Why did the chicken cross the road?
9 Likes
Death is welcome for Hemingway’s chicken, given the trauma the chicken suffered in the war.
1 Like
The inland empire is one of the most soulless, depressing regions I’ve ever visited.
Other half too old to stand up
2 Likes
Like most of the places that I’ve been that are infested with meth, when you go to the IE you think “yeah, I get it”.
3 Likes
Why is this a bad idea from Pelosi? Seems spot on to me.
She labeled Kevin McCarthy as Q-California.
https://mobile.twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1357139811040190464
tx for the reminder of that one!
Can someone ELI5 what exactly the constitutional argument about not being able to convict a former president is? I’m sure it’s terrible, but can someone give the cliffs on what exactly they’re planning to say.
The constitution doesn’t specifically prohibit it, does it? So what is the basis for the claim that is unconstitutional? Like I said, I’m sure it’s dumb, but I can’t even imagine something that someone might plausibly say.
I’m going to go with the Making Shit Up amendment.
7 Likes
The only explanation I’ve heard is that Trump is a private citizen in the current moment and impeachment is only used against public servants ipso facto he can’t be impeached.
Of course it’s one of those explanations that doesn’t make any sense if you think about it more than 5 seconds. Like does that mean the last day of a Presidents term is a constitutional free for all?
1 Like
Yeah, but even that is dumb.
- If constitution says that public servants can be impeached, it does not imply that other people can’t be impeached. It certainly does not say “only public servants” can be impeached.
- He was actually impeached while he was a public servant.
- There is nothing in the constitution about holding trials for public servants. The senate’s job is to hold trials for impeachments. And this impeachment was 100% legit.
I realize I’m kind of arguing with myself, but I just can’t even think of a bad argument for it specifically being “unconstitutional”.
1 Like
I’m pretty sure SCOTUS opinion will be that impeachment is an article I gig and impeachment is whatever the legislature says it is.
Heck even when Roberts was making rulings in the first impeachment he deferred whenever possible and a simple majority could overrule his decisions.
Of course it cuts both ways. Since their is no clear objective standard, getting to 67 isn’t going to happen though one suspects if by secret ballot we’d be drawing love to 75.
Though I’d agree with that outcome I don’t think a secret ballot is acceptable. Dammit.
That’s the thing. The impeachment was done while he was in office. They can’t argue there was anything wrong with that.
Senate’s job is to try impeachments. They can try them however they want. They’ve got a legit impeachment. Constitution says it’s their job to try it. And when they do try it, there is isn’t anything in there to say that they can’t convict.
Exactly. Without a specific prohibition it’s their call. Simple majority to have the trial (done).
Ok, but we’re still not getting to anything unconstitutional. If senate votes on having a trial, they get at least 50 + 1 to have a trial. So, now there is a trial. Trump’s lawyers are then going to argue that either having the trial is unconstitutional or convicting him is unconsitutional? I mean I know they are, but I can’t think of anything even remotely logical they could say to make that claim.
I think having the impeachment in before Trump left office makes the “unconstitutional” argument completely ridiculous. There are certainly other arguments they could make for why they shouldn’t be able to convict Trump, but it being unconstitutional seems particularly difficult.
1 Like
Agree. “Unconstitutional” is 100% Gaslighting bullshit. They know it but they can convince the rubes to get in a lather and try to overthr…