[Split Thread] A second impeachment - Page 19

kookbreaker · 13th January 2021, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by sphenisc

Technical question. Do they have to complete the process for the second impeachment before they start a third one?

Does Trump want a younger, hotter third impeachment?

Aridas · 13th January 2021, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by Firestone

Trump statement:

"In light of reports of more demonstrations, I urge that there must be NO violence, NO lawbreaking and NO vandalism of any kind. That is not what I stand for, and it is not what America stands for. I call on ALL Americans to help ease tensions and calm tempers. Thank You."

Fits in a tweet, by the way.

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/13...869038594?s=19

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Anyone else think that wasn't Trump?

Honestly, it's plausible that it actually is Trump, in his usual shiny object fashion. He's facing a rather massive financial backlash and... maybe even the end of the Trump brand. He's apparently been strongly advised that the damage will be much less in the long term if he actually does call for peace compared to if he doubles down on sedition. How long any such peace push lasts, of course, is anyone's guess.

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) just promised Newsmax to introduce articles of impeachment against Joe Biden on Jan. 21.

Entirely predictable that there would be Republicans seeking to impeach Biden on any pretext. I suppose we'll see how many Republicans sign on to this doomed attempt and see how many of them are willing to present even more evidence of how inimical they are to the US.

Originally Posted by Darat

Oh I don’t know, she seems to have a sound grasp of republican politics!

Yup.

Regnad Kcin · 13th January 2021, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

To be impeached once may be regarded as a misfortune.
To be impeached twice is a clear sign you’re a lying, corrupt, sociopathic fascist

They say this impeachment, can you believe it? Never before seen. Never before. Historic, nobody’s ever been impeached twice. Give me a break. Oh, oh, oh, Trump is so bad. He’s so bad. He’s the worst. You look at these radical left Democrats, the biggest witch hunt in history. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it. So horrible what they’ve done, so horrible. Trump is so bad, let’s impeach him again.

Crazy Nancy, she’s crazy you know. Says she prays for Trump. Give me a break. Such lies. Lies like you’ve never seen.

Folks, there’s only one reason to impeach. Because I’m in there every day fighting for you. Fighting like nobody’s ever fought. And they can’t stand it. So terrible what they do. Terrible. So they impeach. Phony, phony lies they all make up. Trump did this, Trump did that. It’s a disgrace.

Ooo, he’ll go down in history. He’s so bad. He’s so terrible. Impeach, impeach, impeach. But y’know what? I’m glad to go down in history. It makes me happy. Oh, oh sir, how can you say that? Aren’t you angry? Can you believe it? Me, a 92% approval? I said I’d drain the swamp, right? Am I right? I mean nobody’s ever fought so hard for you. And I wouldn’t let them take away your freedom or your second amendment or your stolen votes.

Look, it is what it is. A perfect phone call, let’s impeach. A totally appropriate speech, let’s impeach. Fighting for you good people like nobody’s ever fought before, let’s impeach. They can’t stand it. But I won. Total landslide. Always remember.

God bless America.

sackett · 13th January 2021, 09:56 PM

There were no telegraph or railroads when the Constitution was written, and a senator might be absent for good reason: his horse foundered, or his keelboat grounded on a shoal, or he fell ill with the flux while mud-stuck on the Choctaw Trace.

Nowadays, we have internet, and a senator could cast his vote while on a fact-finding mission in Ouled Nail or Tijuana or Bangkok (love that name, haw haw!), and it would be plumb legit. Dunno if the rules allow that, but why not?

"Present" doesn't have to mean physically there anymore. THIS NOT THE 18TH. *******. CENTURY.

Edited by Agatha:

Edited for rule 10. Do not disguise or misspell swear words in the public sections of the forum.

dirtywick · 13th January 2021, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Honestly, it's plausible that it actually is Trump, in his usual shiny object fashion. He's facing a rather massive financial backlash and... maybe even the end of the Trump brand. He's apparently been strongly advised that the damage will be much less in the long term if he actually does call for peace compared to if he doubles down on sedition. How long any such peace push lasts, of course, is anyone's guess.

it's crazy that someone needs to tell him that sedition is a pretty unpopular political position

Stacyhs · 13th January 2021, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by Horhang

This makes me unsure there will be a trial. There is no precedent for this after he has left office. Impeachment trials are to remove someone from public office. As of Jan 20 he no longer holds public office. I think this will wind up in the courts before it goes before the Senate.

There are two precedents:

Quote:

There is some historical precedent: The impeachments of Sen. William Blount in 1797 and Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 both occurred after the men were no longer in office.

EHocking · 13th January 2021, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by sackett

There were no telegraph or railroads when the Constitution was written, and a senator might be absent for good reason: his horse foundered, or his keelboat grounded on a shoal, or he fell ill with the flux while mud-stuck on the Choctaw Trace.

Nowadays, we have internet, and a senator could cast his vote while on a fact-finding mission in Ouled Nail or Tijuana or Bangkok (love that name, haw haw!), and it would be plumb legit. Dunno if the rules allow that, but why not?

"Present" doesn't have to mean physically there anymore. THIS NOT THE 18TH. *******. CENTURY.

The Senate rules require a senator to be physically present in order to vote.

A quorum is is required for voting - described as a simple majority of elected senators.
A majority of senators not required as a quorum is presumed unless an absence of a quorum is officially tabled.
A fifth of the senate is required to support the tabling for a suggestion of absence of a quorum.

A PDF of the rules as at March 26, 2020
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/96-452

Skeptic Ginger · 14th January 2021, 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Honestly, it's plausible that it actually is Trump, in his usual shiny object fashion. He's facing a rather massive financial backlash and... maybe even the end of the Trump brand. He's apparently been strongly advised that the damage will be much less in the long term if he actually does call for peace compared to if he doubles down on sedition. How long any such peace push lasts, of course, is anyone's guess.

Sure, but he'd still need someone else to write it for him.

Originally Posted by Aridas

Entirely predictable that there would be Republicans seeking to impeach Biden on any pretext. I suppose we'll see how many Republicans sign on to this doomed attempt and see how many of them are willing to present even more evidence of how inimical they are to the US. ...

Not just doomed, but incredibly ignorant.

It will be especially interesting after an extensive investigation of what happened Wed is carried out.

Skeptic Ginger · 14th January 2021, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

There are two precedents:

And McConnell knows full well when to switch horses.

Stacyhs · 14th January 2021, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And McConnell knows full well when to switch horses.

McConnell is a crafty and well experienced devil. He knows exactly what he's doing.

The Atheist · 14th January 2021, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

... 92% approval? ...

Within his family.

Dave Rogers · 14th January 2021, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Entirely predictable that there would be Republicans seeking to impeach Biden on any pretext.

Or, as it turns out, a complete absence of any logically possible pretext.

Dave

Firestone · 14th January 2021, 02:39 AM

From the Queens Daily Eagle: Queens man impeached — again

Quote:

A Queens-born real estate developer made history Wednesday when he became the first U.S. president ever impeached twice by the House of Representatives.

Donald Trump, a 74-year-old lame duck Republican, is accused of inciting a lethal mob of far-right supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol in order to prevent Congress from certifying the results of his resounding loss in the November 2020 election. President-elect Joe Biden, a Democrat, recorded 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232.

...

Ten Republican members of Congress joined the Democratic majority in voting to impeach the Jamaica Estates native for the second time.

In December 2019, Trump became the third president impeached by Congress — and the first from Queens.

Local press is the best.

zooterkin · 14th January 2021, 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Well, the Republican party just tied itself to sedition and insurrection. They have defended the indefensible. This is all about messaging now. Something generally they are usually better at then the Democrats.

Still, this is going to be a hard sell.

I spent almost 30 years selling IT equipment and the one thing I can say is that it is one hell of a lot easier to sell quality then crap. Fortunately a large portion of their target consumers have been eating crap for a few years.

A number of companies have done that, trading on a past reputation, but surely people eventually realise you're now selling crap?

Captain_Swoop · 14th January 2021, 04:02 AM

Of course, if he gets impeached for a third time he gets to keep the White House.

jimbob · 14th January 2021, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Sure, but he'd still need someone else to write it for him.

Not just doomed, but incredibly ignorant.

It will be especially interesting after an extensive investigation of what happened Wed is carried out.

This is the thing. When they're not being blocked, the investigations will make it very hard for people to pretend that, tonuse a phrase from what passes for a respectable Republican, he's "not a crook". And it's going to get through sufficient news bubbles that anyone standing by him will lose support.

JoeMorgue · 14th January 2021, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

That's something I find somewhat depressing.

You can't convince me that there are no Democrats who think that impeaching him so close to the end of the term is a bad idea.

You can't convince me that there are no more than 10 Republicans who consider him unfit to be the President, and who thinks it's important to at least make a statement to that effect.

In other words, there's nothing inherently partisan about the question of removing him, and yet we get an almost perfect straight party line vote.

You see there, right there, that's post-facts trying to sneak its way back into the conversation.

If half a group says one thing and half a group says another, that doesn't always mean there's a valid disagreement.

If I ask 50 biologist and 50 Southern Baptist is evolution is true, the fact that I already know that within a rounding error with almost all of the biologist are going say "Yes of course it is, you're an idiot for an asking, it's been hundreds of years why are we still arguing about this" and all the Southern Baptist are going to say "GET BEHIND ME SATAN!" that doesn't mean I have to furrow my brow and go "Well it has to be a partisan issue."

Yes it is a partisan issue, in the sense that one party is factually correct and the other side is not. It's not a sign of "Partisan" as some sort of bias we have to worry about.

dudalb · 14th January 2021, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

There are two precedents:

I think there have been a couple of Federal Jusges alos who have been impeached after leaving ofiice.

dudalb · 14th January 2021, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by Firestone

From the Queens Daily Eagle: Queens man impeached — again

Local press is the best.

Trump has become the most famous person to come from Queens ..except for Spiderman.

JoeMorgue · 14th January 2021, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

I think there have been a couple of Federal Jusges alos who have been impeached after leaving ofiice.

Also the impeachment process has started. It's like saying you should go free because the statue of limitations for your crime expired while you were awaiting trial but after you were arrested/arraigned/charged whatever.

If the Democrats had just sat on their hands doing nothing and tried to impeach Trump 2 years from now then maybe, maybe there could be a valid discussion we could put on the table to at least talk about in regards to impeaching former Presidents. But not now.

Fast Eddie B · 14th January 2021, 06:55 AM

Quote:

There is some historical precedent: The impeachments of Sen. William Blount in 1797 and Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 both occurred after the men were no longer in office.

Rachel Maddow led off her show last night with a deep dive into the Belknap impeachment.

Worth a watch.

slyjoe · 14th January 2021, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Rachel Maddow led off her show last night with a deep dive into the Belknap impeachment.

Worth a watch.

That's the Sec of War that resigned right before impeachment to avoid impeachment, right?

Horhang · 14th January 2021, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

There are two precedents:

Blount was expelled by the senate but still held the elected office. Belknap resigned his position to avoid impeachment. Not sure these will serve as precedent or prosecution after the term has expired.they are similar, but not the same.

Fast Eddie B · 14th January 2021, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

That's the Sec of War that resigned right before impeachment to avoid impeachment, right?

Yep. And it didn’t work, establishing a precedent.

Also included an interesting link with modern times by a distant relative.

JoeMorgue · 14th January 2021, 07:51 AM

And if I recall Congress had to choose to drop the impeachment against Nixon after he resigned, it didn't like just automatically happen.

Meadmaker · 14th January 2021, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Yep. And it didn’t work, establishing a precedent.

So there's a precedent, but is there a point? Is seeking a conviction worth the effort?

For my part, I wish the Senate would convene this afternoon, rush through some rule changes to allow a vote on conviction without needing the usual trappings of a trial, and actually vote him out, even with only a week left in office. However, that isn't going to happen, so is there a point in convicting him after his term ends? Seems like posturing to me. That's not horrible. Posturing isn't always a bad thing. It's just not something, at least in this case, that I can get all that excited about.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 14th January 2021, 08:05 AM

Trump reportedly "moped alone in 'self-pity mode'" while the impeachment was going on

That article links to something that has no doubt already been discussed in this thread, but which I'll post anyway just in case: McConnell is reportedly seriously considering convicting Trump in the Senate

Fast Eddie B · 14th January 2021, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

So there's a precedent, but is there a point? Is seeking a conviction worth the effort?

I think so.

Unlike last time, the Democrats can conduct a real trial with real evidence and testimony. Subpoena Giuliani and ask him what he meant by suggesting a “Trial by Combat”. Or who came up with the letter below and if the President ever approved of or made a speech trying to recruit a Trump Army for “fighting off the Liberal MOB”. Even asking what the camo color scheme was supposed to invoke.

It might just end up being a “Show Trial”, but I think both we as a people, and history, would benefit from the show. I know I would.

JoeMorgue · 14th January 2021, 08:12 AM

And like I said the last impeachment was too much political skullduggery involving things done for political gain which, sadly, far too many Americans have resigned themselves to the idea that "all politicians do it" so there was less emotional "oomph" from proving that Trump did it.

This is... not that.

alfaniner · 14th January 2021, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

I think so.

Unlike last time, the Democrats can conduct a real trial with real evidence and testimony. Subpoena Giuliani and ask him what he meant by suggesting a “Trial by Combat”. Or who came up with the letter below and if the President ever approved of or made a speech trying to recruit a Trump Army for “fighting off the Liberal MOB”. Even asking what the camo color scheme was supposed to invoke.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...c7d4ed8918.jpg

It might just end up being a “Show Trial”, but I think both we as a people, and history, would benefit from the show. I know I would.

Members of the Trump Army should be required to wear horns and face paint. Kind of like the KISS Army.

quadraginta · 14th January 2021, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Originally Posted by alfaniner

Good God, I really ******* hate Republicans.

I hate 90% of them. And I someone who has voted Republican, and am probably a moderate conservative on many iseues.

This is a sentiment I can get behind. (See my sig.)

But the circumstances are different now. At this juncture, having watched what Repugnicans have been willing to do and say over the past several years, and especially the past several months, what they have been willing to tolerate, much less condone, I have to take the default position that anyone who is willing to voluntarily assume membership in that group, to accept that label, is a vile, sexist, racist bigot. A sociopath with no sense of guilt, no ability to empathize, no redeemable human qualities whatsoever. Completely untrustworthy, duplicitous, reprehensible.

I' not sure what one of them could do to regain any foothold on respect, or even forgiveness, but it would have to be pretty impressive.

As far as I'm concerned the Republican brand has become little different from a swastika. If someone is willing to wear it then they get all the baggage it comes with.

quadraginta · 14th January 2021, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Sorry, but I do not believe that you are entirely correct.

While you are correct in what the US Constitution has to say about '2/3 of the Senators present'.

But it is my understanding that according to the rules of the Senate, that unless a senator has some terribly important reason for being absent, then all 100 of the senators must be present when the Senate is going through a Presidential impeachment trial.

As such, it will take at least 67 senators to convict Trump.

Judging by the sort of statements made and positions taken by Repugnican senators over the recent past, they could claim they have and urgent appointment to wash their cat, and not so much as crack a smile.

On the outrageous or implausible scale they have already established it wouldn't even nudge the needle.

quadraginta · 14th January 2021, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Pacal

232 Congressmen voted to Impeach Trump for a second time. Sadly 197 Republicans said nay. 5 Congressmen abstained.

I congratulate the 10 Republicans who voted for the Impeachment. Showing at least some real integrity.

What was very pathetic was the "arguments" put forth to excuse not voting for Impeachment. Whatever!!

There was one, which seemed to be a talking point of sorts since it was used by so many of them, that fascinated me because it seemed to depend on the general lack of understanding of just what impeachment meant.

They complained that the impeachment was flawed because there had been no trial. I'm sorry none of the Dems bothered to point out that impeachment was the step taken so that there could be a trial.

quadraginta · 14th January 2021, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Trump has become the most famous person to come from Queens ..except for Spiderman.

Don't forget Fran Fine.

quadraginta · 14th January 2021, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

So there's a precedent, but is there a point? Is seeking a conviction worth the effort?

For my part, I wish the Senate would convene this afternoon, rush through some rule changes to allow a vote on conviction without needing the usual trappings of a trial, and actually vote him out, even with only a week left in office. However, that isn't going to happen, so is there a point in convicting him after his term ends? Seems like posturing to me. That's not horrible. Posturing isn't always a bad thing. It's just not something, at least in this case, that I can get all that excited about.

A successful conviction would allow them to ban him from holding public office again.

That alone would be worth it.

sackett · 14th January 2021, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Judging by the sort of statements made and positions taken by Repugnican senators over the recent past, they could claim they have and urgent appointment to wash their cat, and not so much as crack a smile.

On the outrageous or implausible scale they have already established it wouldn't even nudge the needle.

And that's why, in this day and age (a 19th century expression), a rule change mandating real-time remote participation in debates of this gravity is necessary. God he knoweth it's feasible. Senator Grabpussy (R Woebegin) might orate sitting on his curile toilet and it wouldn't matter -- and it sure'n hell wouldn't let him hide from his stern duty.

"Hullo? Missus Senate Pres'dint? I cain't raise a signal out here in Gutpile. Reckon I won't be a votin' this time around."

"Fax your vote in, you clod!"

"Uh. Wull, I think the snow's jest 'bout to bury the phone pole, 'n --"

"Or forget next year's pork train for your godforsaken state."

"Aye! Nay! Swear me in! Cuss me out if yuh wanter! Anythang you say, Missus Senate Prez Ma'am Sir! (Scuse me while I shift m' quid. Dang near swallered it.)"

And so on at any length.

Delphic Oracle · 14th January 2021, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by sackett

And that's why, in this day and age (a 19th century expression), a rule change mandating real-time remote participation in debates of this gravity is necessary. God he knoweth it's feasible. Senator Grabpussy (R Woebegin) might orate sitting on his curile toilet and it wouldn't matter -- and it sure'n hell wouldn't let him hide from his stern duty.

"Hullo? Missus Senate Pres'dint? I cain't raise a signal out here in Gutpile. Reckon I won't be a votin' this time around."

"Fax your vote in, you clod!"

"Uh. Wull, I think the snow's jest 'bout to bury the phone pole, 'n --"

"Or forget next year's pork train for your godforsaken state."

"Aye! Nay! Swear me in! Cuss me out if yuh wanter! Anythang you say, Missus Senate Prez Ma'am Sir! (Scuse me while I shift m' quid. Dang near swallered it.)"

And so on at any length.

Or, as we saw yesterday, H. Res. 8 allows a member to report in votes from colleagues not in the chamber.

jimbob · 14th January 2021, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

I think so.

Unlike last time, the Democrats can conduct a real trial with real evidence and testimony. Subpoena Giuliani and ask him what he meant by suggesting a “Trial by Combat”. Or who came up with the letter below and if the President ever approved of or made a speech trying to recruit a Trump Army for “fighting off the Liberal MOB”. Even asking what the camo color scheme was supposed to invoke.

It might just end up being a “Show Trial”, but I think both we as a people, and history, would benefit from the show. I know I would.

Yup

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

And like I said the last impeachment was too much political skullduggery involving things done for political gain which, sadly, far too many Americans have resigned themselves to the idea that "all politicians do it" so there was less emotional "oomph" from proving that Trump did it.

This is... not that.

Exactly - it's the first step in determining the truth. And a *proper* impeachment that looks at evidence (Yes Mitch) is needed. In fact for the travesty of the Ukraine call too.

Originally Posted by quadraginta

There was one, which seemed to be a talking point of sorts since it was used by so many of them, that fascinated me because it seemed to depend on the general lack of understanding of just what impeachment meant.

They complained that the impeachment was flawed because there had been no trial. I'm sorry none of the Dems bothered to point out that impeachment was the step taken so that there could be a trial.

Exactly

Darat · 14th January 2021, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

I think so.

Unlike last time, the Democrats can conduct a real trial with real evidence and testimony. Subpoena Giuliani and ask him what he meant by suggesting a “Trial by Combat”. Or who came up with the letter below and if the President ever approved of or made a speech trying to recruit a Trump Army for “fighting off the Liberal MOB”. Even asking what the camo color scheme was supposed to invoke.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...c7d4ed8918.jpg

It might just end up being a “Show Trial”, but I think both we as a people, and history, would benefit from the show. I know I would.

Are you sure that is real?

Spektator · 14th January 2021, 11:31 AM

Huh. I just noticed that the votes for impeachment numbered 232. Same as Trump's Electoral votes, 232.

13th January 2021, 09:42 PM	#721
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,176	Originally Posted by sphenisc Technical question. Do they have to complete the process for the second impeachment before they start a third one? Does Trump want a younger, hotter third impeachment?
	__________________ www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun! Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.

13th January 2021, 09:53 PM	#722
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,453	Originally Posted by Firestone Trump statement: "In light of reports of more demonstrations, I urge that there must be NO violence, NO lawbreaking and NO vandalism of any kind. That is not what I stand for, and it is not what America stands for. I call on ALL Americans to help ease tensions and calm tempers. Thank You." Fits in a tweet, by the way. https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/13...869038594?s=19 Originally Posted by Stacyhs Anyone else think that wasn't Trump? Honestly, it's plausible that it actually is Trump, in his usual shiny object fashion. He's facing a rather massive financial backlash and... maybe even the end of the Trump brand. He's apparently been strongly advised that the damage will be much less in the long term if he actually does call for peace compared to if he doubles down on sedition. How long any such peace push lasts, of course, is anyone's guess. Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) just promised Newsmax to introduce articles of impeachment against Joe Biden on Jan. 21. Entirely predictable that there would be Republicans seeking to impeach Biden on any pretext. I suppose we'll see how many Republicans sign on to this doomed attempt and see how many of them are willing to present even more evidence of how inimical they are to the US. Originally Posted by Darat Oh I don’t know, she seems to have a sound grasp of republican politics! Yup.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

13th January 2021, 09:54 PM	#723
Regnad Kcin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: New York Posts: 10,240	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop To be impeached once may be regarded as a misfortune. To be impeached twice is a clear sign you’re a lying, corrupt, sociopathic fascist They say this impeachment, can you believe it? Never before seen. Never before. Historic, nobody’s ever been impeached twice. Give me a break. Oh, oh, oh, Trump is so bad. He’s so bad. He’s the worst. You look at these radical left Democrats, the biggest witch hunt in history. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it. So horrible what they’ve done, so horrible. Trump is so bad, let’s impeach him again. Crazy Nancy, she’s crazy you know. Says she prays for Trump. Give me a break. Such lies. Lies like you’ve never seen. Folks, there’s only one reason to impeach. Because I’m in there every day fighting for you. Fighting like nobody’s ever fought. And they can’t stand it. So terrible what they do. Terrible. So they impeach. Phony, phony lies they all make up. Trump did this, Trump did that. It’s a disgrace. Ooo, he’ll go down in history. He’s so bad. He’s so terrible. Impeach, impeach, impeach. But y’know what? I’m glad to go down in history. It makes me happy. Oh, oh sir, how can you say that? Aren’t you angry? Can you believe it? Me, a 92% approval? I said I’d drain the swamp, right? Am I right? I mean nobody’s ever fought so hard for you. And I wouldn’t let them take away your freedom or your second amendment or your stolen votes. Look, it is what it is. A perfect phone call, let’s impeach. A totally appropriate speech, let’s impeach. Fighting for you good people like nobody’s ever fought before, let’s impeach. They can’t stand it. But I won. Total landslide. Always remember. God bless America.
	__________________ My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie. Last edited by Regnad Kcin; 13th January 2021 at 09:56 PM.

13th January 2021, 10:26 PM	#725
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,128	Originally Posted by Aridas Honestly, it's plausible that it actually is Trump, in his usual shiny object fashion. He's facing a rather massive financial backlash and... maybe even the end of the Trump brand. He's apparently been strongly advised that the damage will be much less in the long term if he actually does call for peace compared to if he doubles down on sedition. How long any such peace push lasts, of course, is anyone's guess. it's crazy that someone needs to tell him that sedition is a pretty unpopular political position
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,128

13th January 2021, 11:53 PM	#727
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,545	Originally Posted by sackett There were no telegraph or railroads when the Constitution was written, and a senator might be absent for good reason: his horse foundered, or his keelboat grounded on a shoal, or he fell ill with the flux while mud-stuck on the Choctaw Trace. Nowadays, we have internet, and a senator could cast his vote while on a fact-finding mission in Ouled Nail or Tijuana or Bangkok (love that name, haw haw!), and it would be plumb legit. Dunno if the rules allow that, but why not? "Present" doesn't have to mean physically there anymore. THIS NOT THE 18TH. *******. CENTURY. The Senate rules require a senator to be physically present in order to vote. A quorum is is required for voting - described as a simple majority of elected senators. A majority of senators not required as a quorum is presumed unless an absence of a quorum is officially tabled. A fifth of the senate is required to support the tabling for a suggestion of absence of a quorum. A PDF of the rules as at March 26, 2020 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/96-452
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,545	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald Last edited by Agatha; 15th January 2021 at 05:49 AM. Reason: rule 10 in quote

13th January 2021, 11:29 PM	#726
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,012	Originally Posted by Horhang This makes me unsure there will be a trial. There is no precedent for this after he has left office. Impeachment trials are to remove someone from public office. As of Jan 20 he no longer holds public office. I think this will wind up in the courts before it goes before the Senate. There are two precedents: Quote: There is some historical precedent: The impeachments of Sen. William Blount in 1797 and Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 both occurred after the men were no longer in office.

14th January 2021, 12:17 AM	#728
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,982	Originally Posted by Aridas Honestly, it's plausible that it actually is Trump, in his usual shiny object fashion. He's facing a rather massive financial backlash and... maybe even the end of the Trump brand. He's apparently been strongly advised that the damage will be much less in the long term if he actually does call for peace compared to if he doubles down on sedition. How long any such peace push lasts, of course, is anyone's guess. Sure, but he'd still need someone else to write it for him. Originally Posted by Aridas Entirely predictable that there would be Republicans seeking to impeach Biden on any pretext. I suppose we'll see how many Republicans sign on to this doomed attempt and see how many of them are willing to present even more evidence of how inimical they are to the US. ... Not just doomed, but incredibly ignorant. It will be especially interesting after an extensive investigation of what happened Wed is carried out.

14th January 2021, 12:19 AM	#729
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 86,982	Originally Posted by Stacyhs There are two precedents: And McConnell knows full well when to switch horses.

14th January 2021, 12:35 AM	#730
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 18,012	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger And McConnell knows full well when to switch horses. McConnell is a crafty and well experienced devil. He knows exactly what he's doing.

14th January 2021, 12:42 AM	#731
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,314	Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin ... 92% approval? ... Within his family.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

14th January 2021, 01:49 AM	#732
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,368	Originally Posted by Aridas Entirely predictable that there would be Republicans seeking to impeach Biden on any pretext. Or, as it turns out, a complete absence of any logically possible pretext. Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

14th January 2021, 02:39 AM	#733
Firestone Proud Award Award recipient Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,997	From the Queens Daily Eagle: Queens man impeached — again Quote: A Queens-born real estate developer made history Wednesday when he became the first U.S. president ever impeached twice by the House of Representatives. Donald Trump, a 74-year-old lame duck Republican, is accused of inciting a lethal mob of far-right supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol in order to prevent Congress from certifying the results of his resounding loss in the November 2020 election. President-elect Joe Biden, a Democrat, recorded 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232. ... Ten Republican members of Congress joined the Democratic majority in voting to impeach the Jamaica Estates native for the second time. In December 2019, Trump became the third president impeached by Congress — and the first from Queens. Local press is the best.
	__________________ The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan

14th January 2021, 02:51 AM	#734
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 48,463	Originally Posted by acbytesla Well, the Republican party just tied itself to sedition and insurrection. They have defended the indefensible. This is all about messaging now. Something generally they are usually better at then the Democrats. Still, this is going to be a hard sell. I spent almost 30 years selling IT equipment and the one thing I can say is that it is one hell of a lot easier to sell quality then crap. Fortunately a large portion of their target consumers have been eating crap for a few years. A number of companies have done that, trading on a past reputation, but surely people eventually realise you're now selling crap?
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20

14th January 2021, 04:02 AM	#735
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 31,911	Of course, if he gets impeached for a third time he gets to keep the White House.

14th January 2021, 06:04 AM	#736
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 22,805	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Sure, but he'd still need someone else to write it for him. Not just doomed, but incredibly ignorant. It will be especially interesting after an extensive investigation of what happened Wed is carried out. This is the thing. When they're not being blocked, the investigations will make it very hard for people to pretend that, tonuse a phrase from what passes for a respectable Republican, he's "not a crook". And it's going to get through sufficient news bubbles that anyone standing by him will lose support.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

14th January 2021, 06:14 AM	#737
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,692	Originally Posted by Meadmaker That's something I find somewhat depressing. You can't convince me that there are no Democrats who think that impeaching him so close to the end of the term is a bad idea. You can't convince me that there are no more than 10 Republicans who consider him unfit to be the President, and who thinks it's important to at least make a statement to that effect. In other words, there's nothing inherently partisan about the question of removing him, and yet we get an almost perfect straight party line vote. You see there, right there, that's post-facts trying to sneak its way back into the conversation. If half a group says one thing and half a group says another, that doesn't always mean there's a valid disagreement. If I ask 50 biologist and 50 Southern Baptist is evolution is true, the fact that I already know that within a rounding error with almost all of the biologist are going say "Yes of course it is, you're an idiot for an asking, it's been hundreds of years why are we still arguing about this" and all the Southern Baptist are going to say "GET BEHIND ME SATAN!" that doesn't mean I have to furrow my brow and go "Well it has to be a partisan issue." Yes it is a partisan issue, in the sense that one party is factually correct and the other side is not. It's not a sign of "Partisan" as some sort of bias we have to worry about.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

14th January 2021, 06:20 AM	#738
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,334	Originally Posted by Stacyhs There are two precedents: I think there have been a couple of Federal Jusges alos who have been impeached after leaving ofiice.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. Last edited by dudalb; 14th January 2021 at 06:22 AM.

14th January 2021, 06:22 AM	#739
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,334	Originally Posted by Firestone From the Queens Daily Eagle: Queens man impeached — again Local press is the best. Trump has become the most famous person to come from Queens ..except for Spiderman.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

14th January 2021, 06:28 AM	#740
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,692	Originally Posted by dudalb I think there have been a couple of Federal Jusges alos who have been impeached after leaving ofiice. Also the impeachment process has started. It's like saying you should go free because the statue of limitations for your crime expired while you were awaiting trial but after you were arrested/arraigned/charged whatever. If the Democrats had just sat on their hands doing nothing and tried to impeach Trump 2 years from now then maybe, maybe there could be a valid discussion we could put on the table to at least talk about in regards to impeaching former Presidents. But not now.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate." Last edited by JoeMorgue; 14th January 2021 at 07:23 AM.

14th January 2021, 06:55 AM	#741
Fast Eddie B Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA Posts: 6,742	Quote: There is some historical precedent: The impeachments of Sen. William Blount in 1797 and Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 both occurred after the men were no longer in office. Rachel Maddow led off her show last night with a deep dive into the Belknap impeachment. Worth a watch.

14th January 2021, 07:17 AM	#742
slyjoe Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 2,561	Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B Rachel Maddow led off her show last night with a deep dive into the Belknap impeachment. Worth a watch. That's the Sec of War that resigned right before impeachment to avoid impeachment, right?
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

14th January 2021, 07:33 AM	#743
Horhang Scholar Join Date: Sep 2017 Posts: 104	Originally Posted by Stacyhs There are two precedents: Blount was expelled by the senate but still held the elected office. Belknap resigned his position to avoid impeachment. Not sure these will serve as precedent or prosecution after the term has expired.they are similar, but not the same.
Horhang Scholar Join Date: Sep 2017 Posts: 104

14th January 2021, 07:48 AM	#744
Fast Eddie B Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA Posts: 6,742	Originally Posted by slyjoe That's the Sec of War that resigned right before impeachment to avoid impeachment, right? Yep. And it didn’t work, establishing a precedent. Also included an interesting link with modern times by a distant relative.

14th January 2021, 07:51 AM	#745
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,692	And if I recall Congress had to choose to drop the impeachment against Nixon after he resigned, it didn't like just automatically happen.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

14th January 2021, 07:57 AM	#746
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,272	Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B Yep. And it didn’t work, establishing a precedent. So there's a precedent, but is there a point? Is seeking a conviction worth the effort? For my part, I wish the Senate would convene this afternoon, rush through some rule changes to allow a vote on conviction without needing the usual trappings of a trial, and actually vote him out, even with only a week left in office. However, that isn't going to happen, so is there a point in convicting him after his term ends? Seems like posturing to me. That's not horrible. Posturing isn't always a bad thing. It's just not something, at least in this case, that I can get all that excited about.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

14th January 2021, 08:05 AM	#747
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,252	Trump reportedly "moped alone in 'self-pity mode'" while the impeachment was going on That article links to something that has no doubt already been discussed in this thread, but which I'll post anyway just in case: McConnell is reportedly seriously considering convicting Trump in the Senate
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

14th January 2021, 08:08 AM	#748
Fast Eddie B Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA Posts: 6,742	Originally Posted by Meadmaker So there's a precedent, but is there a point? Is seeking a conviction worth the effort? I think so. Unlike last time, the Democrats can conduct a real trial with real evidence and testimony. Subpoena Giuliani and ask him what he meant by suggesting a “Trial by Combat”. Or who came up with the letter below and if the President ever approved of or made a speech trying to recruit a Trump Army for “fighting off the Liberal MOB”. Even asking what the camo color scheme was supposed to invoke. It might just end up being a “Show Trial”, but I think both we as a people, and history, would benefit from the show. I know I would.
	Last edited by Fast Eddie B; 14th January 2021 at 08:11 AM.

14th January 2021, 08:12 AM	#749
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,692	And like I said the last impeachment was too much political skullduggery involving things done for political gain which, sadly, far too many Americans have resigned themselves to the idea that "all politicians do it" so there was less emotional "oomph" from proving that Trump did it. This is... not that.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

14th January 2021, 09:27 AM	#750
alfaniner Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Sorth Dakonsin Posts: 24,888	Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B I think so. Unlike last time, the Democrats can conduct a real trial with real evidence and testimony. Subpoena Giuliani and ask him what he meant by suggesting a “Trial by Combat”. Or who came up with the letter below and if the President ever approved of or made a speech trying to recruit a Trump Army for “fighting off the Liberal MOB”. Even asking what the camo color scheme was supposed to invoke. https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...c7d4ed8918.jpg It might just end up being a “Show Trial”, but I think both we as a people, and history, would benefit from the show. I know I would. Members of the Trump Army should be required to wear horns and face paint. Kind of like the KISS Army.
	__________________ Science is self-correcting. Woo is self-contradicting.

14th January 2021, 09:35 AM	#751
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of) Posts: 26,177	Originally Posted by dudalb Originally Posted by alfaniner Good God, I really ******* hate Republicans. I hate 90% of them. And I someone who has voted Republican, and am probably a moderate conservative on many iseues. This is a sentiment I can get behind. (See my sig.) But the circumstances are different now. At this juncture, having watched what Repugnicans have been willing to do and say over the past several years, and especially the past several months, what they have been willing to tolerate, much less condone, I have to take the default position that anyone who is willing to voluntarily assume membership in that group, to accept that label, is a vile, sexist, racist bigot. A sociopath with no sense of guilt, no ability to empathize, no redeemable human qualities whatsoever. Completely untrustworthy, duplicitous, reprehensible. I' not sure what one of them could do to regain any foothold on respect, or even forgiveness, but it would have to be pretty impressive. As far as I'm concerned the Republican brand has become little different from a swastika. If someone is willing to wear it then they get all the baggage it comes with.
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

14th January 2021, 09:39 AM	#752
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of) Posts: 26,177	Originally Posted by Crossbow Sorry, but I do not believe that you are entirely correct. While you are correct in what the US Constitution has to say about '2/3 of the Senators present'. But it is my understanding that according to the rules of the Senate, that unless a senator has some terribly important reason for being absent, then all 100 of the senators must be present when the Senate is going through a Presidential impeachment trial. As such, it will take at least 67 senators to convict Trump. Judging by the sort of statements made and positions taken by Repugnican senators over the recent past, they could claim they have and urgent appointment to wash their cat, and not so much as crack a smile. On the outrageous or implausible scale they have already established it wouldn't even nudge the needle.
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

14th January 2021, 09:43 AM	#753
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of) Posts: 26,177	Originally Posted by Pacal 232 Congressmen voted to Impeach Trump for a second time. Sadly 197 Republicans said nay. 5 Congressmen abstained. I congratulate the 10 Republicans who voted for the Impeachment. Showing at least some real integrity. What was very pathetic was the "arguments" put forth to excuse not voting for Impeachment. Whatever!! There was one, which seemed to be a talking point of sorts since it was used by so many of them, that fascinated me because it seemed to depend on the general lack of understanding of just what impeachment meant. They complained that the impeachment was flawed because there had been no trial. I'm sorry none of the Dems bothered to point out that impeachment was the step taken so that there could be a trial.
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

14th January 2021, 09:44 AM	#754
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of) Posts: 26,177	Originally Posted by dudalb Trump has become the most famous person to come from Queens ..except for Spiderman. Don't forget Fran Fine.
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

14th January 2021, 09:46 AM	#755
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of) Posts: 26,177	Originally Posted by Meadmaker So there's a precedent, but is there a point? Is seeking a conviction worth the effort? For my part, I wish the Senate would convene this afternoon, rush through some rule changes to allow a vote on conviction without needing the usual trappings of a trial, and actually vote him out, even with only a week left in office. However, that isn't going to happen, so is there a point in convicting him after his term ends? Seems like posturing to me. That's not horrible. Posturing isn't always a bad thing. It's just not something, at least in this case, that I can get all that excited about. A successful conviction would allow them to ban him from holding public office again. That alone would be worth it.
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

14th January 2021, 10:25 AM	#756
sackett Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 6,382	Originally Posted by quadraginta Judging by the sort of statements made and positions taken by Repugnican senators over the recent past, they could claim they have and urgent appointment to wash their cat, and not so much as crack a smile. On the outrageous or implausible scale they have already established it wouldn't even nudge the needle. And that's why, in this day and age (a 19th century expression), a rule change mandating real-time remote participation in debates of this gravity is necessary. God he knoweth it's feasible. Senator Grabpussy (R Woebegin) might orate sitting on his curile toilet and it wouldn't matter -- and it sure'n hell wouldn't let him hide from his stern duty. "Hullo? Missus Senate Pres'dint? I cain't raise a signal out here in Gutpile. Reckon I won't be a votin' this time around." "Fax your vote in, you clod!" "Uh. Wull, I think the snow's jest 'bout to bury the phone pole, 'n --" "Or forget next year's pork train for your godforsaken state." "Aye! Nay! Swear me in! Cuss me out if yuh wanter! Anythang you say, Missus Senate Prez Ma'am Sir! (Scuse me while I shift m' quid. Dang near swallered it.)" And so on at any length.
	__________________ If you would learn a man's character, give him authority. If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.