[Split Thread] A second impeachment - Page 21

Norman Alexander · 14th January 2021, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

I would assume that Trump could invoke the fifth amendment and choose not to appear or testify.

Only crooks invoke the Fifth.

Or so I've been told.

dudalb · 14th January 2021, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by dasmiller

You know, the Air Force is developing a target drone, and I'm sure it'll need a name. Historically, the target drones were often orange . . .

USAF was using a primitive version of a Target Drone as far back as World War 2, when it was still the Army Air FOrce.

Minoosh · 14th January 2021, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

I wonder if The PDJT will have to actually testify this time? I know he didn't the first time around. If he has to swear to tell the truth, he's done for.

"I swear to tell the t-t-r-r-u ... excuse me, what is this word?"

Minoosh · 14th January 2021, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Only crooks invoke the Fifth.

Or so I've been told.

Who the hell is even representing him at this point? Maybe Sidney, or someone equally insane.

But then, as long as Trump has his 12 percent or whatever there will be mentally ill Americans donating their disability checks.

Norman Alexander · 14th January 2021, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Who the hell is even representing him at this point? Maybe Sidney, or someone equally insane.

But then, as long as Trump has his 12 percent or whatever there will be mentally ill Americans donating their disability checks.

There you have it. That's all he is in this for. As soon as this dries up or gets cut off, he will forget this ever happened and try to be off to his next grifty adventure.

angrysoba · 14th January 2021, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Who the hell is even representing him at this point?

He should represent himself. I am sure he knows more about the law than anyone else. I'll bet he's the most lawyerly legal lawyer anyone has ever heard of. Alan Dershowitz said to him, "Sir, how do you know so much about the law? More than me!" He had an uncle who was a lawyer for longer than anyone else, in New York Law School of Law, etc...

Stacyhs · 14th January 2021, 04:56 PM

I've heard Lionel Hutz is in negotiations with Trump but he's concerned his reputation may take a hit if he represents the ex-prez.

JoeMorgue · 14th January 2021, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I've heard Lionel Hutz is in negotiations with Trump but he's concerned his reputation may take a hit if he represents the ex-prez.

Hutz would never work with Trump without being paid upfront.

Segnosaur · 14th January 2021, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Who the hell is even representing him at this point? Maybe Sidney, or someone equally insane.

Matlock!

(Fits in well with the demographics of the republican voter.)

Stacyhs · 14th January 2021, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Hutz would never work with Trump without being paid upfront.

Well, that lets him out then.

The Great Zaganza · 14th January 2021, 07:25 PM

Nvm, already answered.

johnny karate · 14th January 2021, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Hutz would never work with Trump without being paid upfront.

“Works on contingency? No, money down!”

Susheel · 14th January 2021, 10:58 PM

Looks like turtle face McConnell is having second thoughts about his own role in the senate impeachment proceedings. But then, I guess this was to be expected.

Segnosaur · 14th January 2021, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by Susheel

Looks like turtle face McConnell is having second thoughts about his own role in the senate impeachment proceedings. But then, I guess this was to be expected.

What makes you think that? Because he won't agree to start the impeachment proceedings before next week?

I think it was always going to be that way. Despite any resentment Moscow Mitch might have towards Trump, his main interest is gaining power. Its hard to know exactly what his long-term plan is, but to me it makes sense that he wants to delay the senate proceedings so that it interferes with Biden's attempts to get cabinet members confirmed. Or maybe he thinks he can somehow 'embarrass' the democrats because people might accuse them of wasting time impeaching someone who is no longer in power.

Susheel · 15th January 2021, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

What makes you think that? Because he won't agree to start the impeachment proceedings before next week?

I received a news feed on the lines that Mitch is saying that he isn't "currently sufficently convinced" that Trump should be impeached.

Aridas · 15th January 2021, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

What makes you think that? Because he won't agree to start the impeachment proceedings before next week?

I think it was always going to be that way. Despite any resentment Moscow Mitch might have towards Trump, his main interest is gaining power. Its hard to know exactly what his long-term plan is, but to me it makes sense that he wants to delay the senate proceedings so that it interferes with Biden's attempts to get cabinet members confirmed. Or maybe he thinks he can somehow 'embarrass' the democrats because people might accuse them of wasting time impeaching someone who is no longer in power.

To poke at one of his main strategies in general - it's to make Democrats look weak and ineffective, frequently with the added bonus of making Republicans look powerful because they can successfully stop the Democrats. That's also a part of a larger strategy of sabotaging trust in the government in general, which tends be seen as significantly benefiting Republican politicians and their rich and powerful right-wing backers. It's toxic, but it looks like it's been effective.

With that in mind, I would have been quite shocked if McConnell didn't delay it. And am glad that it was sent to the Senate immediately, rather than waiting until after the first 100 days to prevent that BS.

dudalb · 15th January 2021, 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Who the hell is even representing him at this point? Maybe Sidney, or someone equally insane.

But then, as long as Trump has his 12 percent or whatever there will be mentally ill Americans donating their disability checks.

DOes not matter how much money Trump has;his reputation for stiffing his lawyers and cheating them out of their fees guarantees no really good lawyer will represent hivm. Good Lawyers like to be paid.
And Trump's stiffing of Giuliani just confrimed his reputation in that regard.

Stacyhs · 15th January 2021, 12:28 AM

I still stay waiting until the new Senate is seated makes more sense as it will take only 17 GOP senators instead of 19 to vote to convict.

Susheel · 15th January 2021, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I still stay waiting until the new Senate is seated makes more sense as it will take only 17 GOP senators instead of 19 to vote to convict.

Yeah...but I bet there will be a new narrative then.
"He is already out."
"You can't impeach someone who is no longer in office."
"Now you libtards are just being vindictive."

What aspects of the Republican behavior so far has ever suggested to you that the Republicans will act in good faith?

Aridas · 15th January 2021, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I still stay waiting until the new Senate is seated makes more sense as it will take only 17 GOP senators instead of 19 to vote to convict.

I remain distinctly pessimistic that anywhere close to 17 of the GOP senators will vote to convict, no matter how obviously Trump's guilt could be demonstrated and the need to impeach for the good of the country demonstrated, even with Trump no longer the President. 4-5 is more likely of an at best number, I think. That could possibly change based on the totality of criminal charges that could be brought against him, though.

dirtywick · 15th January 2021, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by Aridas

I remain distinctly pessimistic that anywhere close to 17 of the GOP senators will vote to convict, no matter how obviously Trump's guilt could be demonstrated and the need to impeach for the good of the country demonstrated, even with Trump no longer the President. 4-5 is more likely of an at best number, I think. That could possibly change based on the totality of criminal charges that could be brought against him, though.

i don't, there's several that have publicly stated their intent to impeach, several that are retiring, several he's insulted repeatedly and publicly, several that are his enemies, and several that had their win margins shrink.

and idk how many of them want trump playing kingmaker from the sidelines

Delvo · 15th January 2021, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by Susheel

What aspects of the Republican behavior so far has ever suggested to you that the Republicans will act in good faith?

They don't need to act in good faith. They just need to act on the fact that most of them have wanted him out of their way all along.

Aridas · 15th January 2021, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by dirtywick

i don't, there's several that have publicly stated their intent to impeach, several that are retiring, several he's insulted repeatedly and publicly, several that are his enemies, and several that had their win margins shrink.

and idk how many of them want trump playing kingmaker from the sidelines

I'd be quite happy to have my pessimism shown to be misplaced, for the record.

The Don · 15th January 2021, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

I wonder if The PDJT will have to actually testify this time? I know he didn't the first time around. If he has to swear to tell the truth, he's done for.

He could also avoid perjury by "not recalling" things where telling the truth would be damning (despite having the GMOAT

).

The Don · 15th January 2021, 02:13 AM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I still stay waiting until the new Senate is seated makes more sense as it will take only 17 GOP senators instead of 19 to vote to convict.

This gets easier if some GOP Senators find themselves unable to attend the Senate trial. That way they don't have to vote either way but they do get to claim that they would have voted whichever way is more expedient for the audience they have.

IMO one or two may be prepared to vote to convict but the Collinses of this world can continue to be fence-sitters by failing to attend.

Stacyhs · 15th January 2021, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by Susheel

Yeah...but I bet there will be a new narrative then.
"He is already out."
"You can't impeach someone who is no longer in office."
"Now you libtards are just being vindictive."

What aspects of the Republican behavior so far has ever suggested to you that the Republicans will act in good faith?

It doesn't matter when it takes place because their narrative won't be in good faith no matter what so taking place when we start out 2 votes ahead only makes good sense. Or do you disagree with that?

Susheel · 15th January 2021, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

It doesn't matter when it takes place because their narrative won't be in good faith no matter what so taking place when we start out 2 votes ahead only makes good sense. Or do you disagree with that?

Oh...it is good, for whatever value of "good" you choose to apply. However, I am not American nor am I very clear on its constitution, but doesn't something like impeachment (whether sitting or not) require a 2/3rds majority?

Norman Alexander · 15th January 2021, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by Susheel

Oh...it is good, for whatever value of "good" you choose to apply. However, I am not American nor am I very clear on its constitution, but doesn't something like impeachment (whether sitting or not) require a 2/3rds majority?

2/3 majority of members present. There are plenty of calculations in online discussions to carry the conviction which are a balance of two variables: how many Republican senators have to be "not present", and how many who will make good on their vow to vote to convict. It can probably be expressed in a formula (but I could not be bothered).

ETA: Yes I could. It's an inequality: (50 + GOP-senators-voting-to-convict) / (100 - GOP-senators-absent) > 0.6667

metacristi · 15th January 2021, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

Of course his speech itself is not "insurrection". The question is: is it "incitement".

Proving intent IS the hard part. But impeachment is not a legal process, it's a political one. So forget about arguing legality.

So were Trump's actions as well. Political in nature (in spite of his unsupported conspirational theory). The solution here is definitely not to apply the 'progressive' tactics of restraining free speech, 'diluting' ad infinitum what means to be 'racist' and saying at most half the truth (for he definitely does not invite people to violence, this reminds me of the mad accusations that Breivik was the result of criticism of islam, be it unsupported). It does matter how they try to eliminate Trump (no matter if you do not agree overall with Trump's actions), as I said if they succeed to 'cancel' him using this 'progressive' tactics then basically anyone can be a victim in the future. Punishing Trump should not become the impeachment of free speech.

Agatha · 15th January 2021, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

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”

Apparently, he was referring to a very famous documentary about fictional mediaeval England, and he thinks Bronn and Prince Oberyn Martell were machines. He thinks that the trials involved inspecting the machines.

No, I'm not inventing this.

https://twitter.com/Brett_Samuels27/...354355712?s=20

turingtest · 15th January 2021, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by metacristi

So were Trump's actions as well. Political in nature (in spite of his unsupported conspirational theory). The solution here is definitely not to apply the 'progressive' tactics of restraining free speech, 'diluting' ad infinitum what means to be 'racist' and saying at most half the truth (for he definitely does not invite people to violence, this reminds me of the mad accusations that Breivik was the result of criticism of islam, be it unsupported). It does matter how they try to eliminate Trump (no matter if you do not agree overall with Trump's actions), as I said if they succeed to 'cancel' him using this 'progressive' tactics then basically anyone can be a victim in the future. Punishing Trump should not become the impeachment of free speech.

It's no "impeachment of free speech" to say that free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without any regard to consequences. In Trump's case, he gave no thought at all to what effect his speech, in context, might have beyond how he hoped it might benefit him politically. In a US president, that kind of unbalanced approach fits pretty well the political definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," since what might not need sanction for somebody in a lesser position is kind of what the provision is for in the case of a greater one. So, no- anyone in the future is not going to be a victim, only the ones in a position like Trump's who might need the example.

Fast Eddie B · 15th January 2021, 07:06 AM

I have voiced my opinion that the impeachment trial should proceed to the Senate, if only for the presenting of evidence and testimony that it would reveal.

This just popped up on Twitter, and I like the sentiment:

Dave Rogers · 15th January 2021, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by metacristi

It does matter how they try to eliminate Trump (no matter if you do not agree overall with Trump's actions), as I said if they succeed to 'cancel' him using this 'progressive' tactics then basically anyone can be a victim in the future.

I like the idea that something written into the US Constitution is too 'progressive' to be used in 2021. And I like the implied suggestion that 'basically anyone' could be impeached and removed from the presidency on the grounds that they incited an insurrection. This is good satirical comedy, keep it up.

Dave

pgwenthold · 15th January 2021, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Make no mistake, “heal the nation” means “appease Republicans” and nothing else.

(I know this is late)

In fact, the republicans could go a long way to "healing the nation" by coming out with a strong (and honest) statement that

1) There is no evidence of significant voter fraud,
2) They acknowledge that the election was not stolen
3) Biden is the duly elected president,
4) Legitimately chosen by a majority of voters in the US and by the electoral college, and
5) Those who continue to fight the outcome of the election are trying to subvert democracy and harming the country

It's really not that hard.

Meadmaker · 15th January 2021, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

I have voiced my opinion that the impeachment trial should proceed to the Senate, if only for the presenting of evidence and testimony that it would reveal.

This just popped up on Twitter, and I like the sentiment:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...81c9b719cc.jpg

I decided to read Federalist 65 to see what it actually had to say.

Those guys were smart. What the heck is wrong with us today that we can't elect people capable of writing like that? Joe Biden couldn't write like that. Barack Obama might be able to, but he probably wouldn't get elected if he did. And Donald Trump? Uhhh....yeah.

But having read Federalist 65, I think Alexander Hamilton would agree that the trial should proceed even if Trump has left office.

Meadmaker · 15th January 2021, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

(I know this is late)

In fact, the republicans could go a long way to "healing the nation" by coming out with a strong (and honest) statement that

1) There is no evidence of significant voter fraud,
2) They acknowledge that the election was not stolen
3) Biden is the duly elected president,
4) Legitimately chosen by a majority of voters in the US and by the electoral college, and
5) Those who continue to fight the outcome of the election are trying to subvert democracy and harming the country

It's really not that hard.

Amen.

To be fair, Mitch McConnell pretty much did that, before the Senate adjourned due to an angry mob attempting to break through the doors.

Darat · 15th January 2021, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

I have voiced my opinion that the impeachment trial should proceed to the Senate, if only for the presenting of evidence and testimony that it would reveal.

This just popped up on Twitter, and I like the sentiment:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...81c9b719cc.jpg

Sadly that summarises the failings of the USA’s governance that has been brought into sharp relief over that last 4 years.

The USA system was conceived largely by a group of men who assumed that all right thinking folk would act with (to use a very old fashioned word) personal honour and wouldn’t undertake bad-faith actions because of a sense of personal shame and responsibility to others.

When folk without those personal restraints become powerful the “checks and balance” system fails.

Darat · 15th January 2021, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I decided to read Federalist 65 to see what it actually had to say.

Those guys were smart. ..snip....

Yep us fellow Brits knew how to breed them back then.

Seriously yes there was a coalescence of public minded intellectuals around that time all feeding a political change, and it wasn’t confined to the British, it was happening in France and other European countries.

Since we haven’t got any dumber since then I would say it was the culture and societies that enabled them to flourish.

Meadmaker · 15th January 2021, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Sadly that summarises the failings of the USA’s governance that has been brought into sharp relief over that last 4 years.

The USA system was conceived largely by a group of men who assumed that all right thinking folk would act with (to use a very old fashioned word) personal honour and wouldn’t undertake bad-faith actions because of a sense of personal shame.

When folk without those personal restraints become powerful the “checks and balance” system fails.

Actually, I was surprised when I read Federalist 65. In fact, Hamilton said they probably wouldn't act all that nobly.

"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt,"

So, he wasn't under any illusions, but he gave good reasons why the Senate as the place for an impeachment trial was the best they could do.

Darat · 15th January 2021, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Actually, I was surprised when I read Federalist 65. In fact, Hamilton said they probably wouldn't act all that nobly.

"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt,"

So, he wasn't under any illusions, but he gave good reasons why the Senate as the place for an impeachment trial was the best they could do.

Yes but these were considered in today’s parlance “edge” cases and they are if you like the nuclear option. Not the regular checks and balances of a system.

14th January 2021, 03:35 PM	#801
Norman Alexander Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Gundungurra Posts: 8,738	Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B I would assume that Trump could invoke the fifth amendment and choose not to appear or testify. Only crooks invoke the Fifth. Or so I've been told.
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

14th January 2021, 03:38 PM	#802
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,310	Originally Posted by dasmiller You know, the Air Force is developing a target drone, and I'm sure it'll need a name. Historically, the target drones were often orange . . . USAF was using a primitive version of a Target Drone as far back as World War 2, when it was still the Army Air FOrce.
	__________________ 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, 04:24 PM	#805
Norman Alexander Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Gundungurra Posts: 8,738	Originally Posted by Minoosh Who the hell is even representing him at this point? Maybe Sidney, or someone equally insane. But then, as long as Trump has his 12 percent or whatever there will be mentally ill Americans donating their disability checks. There you have it. That's all he is in this for. As soon as this dries up or gets cut off, he will forget this ever happened and try to be off to his next grifty adventure.
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

14th January 2021, 04:44 PM	#806
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,306	Originally Posted by Minoosh Who the hell is even representing him at this point? He should represent himself. I am sure he knows more about the law than anyone else. I'll bet he's the most lawyerly legal lawyer anyone has ever heard of. Alan Dershowitz said to him, "Sir, how do you know so much about the law? More than me!" He had an uncle who was a lawyer for longer than anyone else, in New York Law School of Law, etc...
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

14th January 2021, 06:46 PM	#808
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,568	Originally Posted by Stacyhs I've heard Lionel Hutz is in negotiations with Trump but he's concerned his reputation may take a hit if he represents the ex-prez. Hutz would never work with Trump without being paid upfront.
	__________________ 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, 03:40 PM	#803
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,227	Originally Posted by alfaniner I wonder if The PDJT will have to actually testify this time? I know he didn't the first time around. If he has to swear to tell the truth, he's done for. "I swear to tell the t-t-r-r-u ... excuse me, what is this word?"

14th January 2021, 03:45 PM	#804
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,227	Originally Posted by Norman Alexander Only crooks invoke the Fifth. Or so I've been told. Who the hell is even representing him at this point? Maybe Sidney, or someone equally insane. But then, as long as Trump has his 12 percent or whatever there will be mentally ill Americans donating their disability checks.

14th January 2021, 04:56 PM	#807
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 17,977	I've heard Lionel Hutz is in negotiations with Trump but he's concerned his reputation may take a hit if he represents the ex-prez.

14th January 2021, 07:02 PM	#809
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 17,096	Originally Posted by Minoosh Who the hell is even representing him at this point? Maybe Sidney, or someone equally insane. Matlock! (Fits in well with the demographics of the republican voter.)
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

14th January 2021, 07:08 PM	#810
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 17,977	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Hutz would never work with Trump without being paid upfront. Well, that lets him out then.

14th January 2021, 07:25 PM	#811
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,614	Nvm, already answered.
	__________________ So what are you going to do about it, huh? What would an intellectual do? What would Plato do?

14th January 2021, 08:17 PM	#812
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 14,374	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Hutz would never work with Trump without being paid upfront. “Works on contingency? No, money down!”

14th January 2021, 10:58 PM	#813
Susheel Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Hyderabad, India Posts: 1,755	Looks like turtle face McConnell is having second thoughts about his own role in the senate impeachment proceedings. But then, I guess this was to be expected.
	__________________ I've got to get to a library...fast Robert Langdon

14th January 2021, 11:59 PM	#814
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 17,096	Originally Posted by Susheel Looks like turtle face McConnell is having second thoughts about his own role in the senate impeachment proceedings. But then, I guess this was to be expected. What makes you think that? Because he won't agree to start the impeachment proceedings before next week? I think it was always going to be that way. Despite any resentment Moscow Mitch might have towards Trump, his main interest is gaining power. Its hard to know exactly what his long-term plan is, but to me it makes sense that he wants to delay the senate proceedings so that it interferes with Biden's attempts to get cabinet members confirmed. Or maybe he thinks he can somehow 'embarrass' the democrats because people might accuse them of wasting time impeaching someone who is no longer in power.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

15th January 2021, 12:08 AM	#815
Susheel Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Hyderabad, India Posts: 1,755	Originally Posted by Segnosaur What makes you think that? Because he won't agree to start the impeachment proceedings before next week? I received a news feed on the lines that Mitch is saying that he isn't "currently sufficently convinced" that Trump should be impeached.
	__________________ I've got to get to a library...fast Robert Langdon

15th January 2021, 12:09 AM	#816
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,438	Originally Posted by Segnosaur What makes you think that? Because he won't agree to start the impeachment proceedings before next week? I think it was always going to be that way. Despite any resentment Moscow Mitch might have towards Trump, his main interest is gaining power. Its hard to know exactly what his long-term plan is, but to me it makes sense that he wants to delay the senate proceedings so that it interferes with Biden's attempts to get cabinet members confirmed. Or maybe he thinks he can somehow 'embarrass' the democrats because people might accuse them of wasting time impeaching someone who is no longer in power. To poke at one of his main strategies in general - it's to make Democrats look weak and ineffective, frequently with the added bonus of making Republicans look powerful because they can successfully stop the Democrats. That's also a part of a larger strategy of sabotaging trust in the government in general, which tends be seen as significantly benefiting Republican politicians and their rich and powerful right-wing backers. It's toxic, but it looks like it's been effective. With that in mind, I would have been quite shocked if McConnell didn't delay it. And am glad that it was sent to the Senate immediately, rather than waiting until after the first 100 days to prevent that BS.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon. Last edited by Aridas; 15th January 2021 at 12:13 AM.

15th January 2021, 12:17 AM	#817
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,310	Originally Posted by Minoosh Who the hell is even representing him at this point? Maybe Sidney, or someone equally insane. But then, as long as Trump has his 12 percent or whatever there will be mentally ill Americans donating their disability checks. DOes not matter how much money Trump has;his reputation for stiffing his lawyers and cheating them out of their fees guarantees no really good lawyer will represent hivm. Good Lawyers like to be paid. And Trump's stiffing of Giuliani just confrimed his reputation in that regard.
	__________________ 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.

15th January 2021, 12:28 AM	#818
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 17,977	I still stay waiting until the new Senate is seated makes more sense as it will take only 17 GOP senators instead of 19 to vote to convict.

15th January 2021, 12:41 AM	#819
Susheel Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Hyderabad, India Posts: 1,755	Originally Posted by Stacyhs I still stay waiting until the new Senate is seated makes more sense as it will take only 17 GOP senators instead of 19 to vote to convict. Yeah...but I bet there will be a new narrative then. "He is already out." "You can't impeach someone who is no longer in office." "Now you libtards are just being vindictive." What aspects of the Republican behavior so far has ever suggested to you that the Republicans will act in good faith?
	__________________ I've got to get to a library...fast Robert Langdon

15th January 2021, 12:42 AM	#820
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,438	Originally Posted by Stacyhs I still stay waiting until the new Senate is seated makes more sense as it will take only 17 GOP senators instead of 19 to vote to convict. I remain distinctly pessimistic that anywhere close to 17 of the GOP senators will vote to convict, no matter how obviously Trump's guilt could be demonstrated and the need to impeach for the good of the country demonstrated, even with Trump no longer the President. 4-5 is more likely of an at best number, I think. That could possibly change based on the totality of criminal charges that could be brought against him, though.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

15th January 2021, 12:57 AM	#821
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,090	Originally Posted by Aridas I remain distinctly pessimistic that anywhere close to 17 of the GOP senators will vote to convict, no matter how obviously Trump's guilt could be demonstrated and the need to impeach for the good of the country demonstrated, even with Trump no longer the President. 4-5 is more likely of an at best number, I think. That could possibly change based on the totality of criminal charges that could be brought against him, though. i don't, there's several that have publicly stated their intent to impeach, several that are retiring, several he's insulted repeatedly and publicly, several that are his enemies, and several that had their win margins shrink. and idk how many of them want trump playing kingmaker from the sidelines
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,090

15th January 2021, 12:58 AM	#822
Delvo Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: North Tonawanda, NY Posts: 9,279	Originally Posted by Susheel What aspects of the Republican behavior so far has ever suggested to you that the Republicans will act in good faith? They don't need to act in good faith. They just need to act on the fact that most of them have wanted him out of their way all along.

15th January 2021, 01:00 AM	#823
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,438	Originally Posted by dirtywick i don't, there's several that have publicly stated their intent to impeach, several that are retiring, several he's insulted repeatedly and publicly, several that are his enemies, and several that had their win margins shrink. and idk how many of them want trump playing kingmaker from the sidelines I'd be quite happy to have my pessimism shown to be misplaced, for the record.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

15th January 2021, 02:09 AM	#824
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 31,325	Originally Posted by alfaniner I wonder if The PDJT will have to actually testify this time? I know he didn't the first time around. If he has to swear to tell the truth, he's done for. He could also avoid perjury by "not recalling" things where telling the truth would be damning (despite having the GMOAT ).

15th January 2021, 02:13 AM	#825
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 31,325	Originally Posted by Stacyhs I still stay waiting until the new Senate is seated makes more sense as it will take only 17 GOP senators instead of 19 to vote to convict. This gets easier if some GOP Senators find themselves unable to attend the Senate trial. That way they don't have to vote either way but they do get to claim that they would have voted whichever way is more expedient for the audience they have. IMO one or two may be prepared to vote to convict but the Collinses of this world can continue to be fence-sitters by failing to attend.

15th January 2021, 02:15 AM	#826
Stacyhs Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: United States Posts: 17,977	Originally Posted by Susheel Yeah...but I bet there will be a new narrative then. "He is already out." "You can't impeach someone who is no longer in office." "Now you libtards are just being vindictive." What aspects of the Republican behavior so far has ever suggested to you that the Republicans will act in good faith? It doesn't matter when it takes place because their narrative won't be in good faith no matter what so taking place when we start out 2 votes ahead only makes good sense. Or do you disagree with that?

15th January 2021, 02:22 AM	#827
Susheel Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Hyderabad, India Posts: 1,755	Originally Posted by Stacyhs It doesn't matter when it takes place because their narrative won't be in good faith no matter what so taking place when we start out 2 votes ahead only makes good sense. Or do you disagree with that? Oh...it is good, for whatever value of "good" you choose to apply. However, I am not American nor am I very clear on its constitution, but doesn't something like impeachment (whether sitting or not) require a 2/3rds majority?
	__________________ I've got to get to a library...fast Robert Langdon

15th January 2021, 04:29 AM	#828
Norman Alexander Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Gundungurra Posts: 8,738	Originally Posted by Susheel Oh...it is good, for whatever value of "good" you choose to apply. However, I am not American nor am I very clear on its constitution, but doesn't something like impeachment (whether sitting or not) require a 2/3rds majority? 2/3 majority *of members present*. There are plenty of calculations in online discussions to carry the conviction which are a balance of two variables: how many Republican senators have to be "not present", and how many who will make good on their vow to vote to convict. It can probably be expressed in a formula (but I could not be bothered). ETA: Yes I could. It's an inequality: (50 + GOP-senators-voting-to-convict) / (100 - GOP-senators-absent) > 0.6667
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015} Last edited by Norman Alexander; 15th January 2021 at 05:01 AM.

15th January 2021, 05:49 AM	#829
metacristi Muse Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 755	Originally Posted by slyjoe Of course his speech itself is not "insurrection". The question is: is it "incitement". Proving intent IS the hard part. But impeachment is not a legal process, it's a political one. So forget about arguing legality. So were Trump's actions as well. Political in nature (in spite of his unsupported conspirational theory). The solution here is definitely not to apply the 'progressive' tactics of restraining free speech, 'diluting' ad infinitum what means to be 'racist' and saying at most half the truth (for he definitely does not invite people to violence, this reminds me of the mad accusations that Breivik was the result of criticism of islam, be it unsupported). It does matter how they try to eliminate Trump (no matter if you do not agree overall with Trump's actions), as I said if they succeed to 'cancel' him using this 'progressive' tactics then basically anyone can be a victim in the future. Punishing Trump should not become the impeachment of free speech.
metacristi Muse Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 755	__________________ “It is often said that knowledge is power, but it might be more correct to say that [critical] thinking is power.” ibn Warraq - Why I am not a Muslim Knight Tube: Brendan O'Neill on identity politics Last edited by metacristi; 15th January 2021 at 05:50 AM.

15th January 2021, 06:36 AM	#830
Agatha Winking at the Moon Deputy Admin Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 14,062	Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B 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” Apparently, he was referring to a very famous documentary about fictional mediaeval England, and he thinks Bronn and Prince Oberyn Martell were machines. He thinks that the trials involved inspecting the machines. No, I'm not inventing this. https://twitter.com/Brett_Samuels27/...354355712?s=20
	__________________ Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader

15th January 2021, 06:55 AM	#831
turingtest Mistral, mistral wind... Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by metacristi So were Trump's actions as well. Political in nature (in spite of his unsupported conspirational theory). The solution here is definitely not to apply the 'progressive' tactics of restraining free speech, 'diluting' ad infinitum what means to be 'racist' and saying at most half the truth (for he definitely does not invite people to violence, this reminds me of the mad accusations that Breivik was the result of criticism of islam, be it unsupported). It does matter how they try to eliminate Trump (no matter if you do not agree overall with Trump's actions), as I said if they succeed to 'cancel' him using this 'progressive' tactics then basically anyone can be a victim in the future. Punishing Trump should not become the impeachment of free speech. It's no "impeachment of free speech" to say that free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without any regard to consequences. In Trump's case, he gave no thought at all to what effect his speech, in context, might have beyond how he hoped it might benefit him politically. In a US president, that kind of unbalanced approach fits pretty well the political definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," since what might not need sanction for somebody in a lesser position is kind of what the provision is for in the case of a greater one. So, no- anyone in the future is not going to be a victim, only the ones in a position like Trump's who might need the example.
	__________________ I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King Last edited by turingtest; 15th January 2021 at 07:23 AM. Reason: clarify

15th January 2021, 07:06 AM	#832
Fast Eddie B Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA Posts: 6,729	I have voiced my opinion that the impeachment trial should proceed to the Senate, if only for the presenting of evidence and testimony that it would reveal. This just popped up on Twitter, and I like the sentiment:

15th January 2021, 07:16 AM	#833
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: 32,360	Originally Posted by metacristi It does matter how they try to eliminate Trump (no matter if you do not agree overall with Trump's actions), as I said if they succeed to 'cancel' him using this 'progressive' tactics then basically anyone can be a victim in the future. I like the idea that something written into the US Constitution is too 'progressive' to be used in 2021. And I like the implied suggestion that 'basically anyone' could be impeached and removed from the presidency on the grounds that they incited an insurrection. This is good satirical comedy, keep it up. Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

15th January 2021, 07:17 AM	#834
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,129	Originally Posted by johnny karate Make no mistake, “heal the nation” means “appease Republicans” and nothing else. (I know this is late) In fact, the republicans could go a long way to "healing the nation" by coming out with a strong (and honest) statement that 1) There is no evidence of significant voter fraud, 2) They acknowledge that the election was not stolen 3) Biden is the duly elected president, 4) Legitimately chosen by a majority of voters in the US and by the electoral college, and 5) Those who continue to fight the outcome of the election are trying to subvert democracy and harming the country It's really not that hard.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

15th January 2021, 07:28 AM	#835
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,193	Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B I have voiced my opinion that the impeachment trial should proceed to the Senate, if only for the presenting of evidence and testimony that it would reveal. This just popped up on Twitter, and I like the sentiment: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...81c9b719cc.jpg I decided to read Federalist 65 to see what it actually had to say. Those guys were smart. What the heck is wrong with us today that we can't elect people capable of writing like that? Joe Biden couldn't write like that. Barack Obama might be able to, but he probably wouldn't get elected if he did. And Donald Trump? Uhhh....yeah. But having read Federalist 65, I think Alexander Hamilton would agree that the trial should proceed even if Trump has left office.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?