NY Times Journalist Engages in Bizarre, What-If Impeachment Fantasy

Newsbusters ^ | October 29, 2019 | P.J. Gladnick

[PJ-Comix]

While reading the absurd New York Times impeachment porn fantasy by Carl Hulse which was published on Saturday, you have to pinch yourself every few sentences to remind yourself that you are actually reading a bizarre what-if written by the chief Washington correspondent for a major newspaper.

What if the Senate votes to convict President Trump after he was impeached by the House, meaning about 20 Republican senators vote with the Democrats. And then, and then just a majority of them could vote to keep him from running for President again? Of course, before you get to the simple majority to vote to prevent Trump from running for another term that Hulse is so excited about, you first have to clear the impossible hurdle of a 2/3 vote which won't be happening... unless Mitt Romney could be cloned about 20 times.

[Cincinnatus.45-70]

I have my own what-if fantasy. What if we changed the First Amendment to require polygraph tests of anyone who calls themselves a “journalist” for every article they publish?

I bet we’d have 99 opinion writers for every journalist in print.

[fhayek]

No, that was the Twenty-second Amendment that did that.

[timestax]

[jughandle]

After enough “what-ifs” Hillary becomes president...which is what they want in the first place.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Democrats confirmation of our replacements:
Democrats Draft Plan to Import Huge Numbers of ‘Climate Refugees’ (additional 50,000 “climate refugees” per year)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3789758/posts

[HotHunt]

You forgot to carry their wet dreams to their logical conclusion.

After President Pelosi is seated in the WH, she will select Hillary as her VP and then, immediately resign so, wa-la!

Hillary is finally the president we've all been waiting for.

They must be smoking some real strong Maui-wowie and twisting themselves into a pretzel to come up with this scenario.

[stylin19a]

did more digging. (I think I should have known this cause the research and conclusions are familiar)

The senate votes on "disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

Alcee Hastings was impeached as a judge. The senate only voted for removal of office.
Hence, Hastings was allowed to serve as an elected Rep.

https://www.cop.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Hastings.htm

"Vote for Removal and/or Disqualification:
No separate vote was taken. Having found Hastings guilty on 8 of the 17 articles of impeachment, the president pro tempore ordered him removed from office. He was not disqualified for future office."

[gogeo]

And the way to do that, apparently, is to overturn the lawful 2016 election and to make sure that the voters are not allowed to vote again for the guy they prefer.

Destroy the village...

[Jacquerie]

When the Senate found judge Alcee Hastings guilty, it neglected to disqualify the dirtbag from further political office.

Big mistake.

[stylin19a]

thanks...see my post 27.
I never knew it wasn’t all or nothing at all.

[Jacquerie]

My oops.