D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Sigh
great thread
great thread
The official "let's impeach Trump" thread
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Red
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. The trend for quite awhile now is for Trump to continue to talk and act as if he were above and beyond the rule of law. Remember, when speaking of Article 2 of the Constitution, that he claimed "I can do whatever I want"? So, are the Republicans actually arguing that we can be an elective monarchy? And, not just any monarch, but one that wields absolute power while in office? Again, it can't happen here. Until, of course, it happens here.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
I hope Sanders and Warren are paying attention. Once one of them becomes president, I hope they ban all guns, institute universal health care, Abolish the EC, team up with China to spy on the GOP, and ban toothless old people from voting because it’s all “in the national interest.”
Also, muh judges are important too, so we’ll have to send gorsuch and Kavanaugh to Madame Guillotine. Maybe throw thomas in there too for good measure. Cuz you know, National interest. Let’s send “The Squad” to the Supreme Court. Can justin Trudeau serve? Let’s throw him on there. National interest.
Serving 5 terms is in the national interest too.
And who needs the bill of rights? You don’t need freedoms. you don’t need trials or speech. You should be tortured. National interest baby!
Abolishing the congress and packing the Supreme Court can be construed as being in the national interest, right?
Could Elizabeth Warren hire some Iranian terrorists to kidnap her political rivals and pardon them when they get caught and get away with it over the claim of “national interest?”
can we place additional taxes on businesses that don’t support great leader? National interest.
how about intimidate voters? Shut down Fox News?
Hell, let’s go full #MAGA and just make Warren/Sanders supreme leader for life.
SMH
Also, muh judges are important too, so we’ll have to send gorsuch and Kavanaugh to Madame Guillotine. Maybe throw thomas in there too for good measure. Cuz you know, National interest. Let’s send “The Squad” to the Supreme Court. Can justin Trudeau serve? Let’s throw him on there. National interest.
Serving 5 terms is in the national interest too.
And who needs the bill of rights? You don’t need freedoms. you don’t need trials or speech. You should be tortured. National interest baby!
Abolishing the congress and packing the Supreme Court can be construed as being in the national interest, right?
Could Elizabeth Warren hire some Iranian terrorists to kidnap her political rivals and pardon them when they get caught and get away with it over the claim of “national interest?”
can we place additional taxes on businesses that don’t support great leader? National interest.
how about intimidate voters? Shut down Fox News?
Hell, let’s go full #MAGA and just make Warren/Sanders supreme leader for life.
SMH
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
What’s stopping trump from shutting down The NY Times or imprisoning Hillary? National interest.
Packing the ballot box? Or hell, abolishing the elections entirely. National interest.
like this is totally insane. And the GOP is doing this over Trump? Because they’re afraid of being primaried? Why don’t they take this opportunity to take trump out and roll with Pence? Unless this is ultimately what they want, a dictator.
I don’t think even the Royal family has had this type of power in 500+ years. Unbelievable.
Packing the ballot box? Or hell, abolishing the elections entirely. National interest.
like this is totally insane. And the GOP is doing this over Trump? Because they’re afraid of being primaried? Why don’t they take this opportunity to take trump out and roll with Pence? Unless this is ultimately what they want, a dictator.
I don’t think even the Royal family has had this type of power in 500+ years. Unbelievable.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
What has happened to Christianity in this country?
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Great article. Is this really what we want to transform our executive branch into?
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
If it’s done under the excuse of “national interest”, it’s fine, right?
just like this:
If his DNA is on her, he can’t be arrested because he’s president.
He can’t be impeached And removed because I’ve learned that impeachment can’t be partisan. And if one side decides to plug their ears and never vote against their boy, then impeachment becomes partisan and renders impeachment unnecessary. Cuz again, partisanship.
And time. Since we’re in an election year, we cannot have any witnesses. Even if there was a first hand witness to the rape asking to testify, we can’t listen because it might take a few more weeks to listen to he/she. Heaven forbid we find the truth.
Besides, if he can claim that raping women was done under the excuse of the national interest, it’s all good, right?
/clearly, this entire post is sarcasm and just highlights the stupidity being spewed on the Senate’s floor right now.
Red
Well-Known Member
Alan Dershowitz loves the spotlight. It would not surprise me if he prefers a contrarian position at times, simply because he understands being outrageous will earn him that spotlight. There was one line in his argument against impeachment Wednesday, that I believe will earn him a certain ignoble status in American history. I think it represents one of the most outrageously demented statements ever spoken in the United States Congress:
“But a complex middle case is: ‘I want to be elected. I think I’m a great president. I think I’m the greatest president there ever was. And if I’m not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly.’ That cannot be an impeachable offense.”
-----------
We've gone over the absurdity of such a position. As @Zombie put it, the president's defense has raised issues even more troubling then what brought impeachment upon Trump in the first place.
Dershowitz:
“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly, you’re right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president does something, which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. . . .
“The house managers . . . never allege that it was based on pure financial reasons. It would be a much harder case if a hypothetical president of the United States said to a hypothetical leader of a foreign country, ‘Unless you build a hotel with my name on it and unless you give me a million-dollar kickback, I will withhold the funds.’
“That’s an easy case. That’s purely corrupt and in the purely private interest.
“But a complex middle case is: ‘I want to be elected. I think I’m a great president. I think I’m the greatest president there ever was. And if I’m not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly.’ That cannot be an impeachable offense.”
--------
Congrats to Alan Dershowitz. His words will live in infamy.
“But a complex middle case is: ‘I want to be elected. I think I’m a great president. I think I’m the greatest president there ever was. And if I’m not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly.’ That cannot be an impeachable offense.”
-----------
We've gone over the absurdity of such a position. As @Zombie put it, the president's defense has raised issues even more troubling then what brought impeachment upon Trump in the first place.
Dershowitz:
“Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly, you’re right. Your election is in the public interest. And if a president does something, which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. . . .
“The house managers . . . never allege that it was based on pure financial reasons. It would be a much harder case if a hypothetical president of the United States said to a hypothetical leader of a foreign country, ‘Unless you build a hotel with my name on it and unless you give me a million-dollar kickback, I will withhold the funds.’
“That’s an easy case. That’s purely corrupt and in the purely private interest.
“But a complex middle case is: ‘I want to be elected. I think I’m a great president. I think I’m the greatest president there ever was. And if I’m not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly.’ That cannot be an impeachable offense.”
--------
Congrats to Alan Dershowitz. His words will live in infamy.
This is a little wonky (even by my standards) but I've been taken with the assertion that Dershowitz is fine with melding "personal interest" and "the public interest" into a single concern. The idea that a subjective belief that serving your own ends is also for the good of the country is exculpatory is I think unintentionally revealing.
The nature of a "Monarch" in theory is that the person on the throne represents the state itself. The idea of the state is too abstract to cognize, so we endow in a person the powers and functions of the state. Their will is collective will. The illusion that their wants and desires represent the best interests of the entire polity is the social illusion that comprises the foundation of monarchy.
The purest linguistic expression of that concept is the royal "we." Americans think of it as kind of silly when the Queen uses "we" in the singular first person, but that grammatical construction is the entire concept of monarchy. The person on the throne is not capable of having individual thoughts, desires, and urges. When they speak, they speak for all collectively.
Dershowitz's argument is an argument for a "royal we" presidency. That if it is for the president's benefit then it is for everyone's benefit. That also pops up in the arguments made by Philbin yesterday - in which he argues that it is impossible for the President to contravene foreign policy - because whatever he says is foreign policy.
This endows the president with that same mystical authority of the state that is the primary feature of monarchy. It is impossible to betray the country when you are the country. You cannot have a conflict of interest with yourself. You cannot do anything that is against the interests of the state, because if you want it that is the interest of the state.
Dershowitz is telling us that public opinion does not matter. Legitimacy is not conferred on our leaders through acclamation of popular will. If Trump wants to smear the Bidens - then the people want it too. Donald Trump doesn't represent the people, he is the people. WE are Trump.
The nature of a "Monarch" in theory is that the person on the throne represents the state itself. The idea of the state is too abstract to cognize, so we endow in a person the powers and functions of the state. Their will is collective will. The illusion that their wants and desires represent the best interests of the entire polity is the social illusion that comprises the foundation of monarchy.
The purest linguistic expression of that concept is the royal "we." Americans think of it as kind of silly when the Queen uses "we" in the singular first person, but that grammatical construction is the entire concept of monarchy. The person on the throne is not capable of having individual thoughts, desires, and urges. When they speak, they speak for all collectively.
Dershowitz's argument is an argument for a "royal we" presidency. That if it is for the president's benefit then it is for everyone's benefit. That also pops up in the arguments made by Philbin yesterday - in which he argues that it is impossible for the President to contravene foreign policy - because whatever he says is foreign policy.
This endows the president with that same mystical authority of the state that is the primary feature of monarchy. It is impossible to betray the country when you are the country. You cannot have a conflict of interest with yourself. You cannot do anything that is against the interests of the state, because if you want it that is the interest of the state.
Dershowitz is telling us that public opinion does not matter. Legitimacy is not conferred on our leaders through acclamation of popular will. If Trump wants to smear the Bidens - then the people want it too. Donald Trump doesn't represent the people, he is the people. WE are Trump.