crowdstrike (a Ukraine company), Trump says he (The POTUS) wants to know what Ukraine knows about it.
Not if they are abiding by the committee rules! Release the transcripts of the testimonies and the leaking stops. Open the hearings and there's no need for transcripts. What is lost if it is open?
Last edited:
What part of 'you don't get to see/hear the evidence against you until there is a trial.' If needed, the trial will be in the senate where Trump's lawyers will get to call witnesses and cross examine other witnesses. What's going on now is called an investigation, NOT a trial.
When the HOUSE "investigated" Nixon and Clinton it wasn't done in a closed door manner. They got to have their legal teams in the proceedings and it was open for all to see.
You insist on stupidity. Read this you fool. https://mosports.forums.rivals.com/...about-it-tired-of-hearing-your-yapping.39930/
CNN reporting today that polling in Wisconsin and 5 other swing states show people NOT supporting Impeachment by about 5%.
Dems know they can never get impeachment conviction in senate and are just pushing the narrative without making their people stand up and take a vote on an issue they have no chance of winning.
Nothing but a political stunt by the most unamerican people we have ever had in washington
Exactly who and when glorified Putin like God???
I will remind you it was your boy Obama who stood by and let Russia annex the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 without doing anything to stop it,,and in 2015-2016 it was Obama who was president that’s response to Putin interference in our election process was “ I told him to Knock it Off” Obama was weak and afraid of Putin every day he was in office
I agree, Obama was a weak leader.
1. The 2016 campaign
2. Helsinki
3. Literally every day since
4. He has not criticized Putin one time, bro.
Using your example, he blamed Obama for Crimea and praised Putin. Good Lord, you know this. He worships Putin like his god.
Not getting a conviction from this senate does NOT mean they shouldn't do their own job. I've never seen a bunch of politicians so afraid of a president and I've been a voter since 1971.
This was really wrong, and a sign that something is seriously wrong at the White House.
Clinton's legal team got to see what Ken Starr was doing for years? Nixon didn't fire Archibald Cox, who was investigating the Watergate break-in? You're making stuff up. The core investigations were PRIVATE.
The benefit is obvious: get Ukraine to raise corruption allegations against the D candidate he fears the most.
The bananapants part of the Cloudstrike thing is his bizarre belief that there is some secret Cloudstrike server in the Ukraine that will shed light on Russia not really having hacked the US. It's a nonsense conspiracy theory that is just flat wrong, not supported by any Congressional or Federal intelligence/criminal review of the 2016 election hacking. POTUS asking another country about this server in 2019 on a private call as if it is real is scary stuff - it means POTUS believes in a totally insane conspiracy theory.
Trump was asking for investigation of corruption. If Biden gets caught up in corruption investigation, is that Trumps fault?
Are you OK with the DNC telling the FBI to take a hike on their server? Crowdstrike was not working in the best interests of the U S or they would have insisted on the FBI being involved.
Then again, you actually think Trump is worried about Biden.
Since you don't even know the proper name of the outfit, you obviously are an expert.
When you withhold foreign aid to induce a foreign government to do your personal bidding, yes. The USG should expect Ukraine to fight corruption, no question, but there's not an actual allegation of corruption here. The goal also wasn't to get an investigation: it was to get the leader of Ukraine to make a public statement that he was investigating Biden. He wanted the PR hit, not a substantive issue.
The State Department and others charged with assisting Ukraine as an ally saw no reason why (a) Biden should be investigated, and (b) no reason for us to withhold aid. Congress also had expressly demanded the aid be provided via a law. Trump withheld that aid solely to benefit himself, not the US people. That's the problem with what he did.
Crowdstrike and the DNC cooperated plenty. They also have rights as victims of crimes and private citizens to limit what they share with the US Government.
What foreign aid was withheld?
Ukraine interfered in our election.
The whole phone call was about corruption in 2016 whether real or perceived. When was the Biden nonsense?
Rights to claim Russia hacked then and not allow the FBI to investigate? This IS a federal government matter!
What planet are you on, exactly?
How, exactly, did Ukraine interfere in the election in a way that merits investigation of JOE BIDEN? That is what the President asked for. And why would this require public announcement?
RE: second point: the DNC and its vendors gave loads of data and cooperation to the FBI and others. Read the Mueller report, declassified intel reports and reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee. There's no substantive debate about who hacked them, what was hacked, and where that data was at when it was hacked.
Once again, What foreign aid was withheld? Did Ukraine not get their money? What did Trump get for it?
Trump and Zelinskiy were talking about corruption. Trump noted how Zelinskiy had won on the platform of stopping corruption. Trump said the U S had been through a lot (investigations) in the last year and needed a favor of finding out what happened. He mentioned Crowdstrike and the Biden deals as examples of things that needed looked into. All of those things were under the umbrella of "both of us promised to clean up corruption" and we need to know what you can find out. Sure Biden was part of it! The Biden deal was pure corruption.
The DNC told the FBI what Crowdstrike found. There is absolutely no reason to keep the FBI away from the server that is legit. I've not said Russia didn't do it. Maybe how it happened concerns them in a way they don't want out?
You didn't hear the part about the amount of time he held up the aid money even while his pubs in the senate were telling him to cut it loose? I guess you also didn't see Mulvaney on TV telling the world that's exactly what he did?
Trump held it up to get Europe more invested. You say he was making demands of Ukraine.
The money went through before the whistleblower so, which one happened to cause the money to be released? What did Trump gain if he had a quid pro quo?
Where do you come up with these theories?
The money got released because Congress erupted and threatened to withhold billions in defense funds. The money was released because the Rs in Congress got pissed, not because Trump fixed his error.
Similar threads
