[Split Thread] A second impeachment - Page 29

Cain · 21st January 2021, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

Actually, The review's been ripping through Trump since at least before the election.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

They've been ripping through him since before the 2016 election. They've never liked him, although while he was President, they frequently ran editorials in defense of his policies, but never of him.

Not really. When Trump was running for the nomination, the magazine published a special anti-Cheeto von Tweeto edition. They had to suspend and change their comment section because it was getting over-run with hard-core MAGA fools. After Trump secured the nomination, they changed their tune. Then he won the presidency (surprisingly), and most of their staffers fell in line. Some couldn't handle the pro-Trump editorial line, so they left (Jonah Goldberg followed by David French).

As for 2020 election, some have always had an uneasy relationship with Trump, but I wouldn't say they were ripping him. After he lost, sure. Most knew it was over.

They're still scumbags, including Williamson.

bruto · 21st January 2021, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Cain

Not really. When Trump was running for the nomination, the magazine published a special anti-Cheeto von Tweeto edition. They had to suspend and change their comment section because it was getting over-run with hard-core MAGA fools. After Trump secured the nomination, they changed their tune. Then he won the presidency (surprisingly), and most of their staffers fell in line. Some couldn't handle the pro-Trump editorial line, so they left (Jonah Goldberg followed by David French).

As for 2020 election, some have always had an uneasy relationship with Trump, but I wouldn't say they were ripping him. After he lost, sure. Most knew it was over.

They're still scumbags, including Williamson.

Yes, but they're old money scumbags with suits that fit and banks of their own and signed pictures of Prescott Bush on the study wall, and they probably pay the stable boys, not perhaps because they like to but because it's declassé not to.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 22nd January 2021, 07:04 AM

Not seen this posted here, but two days ago McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor that the insurrectionists were "provoked" by Trump and others, having been "fed lies". Seems a fairly strong indication that he will likely vote to convict as and when the article of impeachment reaches the Senate. He likely wouldn't vote to convict unless he knew that he had enough Republican votes for it to get through, and there were certainly reports in the preceding days that he was putting out his feelers to see where people stood.

In other words, this seems to me like reasonable evidence that, as thing currently stand, Trump is likely to be convicted.

jimbob · 22nd January 2021, 07:22 AM

Any news on the attempt to impeach Biden yet?

Safe-Keeper · 22nd January 2021, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by jimbob

Any news on the attempt to impeach Biden yet?

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.

Apparently the real Q revolution will happen on March 20th, so maybe we'll get an update then.

JoeMorgue · 22nd January 2021, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by jimbob

Any news on the attempt to impeach Biden yet?

Rep Greene filed articles of impeachment against Biden already.

https://newschannel9.com/news/local/...resident-biden

trustbutverify · 22nd January 2021, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by bruto

True enough, and of course that's largely my point as I think fascism is fascism whatever suit it wears, but for some style is paramount, and the ones who always seem to end up on top are the ones who can both underwrite the nutters and deride them for needing it.

I'm not quite following you here. Maybe you can define the American aristocracy more objectively, to start. Are they all fascists, by definition? Who, exactly, are "they". What are the essential characteristics that define them?

catsmate · 22nd January 2021, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Not to pick on you directly, but the exact same thing the Progressives hope to accomplish in regards to your hated "Centrists."

No the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party knows full well it can't stand against the GOP without the more moderate old guard folks. "Well we'll just form our own party!" is a threat hoping to get more power and influence within the party.

Nobody who threatens to take their ball and go home really wants the game to end or the teams they change. They just want to be coach instead of the 3rd baseman.

The USA needs to scrap FPTP voting and the two-party system.

JoeMorgue · 22nd January 2021, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by catsmate

The USA needs to scrap FPTP voting and the two-party system.

I agree 100%. But there's no nobility in refusing to play the hand you were dealt until someone changes the rules of the game.

Fast Eddie B · 22nd January 2021, 09:37 AM

Articles of Impeachment being sent to the Senate Monday.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 22nd January 2021, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Rep Greene filed articles of impeachment against Biden already.

https://newschannel9.com/news/local/...resident-biden

I can't find it now, but the latest story I saw on this had a spokesperson from her office saying that she had intended to file them, but hadn't because the process was more difficult than she had thought it would be.

Dave Rogers · 22nd January 2021, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Articles of Impeachment being sent to the Senate Monday.

Damn, Greene moved fast. Biden could be out of office by lunchtime Tuesday.

Dave

MRC_Hans · 22nd January 2021, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.

Apparently the real Q revolution will happen on March 20th, so maybe we'll get an update then.

Mmm, which year?

Hans

JoeMorgue · 22nd January 2021, 09:59 AM

Impeachment articles (the Trump ones, not the Biden ones) are going to the Senate on Monday says Schumer.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/22/polit...mer/index.html

bruto · 22nd January 2021, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

I'm not quite following you here. Maybe you can define the American aristocracy more objectively, to start. Are they all fascists, by definition? Who, exactly, are "they". What are the essential characteristics that define them?

Of course I'm likely being a bit facetious and broad, but having grown up among the prosperous preppies of the Northeast, I think there is a subset, referred to by some as "the horsey aristocracy," of which the founders of The National Review seem a prime example, who manage with consistency over the generations to stand apart from the populist rabble, but subsidize and empower them.

turingtest · 22nd January 2021, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I can't find it now, but the latest story I saw on this had a spokesperson from her office saying that she had intended to file them, but hadn't because the process was more difficult than she had thought it would be.

Here's a link to Congress.gov, and her resolution. If you click on the "Text" tab on that page, you get this:

Quote:

Text: H.Res.57 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
As of 01/22/2021 text has not been received for H.Res.57 - Impeaching Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, for abuse of power by enabling bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from GPO, the Government Publishing Office, a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.

From what I can gather, she did introduce the thing verbally on the floor of the House. I guess it remains to be seen whether she can muster the actual resolution it takes to put it in a coherent, legal, and debatable form.

I dunno- maybe it's just me, but I would think that if I wanted to be a US Representative, I would inform myself on how difficult a process that's a defining part of the job is before I pretended to be qualified to be one. Surely impeaching Biden can wait on learning how to do it.

The Atheist · 22nd January 2021, 10:53 AM

Trump managed to find a lawyer at last, thanks to the assistance of his good pal, Lindsay Graham.

A two-bit local hack who will be completely out of his depth in Washington, and who appropriately shares his name with a white trash piece of filth character from Stephen King's It.

Butch Bowers. (Absolutely no relation to Betty)

Vixen · 22nd January 2021, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by No Other

Snide comment noticed and understood. What you and some others fail to grasp is that this site is a Skeptics site and not just an opinion forum.

I doubt it.

MRC_Hans · 22nd January 2021, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Trump managed to find a lawyer at last, thanks to the assistance of his good pal, Lindsay Graham.

A two-bit local hack who will be completely out of his depth in Washington, and who appropriately shares his name with a white trash piece of filth character from Stephen King's It.

Butch Bowers. (Absolutely no relation to Betty)

Cannot read without submitting (tons of) personal information.

hans

Segnosaur · 22nd January 2021, 01:23 PM

From: CBC (Canuck Broadcasting Conglomerate)
U.S. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is proposing to push back the start of Donald Trump's impeachment trial by a week or more to give the former president time to review the case.

In normal circumstances, a delay might not be too bad. the Democrats have a lot of work to do in the short term... confirmation of Biden's cabinet picks, Covid-19 legislation, etc. The cynic in me says that Moscow Mitch is only proposing the delay to benefit the republicans/harm the Democrats. "Lets drag out the proceedings as long as possible in order to obstruct Biden's plans".

JoeMorgue · 22nd January 2021, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Cannot read without submitting (tons of) personal information.

hans

*Confused* The article? It's straight off the Reuters wire, no paywall or registration of any kind.

Or am I misunderstanding?

MRC_Hans · 22nd January 2021, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

*Confused* The article? It's straight off the Reuters wire, no paywall or registration of any kind.

It still requests name address, age, e-mail .. and more. I suppose I could fill in fake data, but ..

Hans

ETA: OK, it's an EU thing. Found an "allow all button, this time".

JoeMorgue · 22nd January 2021, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

It still requests name address, age, e-mail .. and more. I suppose I could fill in fake data, but ..

Hans

Must be your location I'm not seeing any of that.

dudalb · 22nd January 2021, 02:59 PM

Now reading that They could "Start the Trial' on TUesday, but delay the actual proceedings for any oength of time...a lot like how normal trials operate. where the formal opening of a trial is often weeks before the real proceddings begin.

bruto · 22nd January 2021, 03:41 PM

My link is simply to https://www.reuters.com/world . It seems to work fine at least here. So does https://apnews.com/ if you want a slightly different mix.

dudalb · 22nd January 2021, 04:21 PM

The actual trial will begin on Feb 9th.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/22/polit...mer/index.html

So Nancy will send the papers over to the Snate, the Senate will open the trial on TUesday, a motion to postpone will be made and carried. This kind of thing happens all the time in "real" courts.

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 06:58 AM

If I were a senator (a democratic one) I wouldn't vote to convict Trump. It is hard to take the house seriously when they do not take the process seriously. They haven't interviewed witnesses. They didn't subpoena any records or communications. For something so important thet have put very little effort into it.

Darat · 23rd January 2021, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

If I were a senator (a democratic one) I wouldn't vote to convict Trump. It is hard to take the house seriously when they do not take the process seriously. They haven't interviewed witnesses. They didn't subpoena any records or communications. For something so important thet have put very little effort into it.

I am pretty sure that most of them will have watched and read about the insurrection.

What other information would they need to make a rational decision?

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I am pretty sure that most of them will have watched and read about the insurrection.

What other information would they need to make a rational decision?

Expert testimony on the psychology of incitement. Testimony of rioters that the speech incited them. Communication in the white house that they were aware, etc etc.

The house is going to argue that it was incitement. If your argument is a shallow, "what more do you need" then don't be upset if I don't think it is sufficient. You need to argue what is the standard, how it meets it, then build that case.

ETA: if you take the approach that there is no standard one should target (because it is a political act) and each person should just look at it, I can't take that as a serious effort.

Darat · 23rd January 2021, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Expert testimony on the psychology of incitement. Testimony of rioters that the speech incited them. Communication in the white house that they were aware, etc etc.

The house is going to argue that it was incitement. If your argument is a shallow, "what more do you need" then don't be upset if I don't think it is sufficient. You need to argue what is the standard, how it meets it, then build that case.

That is not how impeachment works.

If you wish to create a new process then there are mechanisms in the USA condition to do so, good luck with your campaign.

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

That is not how impeachment works.

If you wish to create a new process then there are mechanisms in the USA condition to do so, good luck with your campaign.

If we are not using a legal standard, then I would default to skepticism. Certainly the events are correlated. How does one prove causation in this scenario?

Darat · 23rd January 2021, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

If we are not using a legal standard, then I would default to skepticism. Certainly the events are correlated. How does one prove causation in this scenario?

I am using the standard of the USA Constitution, which is the base for all legal standards in regards to a president being impeached. Are you claiming non-constitutional standards should be used?

bruto · 23rd January 2021, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Expert testimony on the psychology of incitement. Testimony of rioters that the speech incited them. Communication in the white house that they were aware, etc etc.

The house is going to argue that it was incitement. If your argument is a shallow, "what more do you need" then don't be upset if I don't think it is sufficient. You need to argue what is the standard, how it meets it, then build that case.

I disagree.There's plenty of evidence for the charge, which is what the House is tasked with. They don't need to subpoena witnesses and communications to evaluate events that occurred in public. Their job is the charge, not the trial. We heard the president utter inflammatory lies, and saw and heard his followers commit an act of rebellious terrorism while uttering their adherence to those inflammatory lies. If there are subtleties beyond what everyone in the nation saw and heard, the time for them to be explained, or pulled out of the hind ends of the defendants, is in the trial, not the charge. What you are advocating is that the Senators do exactly what they did last time, which is to pre-determine the result of the trial before it's taken place, in other words that they do not take their job seriously.

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I am using the standard of the USA Constitution, which is the base for all legal standards in regards to a president being impeached. Are you claiming non-constitutional standards should be used?

The Constitution doesn't specify a standard for impeachment.

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by bruto

I disagree.There's plenty of evidence for the charge, which is what the House is tasked with. They don't need to subpoena witnesses and communications to evaluate events that occurred in public. Their job is the charge, not the trial. We heard the president utter inflammatory lies, and saw and heard his followers commit an act of rebellious terrorism while uttering their adherence to those inflammatory lies. If there are subtleties beyond what everyone in the nation saw and heard, the time for them to be explained, or pulled out of the hind ends of the defendants, is in the trial, not the charge. What you are advocating is that the Senators do exactly what they did last time, which is to pre-determine the result of the trial before it's taken place, in other words that they do not take their job seriously.

The house is tasked with serving as the role of pseudo-prosecutor. And the house selects who is serving in that role. Their job is also the trial.In the absence of a standard (reasonable doubt, probable, etc) they are the ones presenting in that situation.

ETA: if a third party served in the prosecutorial role, my position on what the house should have done would be aligned with you.

Darat · 23rd January 2021, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The Constitution doesn't specify a standard for impeachment.

Yes it does - it lays out in its entirety what impeachment is, you wanting to add unconstitutional requirements seems a tad presumptuous.

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Yes it does - it lays out in its entirety what impeachment is, you wanting to add unconstitutional requirements seems a tad presumptuous.

It does not set a standard for guilt.

Darat · 23rd January 2021, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

It does not set a standard for guilt.

Impeachment is about a judgement made by defined groups of elected representatives of the USA government. Since you are posting about a “standard for guilt” I take it you have not read the relevant part of the USA constitution? There is nothing in the constitution that would allow for the changes you wish to be made to the constitution without the constitution being amended. If you want to change what impeachment is I again refer you to the mechanisms in the USA constitution for making such changes.

BobTheCoward · 23rd January 2021, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Impeachment is about a judgement made by defined groups of elected representatives of the USA government. Since you are posting about a “standard for guilt” I take it you have not read the relevant part of the USA constitution? There is nothing in the constitution that would allow for the changes you wish to be made to the constitution without the constitution being amended. If you want to change what impeachment is I again refer you to the mechanisms in the USA constitution for making such changes.

I didn't propose a change. I said I would vote no unless there was a good argument.

Darat · 23rd January 2021, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I didn't propose a change. I said I would vote no unless there was a good argument.

Yes you did.

21st January 2021, 04:26 PM	#1121
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 14,275	Originally Posted by trustbutverify Actually, The review's been ripping through Trump since at least before the election. Originally Posted by Meadmaker They've been ripping through him since before the 2016 election. They've never liked him, although while he was President, they frequently ran editorials in defense of his policies, but never of him. Not really. When Trump was running for the nomination, the magazine published a special anti-Cheeto von Tweeto edition. They had to suspend and change their comment section because it was getting over-run with hard-core MAGA fools. After Trump secured the nomination, they changed their tune. Then he won the presidency (surprisingly), and most of their staffers fell in line. Some couldn't handle the pro-Trump editorial line, so they left (Jonah Goldberg followed by David French). As for 2020 election, some have always had an uneasy relationship with Trump, but I wouldn't say they were ripping him. After he lost, sure. Most knew it was over. They're still scumbags, including Williamson.
	__________________ April 13th, 2018: Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.

21st January 2021, 07:41 PM	#1122
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 27,632	Originally Posted by Cain Not really. When Trump was running for the nomination, the magazine published a special anti-Cheeto von Tweeto edition. They had to suspend and change their comment section because it was getting over-run with hard-core MAGA fools. After Trump secured the nomination, they changed their tune. Then he won the presidency (surprisingly), and most of their staffers fell in line. Some couldn't handle the pro-Trump editorial line, so they left (Jonah Goldberg followed by David French). As for 2020 election, some have always had an uneasy relationship with Trump, but I wouldn't say they were ripping him. After he lost, sure. Most knew it was over. They're still scumbags, including Williamson. Yes, but they're old money scumbags with suits that fit and banks of their own and signed pictures of Prescott Bush on the study wall, and they probably pay the stable boys, not perhaps because they like to but because it's declassé not to.
	__________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

22nd January 2021, 07:04 AM	#1123
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,221	Not seen this posted here, but two days ago McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor that the insurrectionists were "provoked" by Trump and others, having been "fed lies". Seems a fairly strong indication that he will likely vote to convict as and when the article of impeachment reaches the Senate. He likely wouldn't vote to convict unless he knew that he had enough Republican votes for it to get through, and there were certainly reports in the preceding days that he was putting out his feelers to see where people stood. In other words, this seems to me like reasonable evidence that, as thing currently stand, Trump is likely to be convicted.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

22nd January 2021, 07:22 AM	#1124
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 22,773	Any news on the attempt to impeach Biden yet?
	__________________ 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

22nd January 2021, 07:25 AM	#1125
Safe-Keeper Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Norway Posts: 10,389	Originally Posted by jimbob Any news on the attempt to impeach Biden yet? Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Apparently the real Q revolution will happen on March 20th, so maybe we'll get an update then.
	__________________ "He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs "If you are still hung up on that whole words-have-meaning thing, then 2020 is going to be a long year for you." --Ladewig

22nd January 2021, 07:29 AM	#1126
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,533	Originally Posted by jimbob Any news on the attempt to impeach Biden yet? Rep Greene filed articles of impeachment against Biden already. https://newschannel9.com/news/local/...resident-biden
	__________________ 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."

22nd January 2021, 09:23 AM	#1127
trustbutverify Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 8,878	Originally Posted by bruto True enough, and of course that's largely my point as I think fascism is fascism whatever suit it wears, but for some style is paramount, and the ones who always seem to end up on top are the ones who can both underwrite the nutters and deride them for needing it. I'm not quite following you here. Maybe you can define the American aristocracy more objectively, to start. Are they all fascists, by definition? Who, exactly, are "they". What are the essential characteristics that define them?
	__________________ "To me, Hitler is the greatest man who ever lived. He truly is without fault, so simple and at the same time possessed of masculine strength" -Leni Riefenstahl Wollen owns the stage

22nd January 2021, 09:29 AM	#1128
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 23,798	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Not to pick on you directly, but the exact same thing the Progressives hope to accomplish in regards to your hated "Centrists." No the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party knows full well it can't stand against the GOP without the more moderate old guard folks. "Well we'll just form our own party!" is a threat hoping to get more power and influence within the party. Nobody who threatens to take their ball and go home really wants the game to end or the teams they change. They just want to be coach instead of the 3rd baseman. The USA needs to scrap FPTP voting and the two-party system.
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

22nd January 2021, 09:33 AM	#1129
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,533	Originally Posted by catsmate The USA needs to scrap FPTP voting and the two-party system. I agree 100%. But there's no nobility in refusing to play the hand you were dealt until someone changes the rules of the game.
	__________________ 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."

22nd January 2021, 09:37 AM	#1130
Fast Eddie B Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA Posts: 6,724	Articles of Impeachment being sent to the Senate Monday.

22nd January 2021, 09:38 AM	#1131
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,221	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Rep Greene filed articles of impeachment against Biden already. https://newschannel9.com/news/local/...resident-biden I can't find it now, but the latest story I saw on this had a spokesperson from her office saying that she had intended to file them, but hadn't because the process was more difficult than she had thought it would be.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

22nd January 2021, 09:40 AM	#1132
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: 32,351	Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B Articles of Impeachment being sent to the Senate Monday. Damn, Greene moved fast. Biden could be out of office by lunchtime Tuesday. Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

22nd January 2021, 09:53 AM	#1133
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 23,452	Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Apparently the real Q revolution will happen on March 20th, so maybe we'll get an update then. Mmm, which year? Hans
	__________________ Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.

22nd January 2021, 09:59 AM	#1134
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,533	Impeachment articles (the Trump ones, not the Biden ones) are going to the Senate on Monday says Schumer. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/22/polit...mer/index.html
	__________________ 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."

22nd January 2021, 10:01 AM	#1135
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 27,632	Originally Posted by trustbutverify I'm not quite following you here. Maybe you can define the American aristocracy more objectively, to start. Are they all fascists, by definition? Who, exactly, are "they". What are the essential characteristics that define them? Of course I'm likely being a bit facetious and broad, but having grown up among the prosperous preppies of the Northeast, I think there is a subset, referred to by some as "the horsey aristocracy," of which the founders of The National Review seem a prime example, who manage with consistency over the generations to stand apart from the populist rabble, but subsidize and empower them.
	__________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

22nd January 2021, 10:45 AM	#1136
turingtest Mistral, mistral wind... Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim I can't find it now, but the latest story I saw on this had a spokesperson from her office saying that she had intended to file them, but hadn't because the process was more difficult than she had thought it would be. Here's a link to Congress.gov, and her resolution. If you click on the "Text" tab on that page, you get this: Quote: Text: H.Res.57 — 117th Congress (2021-2022) As of 01/22/2021 text has not been received for H.Res.57 - Impeaching Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, for abuse of power by enabling bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from GPO, the Government Publishing Office, a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed. From what I can gather, she did introduce the thing verbally on the floor of the House. I guess it remains to be seen whether she can muster the actual resolution it takes to put it in a coherent, legal, and debatable form. I dunno- maybe it's just me, but I would think that if I wanted to be a US Representative, I would inform myself on how difficult a process that's a defining part of the job is before I pretended to be qualified to be one. Surely impeaching Biden can wait on learning how to do it.
	__________________ 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

22nd January 2021, 10:53 AM	#1137
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,215	Trump managed to find a lawyer at last, thanks to the assistance of his good pal, Lindsay Graham. A two-bit local hack who will be completely out of his depth in Washington, and who appropriately shares his name with a white trash piece of filth character from Stephen King's It. Butch Bowers. (Absolutely no relation to Betty)
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

22nd January 2021, 11:21 AM	#1138
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 20,725	Originally Posted by No Other Snide comment noticed and understood. What you and some others fail to grasp is that this site is a Skeptics site and not just an opinion forum. I doubt it.
	__________________ Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder, vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

22nd January 2021, 12:40 PM	#1139
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 23,452	Originally Posted by The Atheist Trump managed to find a lawyer at last, thanks to the assistance of his good pal, Lindsay Graham. A two-bit local hack who will be completely out of his depth in Washington, and who appropriately shares his name with a white trash piece of filth character from Stephen King's It. Butch Bowers. (Absolutely no relation to Betty) Cannot read without submitting (tons of) personal information. hans
	__________________ Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.

22nd January 2021, 01:23 PM	#1140
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 17,092	From: CBC (Canuck Broadcasting Conglomerate) U.S. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is proposing to push back the start of Donald Trump's impeachment trial by a week or more to give the former president time to review the case. In normal circumstances, a delay might not be too bad. the Democrats have a lot of work to do in the short term... confirmation of Biden's cabinet picks, Covid-19 legislation, etc. The cynic in me says that Moscow Mitch is only proposing the delay to benefit the republicans/harm the Democrats. "Lets drag out the proceedings as long as possible in order to obstruct Biden's plans".
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

22nd January 2021, 01:24 PM	#1141
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,533	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Cannot read without submitting (tons of) personal information. hans Confused The article? It's straight off the Reuters wire, no paywall or registration of any kind. Or am I misunderstanding?
	__________________ 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."

22nd January 2021, 01:28 PM	#1142
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 23,452	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Confused The article? It's straight off the Reuters wire, no paywall or registration of any kind. It still requests name address, age, e-mail .. and more. I suppose I could fill in fake data, but .. Hans ETA: OK, it's an EU thing. Found an "allow all button, this time".
	__________________ Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. Last edited by MRC_Hans; 22nd January 2021 at 01:31 PM.

22nd January 2021, 01:30 PM	#1143
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,533	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans It still requests name address, age, e-mail .. and more. I suppose I could fill in fake data, but .. Hans Must be your location I'm not seeing any of 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."

22nd January 2021, 02:59 PM	#1144
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,306	Now reading that They could "Start the Trial' on TUesday, but delay the actual proceedings for any oength of time...a lot like how normal trials operate. where the formal opening of a trial is often weeks before the real proceddings begin.
	__________________ 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.

22nd January 2021, 03:41 PM	#1145
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 27,632	My link is simply to https://www.reuters.com/world . It seems to work fine at least here. So does https://apnews.com/ if you want a slightly different mix.
	__________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

22nd January 2021, 04:21 PM	#1146
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,306	The actual trial will begin on Feb 9th. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/22/polit...mer/index.html So Nancy will send the papers over to the Snate, the Senate will open the trial on TUesday, a motion to postpone will be made and carried. This kind of thing happens all the time in "real" courts.
	__________________ 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.

23rd January 2021, 06:58 AM	#1147
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,192	If I were a senator (a democratic one) I wouldn't vote to convict Trump. It is hard to take the house seriously when they do not take the process seriously. They haven't interviewed witnesses. They didn't subpoena any records or communications. For something so important thet have put very little effort into it.

23rd January 2021, 07:01 AM	#1148
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,804	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward If I were a senator (a democratic one) I wouldn't vote to convict Trump. It is hard to take the house seriously when they do not take the process seriously. They haven't interviewed witnesses. They didn't subpoena any records or communications. For something so important thet have put very little effort into it. I am pretty sure that most of them will have watched and read about the insurrection. What other information would they need to make a rational decision?
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

23rd January 2021, 07:08 AM	#1149
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,192	Originally Posted by Darat I am pretty sure that most of them will have watched and read about the insurrection. What other information would they need to make a rational decision? Expert testimony on the psychology of incitement. Testimony of rioters that the speech incited them. Communication in the white house that they were aware, etc etc. The house is going to argue that it was incitement. If your argument is a shallow, "what more do you need" then don't be upset if I don't think it is sufficient. You need to argue what is the standard, how it meets it, then build that case. ETA: if you take the approach that there is no standard one should target (because it is a political act) and each person should just look at it, I can't take that as a serious effort.
	Last edited by BobTheCoward; 23rd January 2021 at 07:13 AM.

23rd January 2021, 07:12 AM	#1150
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,804	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Expert testimony on the psychology of incitement. Testimony of rioters that the speech incited them. Communication in the white house that they were aware, etc etc. The house is going to argue that it was incitement. If your argument is a shallow, "what more do you need" then don't be upset if I don't think it is sufficient. You need to argue what is the standard, how it meets it, then build that case. That is not how impeachment works. If you wish to create a new process then there are mechanisms in the USA condition to do so, good luck with your campaign.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

23rd January 2021, 07:22 AM	#1151
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,192	Originally Posted by Darat That is not how impeachment works. If you wish to create a new process then there are mechanisms in the USA condition to do so, good luck with your campaign. If we are not using a legal standard, then I would default to skepticism. Certainly the events are correlated. How does one prove causation in this scenario?

23rd January 2021, 07:37 AM	#1152
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,804	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward If we are not using a legal standard, then I would default to skepticism. Certainly the events are correlated. How does one prove causation in this scenario? I am using the standard of the USA Constitution, which is the base for all legal standards in regards to a president being impeached. Are you claiming non-constitutional standards should be used?
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

23rd January 2021, 07:42 AM	#1153
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 27,632	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Expert testimony on the psychology of incitement. Testimony of rioters that the speech incited them. Communication in the white house that they were aware, etc etc. The house is going to argue that it was incitement. If your argument is a shallow, "what more do you need" then don't be upset if I don't think it is sufficient. You need to argue what is the standard, how it meets it, then build that case. I disagree.There's plenty of evidence for the charge, which is what the House is tasked with. They don't need to subpoena witnesses and communications to evaluate events that occurred in public. Their job is the charge, not the trial. We heard the president utter inflammatory lies, and saw and heard his followers commit an act of rebellious terrorism while uttering their adherence to those inflammatory lies. If there are subtleties beyond what everyone in the nation saw and heard, the time for them to be explained, or pulled out of the hind ends of the defendants, is in the trial, not the charge. What you are advocating is that the Senators do exactly what they did last time, which is to pre-determine the result of the trial before it's taken place, in other words that they do not take their job seriously.
	__________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

23rd January 2021, 07:51 AM	#1154
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,192	Originally Posted by Darat I am using the standard of the USA Constitution, which is the base for all legal standards in regards to a president being impeached. Are you claiming non-constitutional standards should be used? The Constitution doesn't specify a standard for impeachment.

23rd January 2021, 07:53 AM	#1155
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,192	Originally Posted by bruto I disagree.There's plenty of evidence for the charge, which is what the House is tasked with. They don't need to subpoena witnesses and communications to evaluate events that occurred in public. Their job is the charge, not the trial. We heard the president utter inflammatory lies, and saw and heard his followers commit an act of rebellious terrorism while uttering their adherence to those inflammatory lies. If there are subtleties beyond what everyone in the nation saw and heard, the time for them to be explained, or pulled out of the hind ends of the defendants, is in the trial, not the charge. What you are advocating is that the Senators do exactly what they did last time, which is to pre-determine the result of the trial before it's taken place, in other words that they do not take their job seriously. The house is tasked with serving as the role of pseudo-prosecutor. And the house selects who is serving in that role. Their job is also the trial.In the absence of a standard (reasonable doubt, probable, etc) they are the ones presenting in that situation. ETA: if a third party served in the prosecutorial role, my position on what the house should have done would be aligned with you.
	Last edited by BobTheCoward; 23rd January 2021 at 08:00 AM.