• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread A second impeachment

Can anyone explain what the poem by Henry Wadsworth-Longfellow, the Building of the Ship has to do with the Capitol Riots and the Impeachment trial?

Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
We know what Master laid thy keel,
What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel,
Who made each mast, and sail, and rope,
What anvils rang, what hammers beat,
In what a forge and what a heat
Were shaped the anchors of thy hope!
Fear not each sudden sound and shock,
'T is of the wave and not the rock;
'T is but the flapping of the sail,
And not a rent made by the gale!
In spite of rock and tempest's roar,
In spite of false lights on the shore,
Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea!
Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee,
Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,
Our faith triumphant o'er our fears,
Are all with thee, — are all with thee!


Ode to Donald Trump by David Schoen...?
 
Yeah, if 44 voted that the impeachment is unconstitutional, I don't see much hope for conviction.
 
Vixen said:
Can anyone explain what the poem by Henry Wadsworth-Longfellow, the Building of the Ship has to do with the Capitol Riots and the Impeachment trial?

Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
We know what Master laid thy keel,
What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel,
Who made each mast, and sail, and rope,
What anvils rang, what hammers beat,
In what a forge and what a heat
Were shaped the anchors of thy hope!
Fear not each sudden sound and shock,
'T is of the wave and not the rock;
'T is but the flapping of the sail,
And not a rent made by the gale!
In spite of rock and tempest's roar,
In spite of false lights on the shore,
Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea!
Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee,
Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,
Our faith triumphant o'er our fears,
Are all with thee, — are all with thee!


Ode to Donald Trump by David Schoen...?
Click to expand...
sure. It allowed Schoen the opportunity to hone his acting skills by crying.
 
Bob001 said:
Baby steps.
Click to expand...

You really are an optimist, aren't ya? Do you really think enough senators will vote guilty when they can't even admit that impeaching after leaving office is Constitutional after that presentation? There's being positive and then there's living in reality.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
McConnell the weenie.
Click to expand...

In principle, that now means that senators cannot use "you cannot impeach a president who left office" as a defense any more. The Senate has voted to rule that you can, and therefore, that means legally, you can.

Now, I'm sure that won't stop some from still doing it, but, in principle, that argument is now moot.
 
Re: How will Susan Collins vote...
Upchurch said:
She voted the impeachment was Constitutional.
Click to expand...
Right, I mean on conviction. She's at least willing to recognize the reality of jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
I suspect she will vote to convict as well.

She just got re-elected so she doesn't have to worry about getting primaried. She probably got a little embarrassed by her "learned a lesson"/No he didn't last time. And although you can't really consider ANY republican to be a moderate (or trustworthy) anymore, she is one of the less repulsive republicans. (Still repulsive, but not as bad as Moscow Mitch.)
 
pgwenthold said:
In principle, that now means that senators cannot use "you cannot impeach a president who left office" as a defense any more. The Senate has voted to rule that you can, and therefore, that means legally, you can.

Now, I'm sure that won't stop some from still doing it, but, in principle, that argument is now moot.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the Senate has also held an impeachment trial after Secretary of War Belknap resigned and was out of office. Think about that. The Senate tried Belknap despite that they couldn't offer any penalty. Convicting Trump today would at least have a tangible effect. It would eliminate the pension, the 1 million per annum of travel benefits and Secret Service protection as well as being able to ban him from holding public office.

The argument is beyond weak that it is Constitutionally prohibited.
 
That video was chilling and scary, very well done.
I think , since this not about convicting Trump but battle for public opinion, that the Dems are off to a very good start in that regard.
 
pgwenthold said:
In principle, that now means that senators cannot use "you cannot impeach a president who left office" as a defense any more. The Senate has voted to rule that you can, and therefore, that means legally, you can.

Now, I'm sure that won't stop some from still doing it, but, in principle, that argument is now moot.
Click to expand...

One must not forget that a former President still would have to have been impeached by the House first before they can be at this point where the Senate trial starts. It's an important distinction to make...impeachment started while he was still in office....they (Trump's team) were essentially trying to argue that they should not finish it just because he has left office.
 
acbytesla said:
Keep in mind that the Senate has also held an impeachment trial after Secretary of War Belknap resigned and was out of office. Think about that. The Senate tried Belknap despite that they couldn't offer any penalty. Convicting Trump today would at least have a tangible effect. It would eliminate the pension, the 1 million per annum of travel benefits and Secret Service protection as well as being able to ban him from holding public office.

The argument is beyond weak that it is Constitutionally prohibited.
Click to expand...

The attorney guy Representative Joe Neguse argued so much better than Castor or Schoen. He did use Belknap as a prime example of precedent, in that, of course, the constitution covers day one to the last day of the presidency. It matters not that you have now left if your impeachable act happened during your term of office.

Was it Belknap - or was it Bount - tried to get out of it by handing in his resignation but was impeached anyway.

Case for constitutional correctness well argued.
 

Attachments

  • belknap trump.jpg
    belknap trump.jpg
    39.7 KB · Views: 10
alfaniner said:
...snip

I was right about the nitpicking over the word "and" at some point. He also brought up "shall" as meaning "must", when I think in some previous Republican rant they insisted that "shall" meant "may".
Click to expand...

Every government document I have ever dealt with uses "shall" when you must do something.
 
I've not had a chance to follow this, but I have read that McConnell voted that the trial wasn't constitutional. Since he's the weathervane, I think there goes the last slim hope that enough Republicans would abstain or vote to convict to allow a conviction.
 
Stacyhs said:
So far he hasn't made a single legal argument as to why this impeachment is unconstitutional. It's all been deflection and nonsense.
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer..though my kid sister is....but you have to wonder if the guy forgot everything he learned in his Legal Procedures course in Law School.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom