Split Thread: A second impeachment

[Stacyhs]

Rep. Eric Swalwell made an excellent point today that some of the senators that are acting as 'jurors' in the impeachment are also not only witnesses but are also participants in the very act of spreading the lies that led to the storming of the Capitol. Talk about a conflict of interest! There is no way they are ever going to vote guilty. They should be removed from voting but I don't know how that could be done as there is no mechanism n place for that that I am aware of.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Which won't mean crap to most of the GOP senators.

but it is something that might get into some bubbles. And the more evidence that can be brought, the harder it will be for the GOP to be seen to vote to acquit.

Also, it would be good to get a proper investigation into the Ukraine call evidence that McConnell refused to hear.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by jimbob

but it is something that might get into some bubbles. And the more evidence that can be brought, the harder it will be for the GOP to be seen to vote to acquit.

Yeah, and those weight loss commercials are telling the truth when they say you'll lose 25 lbs. in a month.

Quote:

Also, it would be good to get a proper investigation into the Ukraine call evidence that McConnell refused to hear.

Agreed. But that's not going to happen in this impeachment. This is about inciting the Capitol riot. They're not going to "LOOK! SQUIRREL!" by bringing that up. They're going to concentrate on inciting insurrection.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I agree with this. I think the evidence is already overwhelming and shouldn't require the extra time. Still, the time allows the Democrats to plan the trial. Unilike before, in this situation, how this trial pays out is entirely in the Democrats hands. There is no short circuiting the trial and eliminating the evidence.

This isn't extra time. This is actually quite fast for an impeachment. The previous impeachments of Trump and Clinton took about 3 weeks from impeachment to trial. This one will be about 4 weeks, but that is in part due to Congress not being in session and a new Congress and administration being established. Those previous impeachments also had months of inquiry before the articles of impeachment were actually passed. This moved very fast past the inquiry stage and is normal for the time to the trial stage.

I do wonder whether they would be better off waiting to see what else comes out, especially on whether he had any involvement in reducing or delaying the National Guard and other security at the Capitol.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

This isn't extra time. This is actually quite fast for an impeachment. The previous impeachments of Trump and Clinton took about 3 weeks from impeachment to trial. This one will be about 4 weeks, but that is in part due to Congress not being in session and a new Congress and administration being established. Those previous impeachments also had months of inquiry before the articles of impeachment were actually passed. This moved very fast past the inquiry stage and is normal for the time to the trial stage.

I do wonder whether they would be better off waiting to see what else comes out, especially on whether he had any involvement in reducing or delaying the National Guard and other security at the Capitol.

When I say "extra time". I'm saying that Trump's guilt is evident right now to anyone who views this honestly. No one should need to see more than what the nation has experienced since the election.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

When I say "extra time". I'm saying that Trump's guilt is evident right now to anyone who views this honestly. No one should need to see more than what the nation has experienced since the election.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

https://media1.giphy.com/media/xT5LM...&rid=giphy.gif

I get that they are not viewing this honestly. But that may not be apparent to the public at large even though we think it is.

[Bob001]

Sen. Hawley has a history of defending militias and racists.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/loca...248663695.html

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Sen. Hawley has a history of defending militias and racists.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/loca...248663695.html

From the article:

Quote:

Hawley, an evangelical Christian, has long championed the view that political leaders should be guided by their religious faith and that secularism runs counter to the country’s founding principles.

Now, why doesn't that surprise me? I bet he's real big on the Second Amendment but gets kind of foggy on the First Amendment.

I also had to laugh about his 'I'm not a ladder climbing politician' campaign ad when he was already planning his next move within his first few months in office as the MO AG.

And who does he think he's fooling with his "I wave to everyone" excuse regarding the fist salute to the rioters? What a scumbag.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

From the article:



Now, why doesn't that surprise me? I bet he's real big on the Second Amendment but gets kind of foggy on the First Amendment.

I also had to laugh about his 'I'm not a ladder climbing politician' campaign ad when he was already planning his next move within his first few months in office as the MO AG.

And who does he think he's fooling with his "I wave to everyone" excuse regarding the fist salute to the rioters? What a scumbag.

Maybe it was a bit like this?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by Aridas

The large majority of Biden voters, likely... much as the concern is fairly certainly far more along the lines of Justice, which would likely be the generally preferred option. Impeachment serves a different role, albeit also one of value.

Just to expand on this a little-

Some in the GOP are arguing that you can only impeach and convict a sitting President, on the ground that it's ridiculous, or "moot," to remove a President who is already out of office. This argument rests on two suppositions- that the penalty is the only reason for the process, and that removal is the only penalty.

But if a bank president has embezzled funds from his bank, then resigned after being caught, he can still be prosecuted and convicted for what he did, because it was against the damn law. To me, it's as frankly ridiculous to say that a US President can escape any consequences for having committed a "high crime" when he was in a position to do so just because he's no longer in that position, as to allow the bank president to escape his due penalty for having embezzled when he could just because he no longer can. In either case, the point is the wrong committed, not just the penalty for it. (And, no, the distinction between "legal" and "political" doesn't affect that central point of the analogy)

And, of course, the removal from office isn't the only penalty possible. Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution, says "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor." So, even though that prescribed penalty isn't the reason for an impeachment, but a practical effect that follows as a result of the process, it can apply to anyone who can potentially deserve the penalty- whether they presently can is irrelevant.

[JoeMorgue]

Like I said in another post if you do something and there is no consequence there is absolutely no reason to not do it again, so it's emboldening the actions at best, letting it serve as a training exercise / trail run at best.'

"Actions have consequences" is a concept we had to remind people exists.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Like I said in another post if you do something and there is no consequence there is absolutely no reason to not do it again, so it's emboldening the actions at best, letting it serve as a training exercise / trail run at best.'

"Actions have consequences" is a concept we had to remind people exists.

True enough, but these days I think we also have to remind people what actual consequences are. Nowadays "taking responsibility" for something seems to consist of mouthing a few words and then shifting responsibility for the problem on those who find them insufficient. For some, it seems, the mere burden of accusation is an unbearable consequence, and those who wish for more than that are divisive and vindictive.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Like I said in another post if you do something and there is no consequence there is absolutely no reason to not do it again, so it's emboldening the actions at best, letting it serve as a training exercise / trail run at best.'

"Actions have consequences" is a concept we had to remind people exists.

Exactly. And if the consequence is the inability to do it again, that's an entirely proper one to apply to anyone, regardless of whether or not the person it applies to is presently in a position to commit the act. It's true enough that you can't remove from an office someone who isn't presently in it; but "you can only disqualify a person from being President in the future if he is now" is just stupid.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I think if Trump is acquitted, that, though it might take a while to die, the death warrant of the GOP will have been signed.

I'm convinced he WILL be acquitted and that it will NOT be the end of the party. I wish I could share your optimism.

Originally Posted by sackett

Especially that $70 mil. Does anybody really believe tRumP would spend it on his campaign?

Oh, he'll spend it on the campaign. Hiring his toadies, renting ballrooms at Trump hotels at twice the going rate, leasing his airplane to the campaign for him to travel on, etc.

[dasmiller]

My old email address that got all the Trump campaign emails has started getting near-daily emails from Nikki Haley. These seem to be clearly aimed at a 2024 presidential run building on Trump's base.

It struck me that she must be praying every night that Trump is convicted. If she has to face Trump in the primary, Trump will see her as an enemy and she'll lose his base even if she wins the primary. But if Trump can't run, then she's a loyal, attractive woman and Trump will support her.

A lot of other Republicans are probably thinking similar thoughts. If Trump can enter the 2024 Republican primary, it may be very difficult for any Republican to win the general election.

[sackett]

Too many of youse guys assume that Donnie Fad **** will be around in 2024, and that he'll have followers. Given the healthy turmoil of politics in a democracy, there's good reason to eschew speculation that far in advance.

I said ESCHEW, not CHEW, goddammit!

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by sackett

Too many of youse guys assume that Donnie Fad **** will be around in 2024, and that he'll have followers. Given the healthy turmoil of politics in a democracy, there's good reason to eschew speculation that far in advance.

Sadly, the last few years (and especially 2020) have badly damaged my ability to maintain that level of optimism.

[dudalb]

Pat Leahy will preside over the trial.
If things get rowdy, he can always call on Batman to help restore order....

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Maybe it was a bit like this?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Love me some Father Ted.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Like I said in another post if you do something and there is no consequence there is absolutely no reason to not do it again, so it's emboldening the actions at best, letting it serve as a training exercise / trail run at best.'

"Actions have consequences" is a concept we had to remind people exists.

Now, now, Joe...Republicans aren't saying that Trump should face no consequence at all. Some are saying he should be censured. I mean, don't you think being censured would be enough to prevent all future presidents from trying to destroy our faith in our election system by overturning an election with lies and then inciting an insurrection?



(Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

[Captain_Swoop]

Marco Rubio tweeted

@marcorubio
Waste of time impeachment isn’t about accountability

It’s about demands from vengeance from the radical left

And a new “show” for the “Political Entertainment Industry”

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Marco Rubio tweeted

@marcorubio
Waste of time impeachment isn’t about accountability

It’s about demands from vengeance from the radical left

And a new “show” for the “Political Entertainment Industry”

With toady statements like this, I can just imagine how Rubio will be crowing about how he so bravely and loudly defended poor, oppressed, Donald Trump when Rubio makes his run for President in 2024.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Marco Rubio tweeted

@marcorubio
Waste of time impeachment isn’t about accountability

It’s about demands from vengeance from the radical left

And a new “show” for the “Political Entertainment Industry”

There will never be accountability as long as there's someone like you blocking it by framing a call for it as nothing but a "show." Man up, Little Marco- your party nominated and elected a man to the Presidency who never gave a single damn about anything but how it profited him and his ego, and showed that between the election in November and the count on Jan 6. He needs to be held accountable for that, and so do you- it's not "vengeance" just because it's the other side demanding that the party of "personal responsibility" take some.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

With toady statements like this, I can just imagine how Rubio will be crowing about how he so bravely and loudly defended poor, oppressed, Donald Trump when Rubio makes his run for President in 2024.

I'm going to laugh if Trump or one of the nits who grew into lice runs against Rubio in his Senate primary.

[Firestone]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Marco Rubio tweeted

@marcorubio
Waste of time impeachment isn’t about accountability

It’s about demands from vengeance from the radical left

And a new “show” for the “Political Entertainment Industry”

Originally Posted by Craig4

I'm going to laugh if Trump or one of the nits who grew into lice runs against Rubio in his Senate primary.

Someone on Twitter: "Florida Senator uses coded language to beg daughter of local mafia figure to not hurt him and take his lunch money."

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by dasmiller

My old email address that got all the Trump campaign emails has started getting near-daily emails from Nikki Haley. These seem to be clearly aimed at a 2024 presidential run building on Trump's base.

It struck me that she must be praying every night that Trump is convicted. If she has to face Trump in the primary, Trump will see her as an enemy and she'll lose his base even if she wins the primary. But if Trump can't run, then she's a loyal, attractive woman and Trump will support her.

A lot of other Republicans are probably thinking similar thoughts. If Trump can enter the 2024 Republican primary, it may be very difficult for any Republican to win the general election.

And I bet Republicans would like to prove how progressive they really are by being the party to elect the first woman president.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

And I bet Republicans would like to prove how progressive they really are by being the party to elect the first woman president.

The same way that only the Tories have had woman PMs in the UK?

[zooterkin]

45 senators voted to dismiss the impeachment, which doesn’t look good for conviction. McConnell was one of them.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

45 senators voted to dismiss the impeachment, which doesn’t look good for conviction. McConnell was one of them.

That should come as no surprise to anyone. (But then, at least they will still get various republicans on record as approving of Trump's actions...)

The only republicans that voted in favor of proceeding with the impeachment trial were:
Ben Sasse of Nebraska
Susan Collins of Maine
Mitt Romney of Utah
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

That should come as no surprise to anyone. (But then, at least they will still get various republicans on record as approving of Trump's actions...)

The only republicans that voted in favor of proceeding with the impeachment trial were:
Ben Sasse of Nebraska
Susan Collins of Maine
Mitt Romney of Utah
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Knowing this a failed attempt prior to the trial, gives Trump Supporters power. It wastes monies that can be better spent and time that we will never get back. This entire process is political and not meant for justice or closure. It just keeps Trump as a distraction and provides him with a platform.

Remember how the Dems got greater momentum when Trump was stopped at every court? The same is going to happen with Trump and all of this can be prevented.

Biden spoke about Unity in his inauguration yet immediately supported a divisive action that is confusing and contradictory.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by No Other

Knowing this a failed attempt prior to the trial, gives Trump Supporters power. It wastes monies that can be better spent and time that we will never get back. This entire process is political and not meant for justice or closure. It just keeps Trump as a distraction and provides him with a platform.

Remember how the Dems got greater momentum when Trump was stopped at every court? The same is going to happen with Trump and all of this can be prevented.

Biden spoke about Unity in his inauguration yet immediately supported a divisive action that is confusing and contradictory.

Yeah, no.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

And I bet Republicans would like to prove how progressive they really are by being the party to elect the first woman president.

Republicans, at one time, were progressive.

Margaret Chase Smith, a Republican from Maine, ran for President in 1964, was the first woman to serve in both houses of Congress, and she provided civility in the middle of the Cold War.

OSHA and EPA were created under the Republican Administration (1970)... Nixon was not popular on either side of the aisle.

There are many other developments but the Republicans did an about face when Ronald Reagan took office... Cheney and Rumsfeld are directly responsible for this 180 turn.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

45 senators voted to dismiss the impeachment, which doesn’t look good for conviction. McConnell was one of them.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

That should come as no surprise to anyone. (But then, at least they will still get various republicans on record as approving of Trump's actions...)

The only republicans that voted in favor of proceeding with the impeachment trial were:
Ben Sasse of Nebraska
Susan Collins of Maine
Mitt Romney of Utah
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Apparently Senator Rand Paul gave what I've seen described as a "fiery" speech, hitting the usual tropes- "Impeachment is for removal from office, he's already out," "Democrats being divisive!" and so on.

So, we have a guy whose policy for the last five years has been dividing America into "me!" and "everyone else!" The GOP saw how that was working for him, and decided that they needed to kiss his butt so they could crowd into his "me!" tent, and damn everyone else- the MSM became the enemy of the state, and Democrats automatically "the radical left." Then the guy they'd nurtured for four years, in the name of tax cuts for the corporate rich and conservative judges, and hoping he (and his proudly deplorable base) wouldn't turn on them, lost an election and spent two months whining, lying about, and trying to fix it, topping it off with a speech that only a complete ******* moron wouldn't realize would have the effect it did, indeed, have...

...and it's the Democrats who are being divisive, because they they think the guy should be held accountable, and the party who raised him up and then supported him, for the most part without question, should show a little sense of responsibility for having done so, and maybe a little understanding, on a basic "Senators should know this stuff"- level, that removal isn't the only thing impeachment can result in. As long as they worry about being primaried by Trump and his base, to the point that that's their only consideration, he will continue to be in a position to do so, and, in another four years, potentially even more so. For all the talk I've seen from Trumpers about how Trump is living rent-free in the heads of libs, that is really giving him the keys to the house.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by No Other

Republicans, at one time, were progressive.

Margaret Chase Smith, a Republican from Maine, ran for President in 1964, was the first woman to serve in both houses of Congress, and she provided civility in the middle of the Cold War.

OSHA and EPA were created under the Republican Administration (1970)... Nixon was not popular on either side of the aisle.

There are many other developments but the Republicans did an about face when Ronald Reagan took office... Cheney and Rumsfeld are directly responsible for this 180 turn.

Not just them. The coalition with the evangelical right coincided with the Reagan administration.

The Republican party was much different in the past. Without Northern Republicans the Civil Rights Acts would never have passed. On taxation, and infrastructure, one should look at the 50s when the highest marginal tax rate was 90 percent. In fact it was a Democratic POTUS (JFK) that reduced that rate. Eisenhower also pushed and passed the Interstate Highway Act. Pete McCloskey one of my favorite Republicans was one the most passionate Republicans ever on the Environment. Nixon created the EPA and signed both the Clean Air and Clean Water Act. Barry Goldwater was against discrimination against homosexuals in the Military. The GOP was also quite mixed about abortion rights. Before 1980 there was almost as many pro choice Republicans as Democrats.

I was heavily involved in Democratic politics in the late 70s and early 80s. But back in those days things really were much more civil. One of my closest friends was the leader of the UW Young Republicans. You could have a spirited policy discussions over a beer in those days with the loyal opposition.

[Stacyhs]

Once again, 45 Republican senators show they are spineless cowards and care more about their own ambitions and party than their country. Shame on them. This is why I hold the GOP in nothing but utter contempt.

They impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job, but refuse to hold Trump responsible for lying about "mail in ballot fraud", for trying to overturn a legitimate election because he cannot accept losing, for trying to force a governor and state AG to "find" enough votes to overturn that state's election, for lying about a "rigged election" and inciting a crowd to walk "with him" to the Capitol to "fight like hell" and not let the "steal" the election.
No, that is ok with them.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Not just them. The coalition with the evangelical right coincided with the Reagan administration.

The Republican party was much different in the past. Without Northern Republicans the Civil Rights Acts would never have passed. On taxation, and infrastructure, one should look at the 50s when the highest marginal tax rate was 90 percent. In fact it was a Democratic POTUS (JFK) that reduced that rate. Eisenhower also pushed and passed the Interstate Highway Act. Pete McCloskey one of my favorite Republicans was one the most passionate Republicans ever on the Environment. Nixon created the EPA and signed both the Clean Air and Clean Water Act. Barry Goldwater was against discrimination against homosexuals in the Military. The GOP was also quite mixed about abortion rights. Before 1980 there was almost as many pro choice Republicans as Democrats.

I was heavily involved in Democratic politics in the late 70s and early 80s. But back in those days things really were much more civil. One of my closest friends was the leader of the UW Young Republicans. You could have a spirited policy discussions over a beer in those days with the loyal opposition.

The GOP has become the party of extremists, the party of Trump. Once the Religious Right, AKA Jerry Falwell with his Moral Majority, got their foot in the door with Reagan, it began the slide into extremism. You can see the timeline here:
https://billmoyers.com/content/timel...ican-platform/

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by No Other

Knowing this a failed attempt prior to the trial, gives Trump Supporters power. It wastes monies that can be better spent and time that we will never get back. This entire process is political and not meant for justice or closure.

Trump's actions feed in to an event that resulted in multiple deaths during the Capitol hill riots. Calling him to account for those actions IS meant for justice.

Quote:

It just keeps Trump as a distraction and provides him with a platform.

You are of course assuming that all 'platforms' are of benefit to him. Highlighting the events prior to and on that day will be an embarrassment to those involved.

Quote:

Remember how the Dems got greater momentum when Trump was stopped at every court? The same is going to happen with Trump and all of this can be prevented.

We heard the same the first time Stubby McBonespurs was impeached. "He'll come out stronger at the end". Less than a year later, he ended up losing the election by millions of votes.

Quote:

Biden spoke about Unity in his inauguration yet immediately supported a divisive action that is confusing and contradictory.

Why should it be the democrats that always give ground in the name of "Unity"?

Trump has never officially conceded. Dozens of republican congress-critters voted against certifying the election results. And now, after all that, you are accusing the democrats of being divisive?

Here's a suggestion... why don't the Republicans actually become the "party of personal responsibility" that they claim to be, and join with the Democrats in impeaching/convicting Trump in the name of "unity"?

[Stacyhs]

Quote:

Here's a suggestion... why don't the Republicans actually become the "party of personal responsibility" that they claim to be, and join with the Democrats in impeaching/convicting Trump in the name of "unity"?

Because they're the party of hypocrites.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Trump's actions feed in to an event that resulted in multiple deaths during the Capitol hill riots. Calling him to account for those actions IS meant for justice.

You are of course assuming that all 'platforms' are of benefit to him. Highlighting the events prior to and on that day will be an embarrassment to those involved.

We heard the same the first time Stubby McBonespurs was impeached. "He'll come out stronger at the end". Less than a year later, he ended up losing the election by millions of votes.

Why should it be the democrats that always give ground in the name of "Unity"?

Trump has never officially conceded. Dozens of republican congress-critters voted against certifying the election results. And now, after all that, you are accusing the democrats of being divisive?

Here's a suggestion... why don't the Republicans actually become the "party of personal responsibility" that they claim to be, and join with the Democrats in impeaching/convicting Trump in the name of "unity"?

Amen!

It's as if the forget that Trump never conceded the election, or a peaceful transfer of power. That he didn't tell the Proud Boys to stand down and stand by. That he didn't plan a rally for the day of the formal vote and encouraged them to fight and stop the steal. Never mind that nothing was stolen.