[Split Thread] A second impeachment - Page 8

The Don · 11th January 2021, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Yes, we don't want them getting angry and doing something crazy like storming the seat of government.

Oh, wait...

Dave

Or more likely we don't them getting angry and primarying me next time I come up for re-election (although there is also a non-zero risk of assassination but appeasement is probably not the best course of action there).

DevilsAdvocate · 11th January 2021, 03:28 AM

He should be impeached because he committed impeachable offenses. It is the right thing to do no matter whether it has any real effect or what the political consequences are. It is the right thing to do.

An impeachment and conviction and sentence that he can hold office would prevent him from campaigning for future election. He would not have the privileges of a candidate and not be able to collect fund under campaign finance laws. I think they should look into whether they can seize the existing campaign funds.

If he issues pardons to cronies and maybe even those who partook in this insurrection, the Senate should declare him as removed from office effective to the date of the impeachment articles and invalidate any pardon issued after that date. This isn't really a legal thing, but it also isn't not really a legal thing.

Impeachment would stand as evidence for criminal conviction. He should be charged, tried, and convicted. He should be in prison for his crimes and as a traitor to the country and as a danger to the nation.

jimbob · 11th January 2021, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm not so sure. Yes, it is a bit of political theater. But starting on January 20th it's time to get rolling on a lot of things. It's important to get a new cabinet approved and start moving on Biden's legislative agenda. The discussion is they can send the impeachment article to the Senate at any time like after Biden's first 100 days.

If the goal is to get Trump away from the levers of power, ASAP, which is what is needed, he needs to be impeached ASAP.

Let the GOP Senators decide whether they want to make the public statement that their king can do no wrong. If the impeachment went to the Senate, it would be hard for those who were threatened with hanging to say "hey, yes he incited a lynch mob against me and my fellow Senators, but on the other hand, I might get primaried"

I can imagine a lot of GOP Senators wanting to avoid the issue - give them the option of abstaining, but no other way of hiding. Let them state where they stand on lynch mobs.

jimbob · 11th January 2021, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

What happened as the Capitol is too damn serious for playing some kind of Contrarian Game.

This.

Lynch mobs storming Congress - should we consider their feelings?

Dave Rogers · 11th January 2021, 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by jimbob

I can imagine a lot of GOP Senators wanting to avoid the issue - give them the option of abstaining, but no other way of hiding. Let them state where they stand on lynch mobs.

The worrying thing is that they might.

Dave

MRC_Hans · 11th January 2021, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Same as the previous reply - where did he say that?

Lots of rolling eyes and snide comments don't convict people.

Well, I know you like to play 'devil's advocate', but this is silly.

Of course he did not say "Go and storm the Capitol and hang the bastards!", he's not that insane, but if you cannot see the incitation to riot in what he has been saying from all the way back to where he told the "Proud Boys" to "Stand back and stand by", it is because you really don't want to.

Hans

Susheel · 11th January 2021, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Of course he did not say "Go and storm the Capitol and hang the bastards!", he's not that insane, but if you cannot see the incitation to riot in what he has been saying ...

The Atheist
Needlessly ambiguous terms

You mean like this?

Pixel42 · 11th January 2021, 04:40 AM

When the insurrectionists come to trial and say they stormed the Capitol because President Trump instructed them to, will that be enough to remove the ambiguity?

Hevneren · 11th January 2021, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by US Constitution, 14th amendment, section 3

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Even if both the impeachment and the 25th fail, wouldn't it be possible to use this to bar Trump from running again? I'm not sure what that would require, perhaps a simple majority. Any experts here?

Dave Rogers · 11th January 2021, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by Hevneren

Even if both the impeachment and the 25th fail, wouldn't it be possible to use this to bar Trump from running again? I'm not sure what that would require, perhaps a simple majority. Any experts here?

Not an expert, but I would think it would require a prior conviction for sedition or treason by a court of law. Allowing it to be imposed by a simple majority vote in Congress would defeat the need for a 2/3 majority for impeachment, so (for example) a Republican majority in Senate and House could remove a Democratic President simply by concocting a false charge and voting on it.

Dave

Squeegee Beckenheim · 11th January 2021, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Just heard a GOP COngressperson say impeachment should not happen becuase it would "inflame" Trump Suppporters. It is to make one laugh.

To rephrase: "The US should be run in fear of what terrorists might do if their wishes are not adhered to".

Dave Rogers · 11th January 2021, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

To rephrase: "The US should be run in fear of what terrorists might do if their wishes are not adhered to".

I think those opposing impeachment should say whether they agree with this:

28th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution (proposed):

(1) In case of the attempt by a sitting President to incite a violent uprising against the Houses of Congress, said President shall normally be subject to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanours.

(2) Notwithstanding (1), said President shall not be subject to impeachment proceedings in the case of one or more of the following:
(a) Said President has attained the 1,400th day of his incumbency.

(b) Said President has followers who constitute a real and present danger to the person of any members of Congress who vote for articles of impeachment.
(i) In this context, "danger to the person" shall include risk of being voted out of office.
(c) Said President is of sufficient popularity that impeachment might negatively impact the number of votes available to his political party.

(d) Said President's words when inciting said violent uprising are capable of interpretation upon lack of consideration of context or intent as other than a direct order to mount a violent uprising.

(e) Said violent uprising did not succeed.

Dave

Fast Eddie B · 11th January 2021, 06:37 AM

And what is the purpose/function of an “Army”? And what did you mean when you asked them to “fight off” the “Liberal MOB”?

Things that might be asked at a trial. Sure, he could say he never meant those words literally. As others have said, it’s what mob bosses do. But literally or figuratively, would not a reasonable person conclude that these words would incite?

Of course they would.

dasmiller · 11th January 2021, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

If he issues pardons to cronies and maybe even those who partook in this insurrection, the Senate should declare him as removed from office effective to the date of the impeachment articles and invalidate any pardon issued after that date. This isn't really a legal thing, but it also isn't not really a legal thing.

It's kind of a legal thing. The president has pardon power "except in cases of impeachment." There's a lot of room for debate in those 5 words, but an impeachment definitely limits his pardon powers. We're just not sure what those limits are yet.

Captain_Swoop · 11th January 2021, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

The argument that he must be impeached to have a precedent about consequences doesn't really work. Consequences don't need to be in the form of a political vote by politicians. In fact, that's a very bad method to rely on, and thus bad to set a precedent of relying on, for dealing with the head of a cult whose followers are the voting based that some of those same politicians rely on. It's like telling a Sith that the Galactic Senate will decide his fate when he's already taken over the minds of most of the Senators. And in this case back on Earth, rioters are getting arrested & prosecuted, so the person who incited them can get arrested & prosecuted too.

**** off with your star wars.

This is the real world not some kids fiction story!

JoeMorgue · 11th January 2021, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by dasmiller

It's kind of a legal thing. The president has pardon power "except in cases of impeachment." There's a lot of room for debate in those 5 words, but an impeachment definitely limits his pardon powers. We're just not sure what those limits are yet.

Okay but as I've been saying throughout Trump's rolling dumpster fire of a Presidency we shouldn't be accepting of descending into chaos because "Well there's nothing in the rule book that says a Golden Retriever can't play football..."

Tero · 11th January 2021, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I'm thinking about the reported plan to hold a vote on impeachment, but not report the articles to the Senate until after Trump's term is over.

What's the message of that?

We think he should be thrown out of office, but we aren't actually going to try to make it happen. Seems weak.

The senate will not get the 2/3 votes. But with Kamala tie breaking, it will go 51/50. So America will have "almost impeached" him.

shemp · 11th January 2021, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

Trump should be removed from office, impeached, charged and convicted of his crimes against this nation, and thrown in jail.

The only question now is whether he should get the death penalty as a traitor to this country. I oppose the death penalty, but considering this President's desire to use it, I may make an exception for this case.

That is the only question. Whether he should be sentenced to life in prison or get the death penalty.

Impeachment is not even questionable. He should be impeached and convicted because he committed impeachable offenses. Period. No politics. No political strategy. He should be impeached for his offense.

He should be convicted for his crime of sedition. He should be sentenced to prison.

The only question is whether he should get the death penalty or a life sentnce.

He should get death for treason, but it's unlikely the sentence would ever be carried out. Look at how long it takes to get an execution date for a murderer. Some have been sitting on death row for 30 years or more.

With numerous appeals I'm sure Trump's lawyers could prevent him from being executed until he dies of natural causes. Unless his lawyer is Rudy. Rudy would probably get him hanged before the trial is over.

dasmiller · 11th January 2021, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Okay but as I've been saying throughout Trump's rolling dumpster fire of a Presidency we shouldn't be accepting of descending into chaos because "Well there's nothing in the rule book that says a Golden Retriever can't play football..."

If Trump uses his pardon power to hinder the impeachment process or to help anyone associated with his coup, I'm all for testing the limits of that "except in cases of impeachment" clause. Ignore the pardons, charge the rioters/conspirators/whatevers anyway, let the courts sort out exactly how far the pardon power goes (or, hopefully, doesn't go). I'd like to see a very broad interpretation: the president can't pardon anyone even remotely connected to the either the impeachable act or the associated investigations.

Of course, I'd like to see more general limits on the presidential pardon power, but as I said in another thread, that's really a subject for another thread.

Darat · 11th January 2021, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by shemp

He should get death for treason, but it's unlikely the sentence would ever be carried out. Look at how long it takes to get an execution date for a murderer. Some have been sitting on death row for 30 years or more.

With numerous appeals I'm sure Trump's lawyers could prevent him from being executed until he dies of natural causes. Unless his lawyer is Rudy. Rudy would probably get him hanged before the trial is over.

They could always invoke the “Trump precedent setting EO”

Mader Levap · 11th January 2021, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by shemp

He should get death for treason, but it's unlikely the sentence would ever be carried out. Look at how long it takes to get an execution date for a murderer. Some have been sitting on death row for 30 years or more.

Trump spending rest of his pathetic life in jail is enough for me.

BobTheCoward · 11th January 2021, 07:40 AM

If you don't use the legal standard for guilt, and leave it up to each legislator, I'm not sure you have an argument against them when they use that standard,or a more strict one, and vote against.

dasmiller · 11th January 2021, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

Trump spending rest of his pathetic life in jail is enough for me.

I am deeply conflicted about the death penalty in general, but I think I would end it, so I don't wish to see Trump or anyone else (I'm gnashing my teeth a bit right now) executed.

I think he should be imprisoned for a very long time, and for a whole stack of offenses. I want his supporters to understand who he really was, so I'd like to see convictions for sedition (of course), influence peddling, tax evasion, money laundering, false statements under oath, obstruction of justice, etc etc.

I want fair trials for all of it; he shouldn't be convicted of anything that we can't prove he did. But I believe he did a lot of illegal stuff, and he should go down for all of it.

ETA: re "I want his supporters to understand who he really was," - this isn't a reverse "own the libs." I have some friends who vigorously support Trump; I want this to be a teachable moment for them. I want them to understand how they were misled, and for them to be more wary of demagogues in the future.

Delvo · 11th January 2021, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Firestone

Republicans... almost in unison, blame the Democrats because "what the US needs now is unity."

Well, it's consistently worked for them for years so far. It even got them the Unity President they chose for us. They've been given no reason to stop trying it yet.

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Are you by chance on the autism spectrum? I'm not asking out of spite or trying to be rude, but your question seems to come from a person who often doesn't grasp subtleties in speech.

When it's not even subtleties but perfectly plain & simple, it's not autism/Asperger's. It's just a pretentious schtick of "somebody please help me English, I just can't English, what am words" that some people occasionally get into on certain subjects. (And then if nobody feels like indulging the pretense, the next claim is that that's because they/we "can't".) It just pops up rather randomly; I've never spotted a pattern to predict when who would go into this mode over what.

The quotes about Biden's alleged illegitimacy and the country about to be destroyed if Biden wins are right there in black & white. The orders for the whole crowd to go to the place where Biden is in the process of stealing it right now are right there in black & white. The orders to fight are right there in black & white. There's nothing missing that needs to be figured out & inferred, so there's no possibility of reading it and being unable to solve the hidden mystery.

Originally Posted by jimbob

If the goal is to get Trump away from the levers of power, ASAP, which is what is needed, he needs to be impeached ASAP.

Yesterday I read that everybody who's normally supposed to follow the President's orders and hasn't already resigned has quit following his (although it wasn't specified what orders he's given that weren't followed). That's a de-facto "25th Amendment" with avoidance of making it official.

It reminds me of managers at my current work place and some past work places trying to deal with bad employees without ever documenting anything or getting HR involved. I don't get the urge to hide things like this instead of openly admitting that you must do what you must do, but it seems to be a fairly common urge.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

To rephrase: "The US should be run in fear of what terrorists might do if their wishes are not adhered to".

...which has actually been part of their idea of what the Second Amendment was about all along. This was just the first time we've seen a serious attempt to apply it instead of just saying it in gun debates.

Meadmaker · 11th January 2021, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

It's ambiguous at the very best. I really don't see the intent, and I'm not even impartial, as my threads on Trump show. I don't think he has the balls to call for that kind of action.

If the bar is set so low that dislike causes the dismissal of a President, then you've dug a huge hole for every other person who wants to sit in that office.

Not only do I think Republicans won't vote for it, I don't think they should. The evidence does not stack up.

I don't know if he wanted them to storm the Capitol. I seriously doubt that he wanted them to smash windows to get in. On the other hand, I know that when I heard him say those words, I feared that they would storm the Capitol. I was not at all surprised when it happened, because I could infer that as a likely outcome of what he said.

If he made the same inference, and knew it was likely, that's enough. I don't know how to go about proving he knew that. He might be so incompetent and self-absorbed that it never occurred to him to consider the impact of his words on the crowd. They were cheering for him, and that's what matters to him. I think the only way that a legal case could be made is if he made a comment to one of his advisors along the lines of "That crowd is really angry. Pence better send this back to the states or they might end up storming the Capitol." I think that would meet the legal bar, but I doubt if it actually happened.

But is it enough for impeachment? is that a low bar? I don't think so. I think the election results are clear and he is trying to get them overturned in an extra-legal process. I think that's a pretty high bar, and he has cleared it easily. I think he should be removed from office.

However, it seems extraordinarily likely that he won't be removed, except through the normal means of Biden being sworn in next week. I think the Senate show trial after he is out of office seems pretty dumb. These folks must think pretty highly of themselves if they think the most important thing is that they stand up and make speeches and force someone to vote yes or no on a question that has no legal effect.

alfaniner · 11th January 2021, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

**** off with your star wars.

This is the real world not some kids fiction story!

I can't find a picture but I've seen it on the video -- there was at least one guy wearing a "Rebels" t-shirt that was a take-off on the Star Wars rebels logo. (No, it wasn't a Star Wars shirt.)

turingtest · 11th January 2021, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

I'm curious. Are you by chance on the autism spectrum? I'm not asking out of spite or trying to be rude, but your question seems to come from a person who often doesn't grasp subtleties in speech.

The canonical example is "Nice place you got here. Would be a shame if it burned down." If the person hearing it was, say, someone with Asperger's syndrome, he might reply, "Yeah, if it burned down we'd lose the building," completely failing to understand the intent behind the words.

Same here. It's not the words themselves that are the problem, it's the unspoken intent behind them. As others have noted, one of the few things Trump is actually good at is weasel speech. He somehow manages always to stop just short of "March to the Capitol, rush the building, take hostages and hang the Vice President!" He didn't say that, but he certainly incited the crowd to march on the Capitol. That after telling them we're not going to take it any more. we can't let this happen, and telling them to fight like hell.

It's the fight like hell part that's especially weaselly. In more common English it means to use a wide array of legal and procedural devices to prevent an outcome, mostly non-violent. But notice he didn't actually say that. He said fight like hell. And some people in the crowd did just that.

To me, for purposes of impeachment, it doesn't even really matter that he didn't say the exact words "march down there and storm the place and string them up, " or anything similar. He wasn't speaking to people, he was speaking to a mob, one that had already been primed with his claims of "stolen election, you were robbed!" It comes down to what any reasonable person should have expected the effect of his words to be- it didn't even have to be purposeful incitement, based on intent, only one that was reasonably foreseeable as an effect. And the idea that Trump should escape impeachment as a punishment because he's just not reasonable enough (or too damn stupid) to have known the effect his words would have is ridiculous, especially after four years of seeing him in office and using that exact same sort of speech as policy at one rally after another. He should have known how his words would work on his faithful- he got into office in the first place by knowing the difference between just people and a mob of them.

slyjoe · 11th January 2021, 09:04 AM

The House just introduced HR21 - a bill to ask Pence to invoke the 25th amendment. They aren't doing anything else today. I'm surprised they would actually bother.

jimbob · 11th January 2021, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Tero

The senate will not get the 2/3 votes. But with Kamala tie breaking, it will go 51/50. So America will have "almost impeached" him.

I wouldn't be so sure.

I know that conventional wisdom is that, but there are a lot of Senators who will see how unpopular the attempted lynching of not only Nancy Pelosi, but also Trump's VP.

It might actually be rather brave of them to side with Trump. Especially if opinion polls show his popularity nosediving, which it might.

The Great Zaganza · 11th January 2021, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

If you don't use the legal standard for guilt, and leave it up to each legislator, I'm not sure you have an argument against them when they use that standard,or a more strict one, and vote against.

McConnell decided that the Senate didn't need to gather evidence to decide the case of the 2st Impeachment.

If he wanted he could have the Senate just vote.

jadebox · 11th January 2021, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

The House just introduced HR21 - a bill to ask Pence to invoke the 25th amendment. They aren't doing anything else today. I'm surprised they would actually bother.

Well, they also introduced a resolution to impeach the president. No big deal.

:-)

slyjoe · 11th January 2021, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by jadebox

Well, they also introduced a resolution to impeach the president. No big deal.

:-)

Really? I didn't think they had yet.

jadebox · 11th January 2021, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

Really? I didn't think they had yet.

"(CNN) House Democrats formally introduced their resolution to impeach President Donald Trump on Monday, charging him with 'incitement of insurrection' for his role in last week's riots at the US Capitol."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/polit...ans/index.html

slyjoe · 11th January 2021, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by jadebox

"(CNN) House Democrats formally introduced their resolution to impeach President Donald Trump on Monday, charging him with 'incitement of insurrection' for his role in last week's riots at the US Capitol."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/polit...ans/index.html

Thanks. I get it now.

I was watching the house feed when the 25th amendment bill was introduced. Immediately after that they gaveled the house into recess until tomorrow at 9 AM.

I see from the CNN article there was a brief pro forma session after that.

The Atheist · 11th January 2021, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Well, I know you like to play 'devil's advocate', but this is silly.

I'm not playing devil's advocate - I genuinely think it's a dumb move.

And I'm not the only one - here's a lifelong hard-left columnist from The Guardian saying the exact same thing, for the exact same reasons:

Quote:

The outgoing president’s reputation among these people will only grow with each cry of glee from his enemies. Even if he vanishes into exile, his supporters will seek another saviour, another maverick from the rambling confederacy that is modern American democracy. That is why liberals everywhere should be careful how they react to Trump’s going. Losers should know how to lose well, but victors should know how to win wisely. So ignore Trump, and just count the minutes until he goes.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ump-exile-base

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

He might be so incompetent and self-absorbed that it never occurred to him to consider the impact of his words on the crowd. They were cheering for him, and that's what matters to him.

There you go - you nailed it on both counts.

Trump is an extraordinarily stupid and self-absorbed person. The idea of cause and effect is beyond his brain, and he was just playing the same game he's been playing since "Lock her up!" chants started. "Hey, they're cheering while I'm talking, I'll keep talking!"

As I keep saying, and as the Guardian bloke says, you can rise above it or sink down to his level and Democrats have chosen the latter.

JoeMorgue · 11th January 2021, 09:41 AM

Yeah they aren't impeaching him. They are planning to. Hell they aren't planning to. They are announcing their plans to maybe announce their plans maybe.

The Democrats treat impeachment like it's they are starting up a Jumbo Jet. Watching Democrats do anything is like watching Jabba prove immortality. You never get out of the planning stage.

"Today House Democrats announced plans to form a committee to schedule a press conference to announce their plans to set a firm date to release their report on the possibility of making announcing their plans to announce place to announce plans to announce plans of maybe one day announcing plans of starting the first step in the process of announcing their plan to impeach Donald Trump."

"Announcing your plans" is political ass-covering speak for "Do nothing hoping someone else will make the first move."

JoeMorgue · 11th January 2021, 09:52 AM

Republicans have objected to the resolution calling on Pence to invoked the 25th, so it looks like they actually are going ahead with the actual impeachment.

JoeMorgue · 11th January 2021, 09:54 AM

But it looks like the vote won't be until Wednesday for... whatever reason.

God Democrats:

Meadmaker · 11th January 2021, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah they aren't impeaching him. They are planning to. Hell they aren't planning to. They are announcing their plans to maybe announce their plans maybe.

The Democrats treat impeachment like it's they are starting up a Jumbo Jet. Watching Democrats do anything is like watching Jabba prove immortality. You never get out of the planning stage.

"Today House Democrats announced plans to form a committee to schedule a press conference to announce their plans to set a firm date to release their report on the possibility of making announcing their plans to announce place to announce plans to announce plans of maybe one day announcing plans of starting the first step in the process of announcing their plan to impeach Donald Trump."

"Announcing your plans" is political ass-covering speak for "Do nothing hoping someone else will make the first move."

Some years ago I was a contractor working for General Motors on a very large program. In the list of monthly accomplishments on the program, one of them was that a schedule had been decided to form a team to put together a plan to get some task done.

I was trying to explain to my colleagues how this demonstrated that the program was in serious trouble and unlikely to meet its rather ambitious goals. My boss chastised me for my negative attitude.

I think the Democrats are in the process of preparing a symbolic gesture, but they'll have to have some meetings first to figure out how to do it.

Well, whatever. Hopefully it won't distract from governing.

Fizil · 11th January 2021, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Republicans have objected to the resolution calling on Pence to invoked the 25th, so it looks like they actually are going ahead with the actual impeachment.

I am confused. CNN says the impeachment resolution was introduced. I listened to the entire pro-forma session of the House of Representatives, and did not hear it. The session started, the Sergeant-at-Arms resigned, there were a few committee assignment motions, then the motion to ask Pence to invoke the 25th, then they adjourned. Where the hell is CNN getting the idea they introduced an impeachment resolution too? Was it just introduced on paper and not brought up during this session?

11th January 2021, 03:28 AM	#282
DevilsAdvocate Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,444	He should be impeached because he committed impeachable offenses. It is the right thing to do no matter whether it has any real effect or what the political consequences are. It is the right thing to do. An impeachment and conviction and sentence that he can hold office would prevent him from campaigning for future election. He would not have the privileges of a candidate and not be able to collect fund under campaign finance laws. I think they should look into whether they can seize the existing campaign funds. If he issues pardons to cronies and maybe even those who partook in this insurrection, the Senate should declare him as removed from office effective to the date of the impeachment articles and invalidate any pardon issued after that date. This isn't really a legal thing, but it also isn't not really a legal thing. Impeachment would stand as evidence for criminal conviction. He should be charged, tried, and convicted. He should be in prison for his crimes and as a traitor to the country and as a danger to the nation.
	__________________ I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley

11th January 2021, 03:31 AM	#283
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 22,773	Originally Posted by acbytesla I'm not so sure. Yes, it is a bit of political theater. But starting on January 20th it's time to get rolling on a lot of things. It's important to get a new cabinet approved and start moving on Biden's legislative agenda. The discussion is they can send the impeachment article to the Senate at any time like after Biden's first 100 days. If the goal is to get Trump away from the levers of power, ASAP, which is what is needed, he needs to be impeached ASAP. Let the GOP Senators decide whether they want to make the public statement that their king can do no wrong. If the impeachment went to the Senate, it would be hard for those who were threatened with hanging to say "hey, yes he incited a lynch mob against me and my fellow Senators, but on the other hand, I might get primaried" I can imagine a lot of GOP Senators wanting to avoid the issue - give them the option of abstaining, but no other way of hiding. Let them state where they stand on lynch mobs.
	__________________ 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

11th January 2021, 03:50 AM	#284
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 22,773	Originally Posted by dudalb What happened as the Capitol is too damn serious for playing some kind of Contrarian Game. This. Lynch mobs storming Congress - should we consider their feelings?
	__________________ 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

11th January 2021, 03:54 AM	#285
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 jimbob I can imagine a lot of GOP Senators wanting to avoid the issue - give them the option of abstaining, but no other way of hiding. Let them state where they stand on lynch mobs. The worrying thing is that they might. Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

11th January 2021, 04:08 AM	#286
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 23,453	Originally Posted by The Atheist Same as the previous reply - where did he say that? Lots of rolling eyes and snide comments don't convict people. Well, I know you like to play 'devil's advocate', but this is silly. Of course he did not say "Go and storm the Capitol and hang the bastards!", he's not that insane, but if you cannot see the incitation to riot in what he has been saying from all the way back to where he told the "Proud Boys" to "Stand back and stand by", it is because you really don't want to. Hans
	__________________ Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.

11th January 2021, 03:27 AM	#281
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 31,318	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Yes, we don't want them getting angry and doing something crazy like storming the seat of government. Oh, wait... Dave Or more likely we don't them getting angry and primarying me next time I come up for re-election (although there is also a non-zero risk of assassination but appeasement is probably not the best course of action there).

11th January 2021, 04:14 AM	#287
Susheel Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Hyderabad, India Posts: 1,754	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Of course he did not say "Go and storm the Capitol and hang the bastards!", he's not that insane, but if you cannot see the incitation to riot in what he has been saying ... The Atheist Needlessly ambiguous terms You mean like this?
	__________________ I've got to get to a library...fast Robert Langdon

11th January 2021, 04:40 AM	#288
Pixel42 Schrödinger's cat Join Date: May 2004 Location: Malmesbury, UK Posts: 12,976	When the insurrectionists come to trial and say they stormed the Capitol because President Trump instructed them to, will that be enough to remove the ambiguity?
	__________________ "If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

11th January 2021, 04:44 AM	#289
Hevneren Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 287	Originally Posted by US Constitution, 14th amendment, section 3 No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Even if both the impeachment and the 25th fail, wouldn't it be possible to use this to bar Trump from running again? I'm not sure what that would require, perhaps a simple majority. Any experts here?
Hevneren Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 287

11th January 2021, 05:02 AM	#290
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 Hevneren Even if both the impeachment and the 25th fail, wouldn't it be possible to use this to bar Trump from running again? I'm not sure what that would require, perhaps a simple majority. Any experts here? Not an expert, but I would think it would require a prior conviction for sedition or treason by a court of law. Allowing it to be imposed by a simple majority vote in Congress would defeat the need for a 2/3 majority for impeachment, so (for example) a Republican majority in Senate and House could remove a Democratic President simply by concocting a false charge and voting on it. Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

11th January 2021, 05:24 AM	#291
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,221	Originally Posted by dudalb Just heard a GOP COngressperson say impeachment should not happen becuase it would "inflame" Trump Suppporters. It is to make one laugh. To rephrase: "The US should be run in fear of what terrorists might do if their wishes are not adhered to".
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

11th January 2021, 05:38 AM	#292
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 Squeegee Beckenheim To rephrase: "The US should be run in fear of what terrorists might do if their wishes are not adhered to". I think those opposing impeachment should say whether they agree with this: 28th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution (proposed): (1) In case of the attempt by a sitting President to incite a violent uprising against the Houses of Congress, said President shall normally be subject to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanours. (2) Notwithstanding (1), said President shall not be subject to impeachment proceedings in the case of one or more of the following: (a) Said President has attained the 1,400th day of his incumbency. (b) Said President has followers who constitute a real and present danger to the person of any members of Congress who vote for articles of impeachment. (i) In this context, "danger to the person" shall include risk of being voted out of office. (c) Said President is of sufficient popularity that impeachment might negatively impact the number of votes available to his political party. (d) Said President's words when inciting said violent uprising are capable of interpretation upon lack of consideration of context or intent as other than a direct order to mount a violent uprising. (e) Said violent uprising did not succeed. Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

11th January 2021, 06:37 AM	#293
Fast Eddie B Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA Posts: 6,724	And what is the purpose/function of an “Army”? And what did you mean when you asked them to “fight off” the “Liberal MOB”? Things that might be asked at a trial. Sure, he could say he never meant those words literally. As others have said, it’s what mob bosses do. But literally or figuratively, would not a reasonable person conclude that these words would incite? Of course they would.

11th January 2021, 06:58 AM	#294
dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon Posts: 6,379	Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate If he issues pardons to cronies and maybe even those who partook in this insurrection, the Senate should declare him as removed from office effective to the date of the impeachment articles and invalidate any pardon issued after that date. This isn't really a legal thing, but it also isn't not really a legal thing. It's kind of a legal thing. The president has pardon power "except in cases of impeachment." There's a lot of room for debate in those 5 words, but an impeachment definitely limits his pardon powers. We're just not sure what those limits are yet.
	__________________ "In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt

11th January 2021, 07:09 AM	#295
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 31,820	Originally Posted by Delvo The argument that he must be impeached to have a precedent about consequences doesn't really work. Consequences don't need to be in the form of a political vote by politicians. In fact, that's a very bad method to rely on, and thus bad to set a precedent of relying on, for dealing with the head of a cult whose followers are the voting based that some of those same politicians rely on. It's like telling a Sith that the Galactic Senate will decide his fate when he's already taken over the minds of most of the Senators. And in this case back on Earth, rioters are getting arrested & prosecuted, so the person who incited them can get arrested & prosecuted too. **** off with your star wars. This is the real world not some kids fiction story!

11th January 2021, 07:14 AM	#296
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,535	Originally Posted by dasmiller It's kind of a legal thing. The president has pardon power "except in cases of impeachment." There's a lot of room for debate in those 5 words, but an impeachment definitely limits his pardon powers. We're just not sure what those limits are yet. Okay but as I've been saying throughout Trump's rolling dumpster fire of a Presidency we shouldn't be accepting of descending into chaos because "Well there's nothing in the rule book that says a Golden Retriever can't play football..."
	__________________ 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."

11th January 2021, 07:18 AM	#297
Tero Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: North American prairie Posts: 2,199	Originally Posted by Meadmaker I'm thinking about the reported plan to hold a vote on impeachment, but not report the articles to the Senate until after Trump's term is over. What's the message of that? We think he should be thrown out of office, but we aren't actually going to try to make it happen. Seems weak. The senate will not get the 2/3 votes. But with Kamala tie breaking, it will go 51/50. So America will have "almost impeached" him.
	__________________ I've deleted the one blog link. You can find the humor blog by searching "the kari report blogspot." Politics blog: https://esapolitics.blogspot.com/

11th January 2021, 07:27 AM	#298
shemp a flimsy character...perfidious and despised Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X Posts: 40,164	Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate Trump should be removed from office, impeached, charged and convicted of his crimes against this nation, and thrown in jail. The only question now is whether he should get the death penalty as a traitor to this country. I oppose the death penalty, but considering this President's desire to use it, I may make an exception for this case. That is the only question. Whether he should be sentenced to life in prison or get the death penalty. Impeachment is not even questionable. He should be impeached and convicted because he committed impeachable offenses. Period. No politics. No political strategy. He should be impeached for his offense. He should be convicted for his crime of sedition. He should be sentenced to prison. The only question is whether he should get the death penalty or a life sentnce. He should get death for treason, but it's unlikely the sentence would ever be carried out. Look at how long it takes to get an execution date for a murderer. Some have been sitting on death row for 30 years or more. With numerous appeals I'm sure Trump's lawyers could prevent him from being executed until he dies of natural causes. Unless his lawyer is Rudy. Rudy would probably get him hanged before the trial is over.
	__________________ If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set. "...just as a magnet attracts iron filings, ~~Trump~~ shemp attracts, and is attracted to, louts." - George Will "[shemp is] a most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality." - Shakespeare

11th January 2021, 07:27 AM	#299
dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon Posts: 6,379	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Okay but as I've been saying throughout Trump's rolling dumpster fire of a Presidency we shouldn't be accepting of descending into chaos because "Well there's nothing in the rule book that says a Golden Retriever can't play football..." If Trump uses his pardon power to hinder the impeachment process or to help anyone associated with his coup, I'm all for testing the limits of that "except in cases of impeachment" clause. Ignore the pardons, charge the rioters/conspirators/whatevers anyway, let the courts sort out exactly how far the pardon power goes (or, hopefully, doesn't go). I'd like to see a very broad interpretation: the president can't pardon anyone even remotely connected to the either the impeachable act or the associated investigations. Of course, I'd like to see more general limits on the presidential pardon power, but as I said in another thread, that's really a subject for another thread.
	__________________ "In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt

11th January 2021, 07:32 AM	#300
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,804	Originally Posted by shemp He should get death for treason, but it's unlikely the sentence would ever be carried out. Look at how long it takes to get an execution date for a murderer. Some have been sitting on death row for 30 years or more. With numerous appeals I'm sure Trump's lawyers could prevent him from being executed until he dies of natural causes. Unless his lawyer is Rudy. Rudy would probably get him hanged before the trial is over. They could always invoke the “Trump precedent setting EO”
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

11th January 2021, 07:33 AM	#301
Mader Levap Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,576	Originally Posted by shemp He should get death for treason, but it's unlikely the sentence would ever be carried out. Look at how long it takes to get an execution date for a murderer. Some have been sitting on death row for 30 years or more. Trump spending rest of his pathetic life in jail is enough for me.
	__________________ Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Republicans is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.

11th January 2021, 07:40 AM	#302
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,192	If you don't use the legal standard for guilt, and leave it up to each legislator, I'm not sure you have an argument against them when they use that standard,or a more strict one, and vote against.

11th January 2021, 07:46 AM	#303
dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon Posts: 6,379	Originally Posted by Mader Levap Trump spending rest of his pathetic life in jail is enough for me. I am deeply conflicted about the death penalty in general, but I think I would end it, so I don't wish to see Trump or anyone else (I'm gnashing my teeth a bit right now) executed. I think he should be imprisoned for a very long time, and for a whole stack of offenses. I want his supporters to understand who he really was, so I'd like to see convictions for sedition (of course), influence peddling, tax evasion, money laundering, false statements under oath, obstruction of justice, etc etc. I want fair trials for all of it; he shouldn't be convicted of anything that we can't prove he did. But I believe he did a lot of illegal stuff, and he should go down for all of it. ETA: re "I want his supporters to understand who he really was," - this isn't a reverse "own the libs." I have some friends who vigorously support Trump; I want this to be a teachable moment for them. I want them to understand how they were misled, and for them to be more wary of demagogues in the future.
	__________________ "In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt Last edited by dasmiller; 11th January 2021 at 07:55 AM.

11th January 2021, 07:46 AM	#304
Delvo Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: North Tonawanda, NY Posts: 9,278	Originally Posted by Firestone Republicans... almost in unison, blame the Democrats because "what the US needs now is unity." Well, it's consistently worked for them for years so far. It even got them the Unity President they chose for us. They've been given no reason to stop trying it yet. Originally Posted by Blue Mountain Are you by chance on the autism spectrum? I'm not asking out of spite or trying to be rude, but your question seems to come from a person who often doesn't grasp subtleties in speech. When it's not even subtleties but perfectly plain & simple, it's not autism/Asperger's. It's just a pretentious schtick of "somebody please help me English, I just can't English, what am words" that some people occasionally get into on certain subjects. (And then if nobody feels like indulging the pretense, the next claim is that that's because they/we "can't".) It just pops up rather randomly; I've never spotted a pattern to predict when who would go into this mode over what. The quotes about Biden's alleged illegitimacy and the country about to be destroyed if Biden wins are right there in black & white. The orders for the whole crowd to go to the place where Biden is in the process of stealing it right now are right there in black & white. The orders to fight are right there in black & white. There's nothing missing that needs to be figured out & inferred, so there's no possibility of reading it and being unable to solve the hidden mystery. Originally Posted by jimbob If the goal is to get Trump away from the levers of power, ASAP, which is what is needed, he needs to be impeached ASAP. Yesterday I read that everybody who's normally supposed to follow the President's orders and hasn't already resigned has quit following his (although it wasn't specified what orders he's given that weren't followed). That's a de-facto "25th Amendment" with avoidance of making it official. It reminds me of managers at my current work place and some past work places trying to deal with bad employees without ever documenting anything or getting HR involved. I don't get the urge to hide things like this instead of openly admitting that you must do what you must do, but it seems to be a fairly common urge. Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim To rephrase: "The US should be run in fear of what terrorists might do if their wishes are not adhered to". ...which has actually been part of their idea of what the Second Amendment was about all along. This was just the first time we've seen a serious attempt to apply it instead of just saying it in gun debates.

11th January 2021, 07:55 AM	#305
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,179	Originally Posted by The Atheist It's ambiguous at the very best. I really don't see the intent, and I'm not even impartial, as my threads on Trump show. I don't think he has the balls to call for that kind of action. If the bar is set so low that dislike causes the dismissal of a President, then you've dug a huge hole for every other person who wants to sit in that office. Not only do I think Republicans won't vote for it, I don't think they should. The evidence does not stack up. I don't know if he wanted them to storm the Capitol. I seriously doubt that he wanted them to smash windows to get in. On the other hand, I know that when I heard him say those words, I feared that they would storm the Capitol. I was not at all surprised when it happened, because I could infer that as a likely outcome of what he said. If he made the same inference, and knew it was likely, that's enough. I don't know how to go about proving he knew that. He might be so incompetent and self-absorbed that it never occurred to him to consider the impact of his words on the crowd. They were cheering for him, and that's what matters to him. I think the only way that a legal case could be made is if he made a comment to one of his advisors along the lines of "That crowd is really angry. Pence better send this back to the states or they might end up storming the Capitol." I think that would meet the legal bar, but I doubt if it actually happened. But is it enough for impeachment? is that a low bar? I don't think so. I think the election results are clear and he is trying to get them overturned in an extra-legal process. I think that's a pretty high bar, and he has cleared it easily. I think he should be removed from office. However, it seems extraordinarily likely that he won't be removed, except through the normal means of Biden being sworn in next week. I think the Senate show trial after he is out of office seems pretty dumb. These folks must think pretty highly of themselves if they think the most important thing is that they stand up and make speeches and force someone to vote yes or no on a question that has no legal effect.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

11th January 2021, 08:05 AM	#306
alfaniner Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Sorth Dakonsin Posts: 24,835	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop **** off with your star wars. This is the real world not some kids fiction story! I can't find a picture but I've seen it on the video -- there was at least one guy wearing a "Rebels" t-shirt that was a take-off on the Star Wars rebels logo. (No, it wasn't a Star Wars shirt.)
	__________________ Science is self-correcting. Woo is self-contradicting.

11th January 2021, 08:10 AM	#307
turingtest Mistral, mistral wind... Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by Blue Mountain I'm curious. Are you by chance on the autism spectrum? I'm not asking out of spite or trying to be rude, but your question seems to come from a person who often doesn't grasp subtleties in speech. The canonical example is "Nice place you got here. Would be a shame if it burned down." If the person hearing it was, say, someone with Asperger's syndrome, he might reply, "Yeah, if it burned down we'd lose the building," completely failing to understand the intent behind the words. Same here. It's not the words themselves that are the problem, it's the unspoken intent behind them. As others have noted, one of the few things Trump is actually good at is weasel speech. He somehow manages always to stop just short of "March to the Capitol, rush the building, take hostages and hang the Vice President!" He didn't say that, but he certainly incited the crowd to march on the Capitol. That after telling them we're not going to take it any more. we can't let this happen, and telling them to fight like hell. It's the fight like hell part that's especially weaselly. In more common English it means to use a wide array of legal and procedural devices to prevent an outcome, mostly non-violent. But notice he didn't actually say that. He said fight like hell. And some people in the crowd did just that. To me, for purposes of impeachment, it doesn't even really matter that he didn't say the exact words "march down there and storm the place and string them up, " or anything similar. He wasn't speaking to people, he was speaking to a mob, one that had already been primed with his claims of "stolen election, you were robbed!" It comes down to what any reasonable person should have expected the effect of his words to be- it didn't even have to be purposeful incitement, based on intent, only one that was reasonably foreseeable as an effect. And the idea that Trump should escape impeachment as a punishment because he's just not reasonable enough (or too damn stupid) to have known the effect his words would have is ridiculous, especially after four years of seeing him in office and using that exact same sort of speech as policy at one rally after another. He should have known how his words would work on his faithful- he got into office in the first place by knowing the difference between just people and a mob of them.
	__________________ 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

11th January 2021, 09:04 AM	#308
slyjoe Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 2,554	The House just introduced HR21 - a bill to ask Pence to invoke the 25th amendment. They aren't doing anything else today. I'm surprised they would actually bother.
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

11th January 2021, 09:07 AM	#309
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 22,773	Originally Posted by Tero The senate will not get the 2/3 votes. But with Kamala tie breaking, it will go 51/50. So America will have "almost impeached" him. I wouldn't be so sure. I know that conventional wisdom is that, but there are a lot of Senators who will see how unpopular the attempted lynching of not only Nancy Pelosi, but also Trump's VP. It might actually be rather brave of them to side with Trump. Especially if opinion polls show his popularity nosediving, which it might.
	__________________ 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

11th January 2021, 09:21 AM	#310
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,604	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward If you don't use the legal standard for guilt, and leave it up to each legislator, I'm not sure you have an argument against them when they use that standard,or a more strict one, and vote against. McConnell decided that the Senate didn't need to gather evidence to decide the case of the 2st Impeachment. If he wanted he could have the Senate just vote.
	__________________ So what are you going to do about it, huh? What would an intellectual do? What would Plato do?

11th January 2021, 09:30 AM	#311
jadebox Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,884	Originally Posted by slyjoe The House just introduced HR21 - a bill to ask Pence to invoke the 25th amendment. They aren't doing anything else today. I'm surprised they would actually bother. Well, they also introduced a resolution to impeach the president. No big deal. :-)

11th January 2021, 09:33 AM	#312
slyjoe Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 2,554	Originally Posted by jadebox Well, they also introduced a resolution to impeach the president. No big deal. :-) Really? I didn't think they had yet.
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

11th January 2021, 09:35 AM	#313
jadebox Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,884	Originally Posted by slyjoe Really? I didn't think they had yet. "(CNN) House Democrats formally introduced their resolution to impeach President Donald Trump on Monday, charging him with 'incitement of insurrection' for his role in last week's riots at the US Capitol." https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/polit...ans/index.html
	Last edited by jadebox; 11th January 2021 at 09:37 AM.

11th January 2021, 09:40 AM	#314
slyjoe Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 2,554	Originally Posted by jadebox "(CNN) House Democrats formally introduced their resolution to impeach President Donald Trump on Monday, charging him with 'incitement of insurrection' for his role in last week's riots at the US Capitol." https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/polit...ans/index.html Thanks. I get it now. I was watching the house feed when the 25th amendment bill was introduced. Immediately after that they gaveled the house into recess until tomorrow at 9 AM. I see from the CNN article there was a brief pro forma session after that.
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

11th January 2021, 09:41 AM	#315
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,215	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Well, I know you like to play 'devil's advocate', but this is silly. I'm not playing devil's advocate - I genuinely think it's a dumb move. And I'm not the only one - here's a lifelong hard-left columnist from The Guardian saying the exact same thing, for the exact same reasons: Quote: The outgoing president’s reputation among these people will only grow with each cry of glee from his enemies. Even if he vanishes into exile, his supporters will seek another saviour, another maverick from the rambling confederacy that is modern American democracy. That is why liberals everywhere should be careful how they react to Trump’s going. Losers should know how to lose well, but victors should know how to win wisely. So ignore Trump, and just count the minutes until he goes. https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ump-exile-base Originally Posted by Meadmaker He might be so incompetent and self-absorbed that it never occurred to him to consider the impact of his words on the crowd. They were cheering for him, and that's what matters to him. There you go - you nailed it on both counts. Trump is an extraordinarily stupid and self-absorbed person. The idea of cause and effect is beyond his brain, and he was just playing the same game he's been playing since "Lock her up!" chants started. "Hey, they're cheering while I'm talking, I'll keep talking!" As I keep saying, and as the Guardian bloke says, you can rise above it or sink down to his level and Democrats have chosen the latter.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.