IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Congressional hearings , donald trump , impeachment , Trump administration , Trump controversies , Trump impeachment

Reply
Old 15th February 2021, 10:56 AM   #2761
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 28,289
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
It would probably help if they stopped saying things like "We need a strong Republican party" and started speaking plainly about how totally corrupt their counterparts have become.

We actually don't need a strong Republican party, and I really wish one of these journalists would press the Dems on statements like these, because I have no idea what they mean by this.

If the party itself can be saved, an extended period of time as a powerless minority party is probably necessary to spur meaningful reform. Or it can just whither and become replaced by some other party.
I agree that we certainly do not need what passes for the Republican party to be strong, and that it would be a great benefit to the nation and the world if they were to fall apart and become an impotent minority. Unfortunately, I think it's clear that much more must be done before that minority is impotent even if the official power structure leaves them out.

I think a reasonably strong bipartisan system is ultimately of benefit, not only to keep one side from getting overconfident and despotic, but to keep the lunatic fringes which tend to attach to them from gaining traction. But before that can happen the Republicans will have to repudiate the corruption and the lunatic fringe that has become its voice.

Alas our experience with climate change gives us warning of how hard that will be. The current opportunists look only as far as the next primary. In the face of power loss, procrastination rules.

I'm reminded of an old cartoon I saw somewhere (probably Punch in the 1970's) of a couple of people standing beside a tall tall pagoda. One says to the other "We'll have to build another level. This one has termites too."
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 11:06 AM   #2762
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 4,737
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
In washing his hands of guilt McConnell said it's up to the justice system, not him to hold Trump accountable.

So here's my question, is Trump legally liable for not responding to the riot?
That's McConnell trying to eat his cake and have it too. He wasn't being asked to make any legal judgement, only, by a political process, an entirely proper political one. My guess would be that, no, there's no way to hold Trump legally liable for not responding properly to the riot; I'm not even sure there's a way to hold him legally liable for the broader charges brought in the impeachment article, the whole package of actions that culminated in the Jan 6 riots (though I guess Georgia is going to try to for one of those actions, I don't expect anything solid to actually come of it). And I would bet that, for any Democratic president who did anything close to what Trump did, McConnell would never decide that he should have no role in holding him or her accountable.

So McConnell gets the best of both worlds- he washes his hands in front of his constituents of any guilt for the political judgement he could have made, and passes the burden on to a legal system that he probably doesn't really expect to ever saddle his party with the stain of having elected and sustained a President whose actions were judged criminal.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

Last edited by turingtest; 15th February 2021 at 11:19 AM. Reason: clarify
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 11:14 AM   #2763
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 87,928
The takeover of the GOP reminds me of Rajneeshpuram. They moved in on a church and inserted members that outnumbered the original church goers. Then they voted themselves onto the board and took control of the church's assets.

They also set up their own town and government. Move in, grow until your numbers are enough to takeover. Now the system itself is yours, complete with the assets.

They failed in the end.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 11:15 AM   #2764
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,521
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
He, don't forget Nixon. Or Ford's pardon of him.


I've heart people say the rot set in with Reagan and his anti-intellectualism, but we need to look at the two GOP presidents before him.
This is why I included all the way back to Barry Goldwater's run. Reagan was basically the main GOP equivalent to 1960s-70s George Wallace as far as civil rights went, but no less than lifelong GOP member Jackie Robinson likened being black at the 1964 convention to being a Jew in Hitler's Germany. People tend to be more familiar with Nixon's racist and anti-semitic views, and they're starting to get a grasp on Reagan's hatred of black Americans, but Goldwater tends to get ignored, despite...well, all that stuff in the essay I linked.

(and Lily-white republicanism went further back than that by decades, but Goldwater is when it really took over). Anti-intellelectualism, along with "trickle-down" theory and neoliberalism (meaning the belief that free markets do everything better, not just "anyone to the right of me", which is an unfortunate but popular second definition), soon followed.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 11:20 AM   #2765
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 87,928
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
That's McConnell trying to eat his cake and have it too. He wasn't being asked to make any legal judgement, only, by a political process, a political one. My guess would be that, no, there's no way to hold Trump legally liable for not responding properly to the riot; I'm not even sure there's a way to hold him legally liable for the broader charges brought in the impeachment article, the whole package of actions that culminated in the Jan 6 riots (though I guess Georgia is going to try to for one of those actions, I don't expect anything solid to actually come of it). And I would bet that, for any Democratic president who did anything close to what Trump did, McConnell would never decide that he should have no role in holding him or her accountable.

So McConnell gets the best of both worlds- he washes his hands in front of his constituents of any guilt for the political judgement he could have made, and passes the burden on to a legal system that he probably doesn't really expect to ever saddle his party with the stain of having elected and sustained a President whose actions were judged criminal.
I'm sure it's criminal that he incited the riot and insurrection. I'd love for the FBI to build a case against him for treason.

But responding to the riot is more like negligence. So maybe if we can charge a police officer with dereliction of duty then maybe that's what 'not responding' was.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 15th February 2021 at 11:25 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 12:16 PM   #2766
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 5,418
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
In washing his hands of guilt McConnell said it's up to the justice system, not him to hold Trump accountable.

So here's my question, is Trump legally liable for not responding to the riot?
The answer depends on which 12 Americans you ask.

Only one of them has to say no for it to become necessary to ask another group of 12.

Although, I also wonder how do you find jurors who are not already informed on and have strong opinions about Jan 6th?
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 12:45 PM   #2767
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 28,289
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Those reactionaries aren't declaring war just against Democrats who might think it's worthwhile trying to meet them halfway, they're declaring war against members of their own party who won't toe their line (Politico via MSN):

The "big tent" GOP doesn't even have room in their own party for diversity of opinion; just more evidence that the folks who mouth "unity!" at anyone outside of it isn't talking about unity at all, they're demanding nothing less than unconditional surrender.
True enough, once again the Republican party, while shrilly shouting against political correctness and "cancel culture," is acting just like a bunch of bolsheviks, purging their party of diversity, and thus assuring that the worst of the worst will be at the helm. They're working harder to get rid of moderate voices than to censure raving lunatics who lie, foment rebellion, advocate assassination and attribute natural disaster to Jewish lasers from outer space.

In a way, I sort of hope they succeed. I think the party needs the moderates more than the moderates need the party. When the Republicans tried to shut down Jim Jeffords, he just left and won as an independent. Same with Lowell Weicker.

I just wish more Republicans had the guts to walk and tell the lunatic fringe to crash and burn without them.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 02:45 PM   #2768
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 87,928
I started to answer my own question then somehow lost track.

You can be charged for dereliction of duty if you are in the military. So does Commander in Chief mean military code of justice applies?


Just looked and no he isn't. Oh well.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 15th February 2021 at 02:48 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 04:31 PM   #2769
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,909
I'm sure that someone has already posted McConnell's remarks.

Even though he ultimately didn't vote to convict, I do appreciate his acknowledgment of the facts.

He said that the narrative that the election was stolen was based on "false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole" and that Trump committed "a disgraceful dereliction of duty". He said that the rioters "used terrorism" and that they did so "because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an election."

The reason he gave for voting no seems to be based on a rather narrow interpretation of the constitution, and is not to absolve Trump of his responsibility.

I mean, just read his whole statement. It's very damning, and it acknowledges that Trump lost the election and the whole narrative by Trump that it was stolen is a lie.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 04:42 PM   #2770
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 6,785
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I started to answer my own question then somehow lost track.

You can be charged for dereliction of duty if you are in the military. So does Commander in Chief mean military code of justice applies?


Just looked and no he isn't. Oh well.
I recall a podcast that gave the following scenario...

The President simply goes on a permanent vacation, and stops doing any of the work a President is required to do. Clearly not a crime, but a “mis-demeanor” - literally bad behavior - that he could be impeached for. I think “dereliction of duty” can be used in a descriptive sense, and need not refer to a specific crime.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 04:43 PM   #2771
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 87,928
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I'm sure that someone has already posted McConnell's remarks.

Even though he ultimately didn't vote to convict, I do appreciate his acknowledgment of the facts. ...
It makes it worse. He knew Trump was guilty and he used an unsupportable excuse to vote not-guilty.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 04:44 PM   #2772
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 87,928
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
I recall a podcast that gave the following scenario...

The President simply goes on a permanent vacation, and stops doing any of the work a President is required to do. Clearly not a crime, but a “mis-demeanor” - literally bad behavior - that he could be impeached for. I think “dereliction of duty” can be used in a descriptive sense, and need not refer to a specific crime.
I'm just talking about the crimes 'civilian' Trump can still be charged for.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 04:49 PM   #2773
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,909
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
It makes it worse. He knew Trump was guilty and he used an unsupportable excuse to vote not-guilty.
To make an analogy, it's like Trump got off on a technicality.

Like jury not convicting a guilty defendant because someone forgot to read him his Miranda rights.

I'm just glad that at least he acknowledged the facts: Biden won the election. It wasn't stolen. The rioters did what they did that day because of Trump's lie that the election had been stolen. He didn't try to pretend otherwise.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 04:54 PM   #2774
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 87,928
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
To make an analogy, it's like Trump got off on a technicality.

Like jury not convicting a guilty defendant because someone forgot to read him his Miranda rights.

I'm just glad that at least he acknowledged the facts: Biden won the election. It wasn't stolen. The rioters did what they did that day because of Trump's lie that the election had been stolen. He didn't try to pretend otherwise.
If you look at the whole picture:

1) McConnell refused to try the case until Trump was out of office
2) The House Managers made a very clear evidence supported claim it was not unconstitutional.
3) The only support the GOP Senators had that it was unconstitutional was on theoretical grounds.

It wasn't a technical reason, it was a faux technical excuse.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 05:07 PM   #2775
sphenisc
Philosopher
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,434
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
If you look at the whole picture:

1) McConnell refused to try the case until Trump was out of office
2) The House Managers made a very clear evidence supported claim it was not unconstitutional.
3) The only support the GOP Senators had that it was unconstitutional was on theoretical grounds.

It wasn't a technical reason, it was a faux technical excuse.
Does 1) mean he knowingly assisted Trump in evading due process? Shouldn't that be some kind of impeachable offence?
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 06:05 PM   #2776
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 6,785
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I'm just talking about the crimes 'civilian' Trump can still be charged for.
Oh. Got it.

I had recently suggested “dereliction of duty” as a charge I thought should have been charged in the second impeachment, so I thought that’s what you were referring to.

Never mind.

Last edited by Fast Eddie B; 15th February 2021 at 06:24 PM.
Fast Eddie B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 06:09 PM   #2777
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 87,928
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Does 1) mean he knowingly assisted Trump in evading due process? Shouldn't that be some kind of impeachable offence?
Hard to prove intent. Pelosi was ready to give the impeachment documents to McConnell. The Senate was in recess, he refused to call them back which he had the authority to do. He knew Trump was guilty then.

And then McConnell could still argue Trump faces due process as a civilian.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 06:16 PM   #2778
dirtywick
Illuminator
 
dirtywick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,345
people are mad at Mitch but Dems got the senate majority and immediately folded.

Better get used to it
dirtywick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 06:53 PM   #2779
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 28,289
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
It makes it worse. He knew Trump was guilty and he used an unsupportable excuse to vote not-guilty.
Once again, I agree (it's getting to be a bad habit!). And I'd add that it would not surprise me too much if the ex, with Moscow Mitch's help, pulls a catch-22 out: that a sitting President has immunity from criminal prosecution, so the remedy for disciplining a sitting President can't be used because he's out, and the remedy for disciplining a non-sitting president can't be used because he wasn't out then. And all the time Mitcn gets to play both sides - oh so sorry my hands are tied.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 06:58 PM   #2780
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,126
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Since President Obama broke the precedent of staying away from political criticism of a sitting President, I would expect we will be seeing quite a bit of Trump after his acquittal. After all fair is fair.
I'd like you to provide the first public comment Obama made that was criticism of T****. Include the date as well as the content.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 07:17 PM   #2781
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,241
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Here's to hoping that you'll live.

Hans
You like me! You really like me!

Either that or I'm channeling Sally Field.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 07:18 PM   #2782
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,399
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
people are mad at Mitch but Dems got the senate majority and immediately folded.
How is getting the most number of Senators to cross the floor in an impeachment trial an "immediately folding"? Having seven senators cross the floor beat the five that crossed the floor for Clinton, and those five were Republicans that voted Not Guilty on charge 2.

It was also the most number of senators to have ever voted to impeach a President (though admittedly there were only 54 Senators in total for Andrew Jackson's Impeach Trial.)

How is it the fault of the Democrats that the majority of the Republican Senators are either craven cowards that put their own reelection and jobs ahead of their oaths to protect the Constitution and to be Impartial Jurors or are so far involved in the Cult of Trump that they are willing to put the deification of a man above the rule of law and the integrity of the US Electorial system?

Quote:
Better get used to it
Yeah, we are pretty used to Republicans being craven hypocrites. Nothing unusual to see really.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 15th February 2021 at 07:21 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 07:25 PM   #2783
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,126
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
The obvious solution is to change the political landscape very soon. Change the game entirely.

For example, changing federal redistribution laws for states to more equitably draw up electoral boundaries (stop gerrymandering).

Also, revising federal electoral laws to impose a consistent, equitable, robust set of election processes across all states.

In other words, force those who would "win" only by easily cheating the system to play by the rules so they have to win on their merits instead.
Never mind. I was talking about the "For the People Act" that Aridas has already cited.

Last edited by SezMe; 15th February 2021 at 07:51 PM.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 07:31 PM   #2784
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,241
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
True enough, once again the Republican party, while shrilly shouting against political correctness and "cancel culture," is acting just like a bunch of bolsheviks, purging their party of diversity, and thus assuring that the worst of the worst will be at the helm. They're working harder to get rid of moderate voices than to censure raving lunatics who lie, foment rebellion, advocate assassination and attribute natural disaster to Jewish lasers from outer space.

In a way, I sort of hope they succeed. I think the party needs the moderates more than the moderates need the party. When the Republicans tried to shut down Jim Jeffords, he just left and won as an independent. Same with Lowell Weicker.

I just wish more Republicans had the guts to walk and tell the lunatic fringe to crash and burn without them.
Agreed! I've never seen a party work so hard at destroying itself. At this point, all I can say is: more power to them. They deserve it.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 07:32 PM   #2785
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,126
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Correct. My mistake. I will force myself to have two glasses of wine in penance tonight.
Limiting yourself to two glasses is quite a punishment, indeed. Be good to yourself.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 07:38 PM   #2786
dirtywick
Illuminator
 
dirtywick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,345
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
How is getting the most number of Senators to cross the floor in an impeachment trial an "immediately folding"? Having seven senators cross the floor beat the five that crossed the floor for Clinton, and those five were Republicans that voted Not Guilty on charge 2.

It was also the most number of senators to have ever voted to impeach a President (though admittedly there were only 54 Senators in total for Andrew Jackson's Impeach Trial.)

How is it the fault of the Democrats that the majority of the Republican Senators are either craven cowards that put their own reelection and jobs ahead of their oaths to protect the Constitution and to be Impartial Jurors or are so far involved in the Cult of Trump that they are willing to put the deification of a man above the rule of law and the integrity of the US Electorial system?



Yeah, we are pretty used to Republicans being craven hypocrites. Nothing unusual to see really.
Guy who called for an insurrection and tried to have his VP killed got 2 more votes than the guy who lied to Congress about cheating on his wife sounds a lot less impressive when you hear it out loud tbh

It was expected that he would be acquitted. They could have made it a hard choice, or politically costly. They didnít really put up much of a fight over it. Speedy trial, a couple of speeches and a video, really not even an investigation of any sort, with no witnesses even after said R voted that they wanted to hear them. I expected some effort. They gave up, folded. Pretty lame.
dirtywick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 07:41 PM   #2787
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,241
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Limiting yourself to two glasses is quite a punishment, indeed. Be good to yourself.
Did I say how big the glasses were? No, I did not.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 07:45 PM   #2788
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,241
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
Guy who called for an insurrection and tried to have his VP killed got 2 more votes than the guy who lied to Congress about cheating on his wife sounds a lot less impressive when you hear it out loud tbh

It was expected that he would be acquitted. They could have made it a hard choice, or politically costly. They didnít really put up much of a fight over it. Speedy trial, a couple of speeches and a video, really not even an investigation of any sort, with no witnesses even after said R voted that they wanted to hear them. I expected some effort. They gave up, folded. Pretty lame.
That is about the most dishonest description of the Dems' presentation that I've heard from anyone outside of a Republican. I'm shocked.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 07:51 PM   #2789
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 17,365
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
It was expected that he would be acquitted. They could have made it a hard choice, or politically costly. They didnít really put up much of a fight over it. Speedy trial, a couple of speeches and a video, really not even an investigation of any sort, with no witnesses even after said R voted that they wanted to hear them. I expected some effort. They gave up, folded. Pretty lame.
Would it have been better to call witnesses?

Doing so would not make a difference (i.e. republicans would still have voted to acquit). It would have make the impeachment proceedings last longer at a time when congress has some rather important work to do... confirming Biden's nominees, covid relief, etc. (Yes, I think they were working on that stuff at the same time they were running the impeachment proceedings, but doing them together does slow things down.)

Would it have made much difference to voters? Maybe, maybe not. I think the democrats did get their point across with their videos and various speeches. Extending impeachment proceedings to hear from witnesses probably wouldn't have made that much more impact on the voters, and it may have even backfired if the witnesses manage to deflect some of the blame off Trump.

So, they might have made a smart political decision to wrap things up quickly.

Now that impeachment is over, they can confirm Biden's nominees (including Garland, who might actually bring in criminal charges). And, they can launch a more detailed investigation over the terrorism, that might just end up wrapping up around the mid-terms (at a time when people might be deciding whether to vote for the party that supported terrorism or the Democrats).
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 08:14 PM   #2790
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 87,928
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
people are mad at Mitch but Dems got the senate majority and immediately folded.

Better get used to it
If you are talking about the impeachment trial this is apples and oranges. The need for 2/3 vote in is the Constitution.

As for in general, I believe Schumer agrees with you.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 08:22 PM   #2791
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 87,928
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Once again, I agree (it's getting to be a bad habit!). And I'd add that it would not surprise me too much if the ex, with Moscow Mitch's help, pulls a catch-22 out: that a sitting President has immunity from criminal prosecution, so the remedy for disciplining a sitting President can't be used because he's out, and the remedy for disciplining a non-sitting president can't be used because he wasn't out then. And all the time Mitcn gets to play both sides - oh so sorry my hands are tied.
Here's the deal. A lot of people wanted Obama to consider criminal charges against Bush et al for war crimes. He didn't, said it would be a bad precedent and make the divisiveness worse. Biden was in that administration.

Biden has said, and I agree, the POTUS should not be involved in directing the DoJ to charge anyone. Political vengeance should not be, or appear to be the motive behind a prosecution.

So Biden said he would appoint a good team from the AG on down and they would be commissioned to assess if Trump should be prosecuted, not Biden.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 08:39 PM   #2792
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,909
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
It was expected that he would be acquitted. They could have made it a hard choice, or politically costly. They didn’t really put up much of a fight over it. Speedy trial, a couple of speeches and a video, really not even an investigation of any sort, with no witnesses even after said R voted that they wanted to hear them. I expected some effort. They gave up, folded. Pretty lame.
Personally I'm glad it didn't drag on forever. It would have been politically costly for Democrats too.

There's other stuff that the senate needs to do. There's appointments to confirm, bills to be considered, and all of the other normal legislative business. We need an infrastructure bill. I didn't want an impeachment for an ex-president to take up the whole first 100 days or whatever.

Plus, Trump isn't necessarily out of the woods yet:

Impeachment isn’t the final word on Capitol riot for Trump
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 08:41 PM   #2793
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,592
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
To make an analogy, it's like Trump got off on a technicality.
No.
it’s like Trump got off because the jury was made up of members of his direct family.
Quote:
Like jury not convicting a guilty defendant because someone forgot to read him his Miranda rights.
No.
They didn’t convict him because A. they had already decided on acquittal and B. They then just ignored all due process and any evidence presented by the prosecution.
Quote:
I'm just glad that at least he acknowledged the facts: Biden won the election. It wasn't stolen. The rioters did what they did that day because of Trump's lie that the election had been stolen. He didn't try to pretend otherwise.
It was a cynical, self-serving piece of political bull ********. And yet again, Americans are falling over themselves buying into GOP BS and calling it “new truth”.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 09:10 PM   #2794
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,146
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I'm sure it's criminal that he incited the riot and insurrection. I'd love for the FBI to build a case against him for treason.

But responding to the riot is more like negligence. So maybe if we can charge a police officer with dereliction of duty then maybe that's what 'not responding' was.
Well, I think the dereliction of duty was definitely ample cause to impeach him. I kind of doubt that there are criminal charges for that alone that will stick.

OTOH, I think there is a good possibility that Trump was complicit in the planning of the insurrection. I think when FBI and DOJ start leaning on the planners, they will talk. I'm hoping enough comes out to make criminal charges stick.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 09:26 PM   #2795
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 20,399
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
Guy who called for an insurrection and tried to have his VP killed got 2 more votes than the guy who lied to Congress about cheating on his wife sounds a lot less impressive when you hear it out loud tbh
Your math is a little off here. With Clinton, the 5 Republicans crossed the floor to vote Not Guilty, with Trump the 7 crossed the floor to vote Guilty. That's essentially a difference of 12, not 2.

Quote:
It was expected that he would be acquitted.
Of course it was, because Republicans are craven cowards.

Quote:
They could have made it a hard choice, or politically costly. They didnít really put up much of a fight over it. Speedy trial, a couple of speeches and a video, really not even an investigation of any sort, with no witnesses even after said R voted that they wanted to hear them. I expected some effort. They gave up, folded. Pretty lame.
The Democrats did exactly what they needed to, they showed that Trump was as guilty as sin and then that most of the Republicans as craven cowards who are scared to uphold the Constitution in case they lose their jobs. The thing is that it won't matter because the Republican base would rather have Republican Senators who lick Trump's butt than ones that actually stand up for the Constitution. Hence why we now see Republicans attacking the seven that took their oaths seriously and stood up to protect the Constitution instead of protecting Trump's illegal actions.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 10:39 PM   #2796
dirtywick
Illuminator
 
dirtywick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,345
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Your math is a little off here. With Clinton, the 5 Republicans crossed the floor to vote Not Guilty, with Trump the 7 crossed the floor to vote Guilty. That's essentially a difference of 12, not 2.
fine, the charges weren't even in the same league and Clinton was popular, Trump was unpopular and used the office of the president to try and kill people.


Quote:
The Democrats did exactly what they needed to, they showed that Trump was as guilty as sin and then that most of the Republicans as craven cowards who are scared to uphold the Constitution in case they lose their jobs. The thing is that it won't matter because the Republican base would rather have Republican Senators who lick Trump's butt than ones that actually stand up for the Constitution. Hence why we now see Republicans attacking the seven that took their oaths seriously and stood up to protect the Constitution instead of protecting Trump's illegal actions.
I mean, if you think they did a good job that's cool. They had the power to do a proper impeachment this time and didn't really do anything with it. If they were just going to give a couple of speeches and show a video and not really try and change anyone's mind they could have censured him.
dirtywick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 10:54 PM   #2797
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 9,204
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
I mean, if you think they did a good job that's cool. They had the power to do a proper impeachment this time and didn't really do anything with it. If they were just going to give a couple of speeches and show a video and not really try and change anyone's mind they could have censured him.
Do you think if they went the whole 10 yards and brought in scads of witnesses who testified to all the bad stuff first-hand, and then the GOP dragged in all THEIR counter-witnesses, such as they might have been, that there would have been any different outcome?

The Dems knew the fix was in from the outset. Even before the Congress voted and the Impeachment Managers walked across the building to the Senate. Their goal was two-fold:

1) Politically, make the GOP pay in spades for decades to come (if not forever) for their really stupid dalliances with Trumpism. If a conservative civil war in the GOP happened and it split into bickering halves, all the better. Let the GOP eat their own.

2) As a longer shot, get T**** convicted.

They got the first one. The second was closer than at any time historically, but Mitch shut it down.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornetsí nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2021, 11:08 PM   #2798
dirtywick
Illuminator
 
dirtywick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,345
Yes I do think it would have mattered, his lawyers were completely outclassed and unprepared. Their opening remarks flipped one Senator alone.

Maybe they'd want to hear from Mark Meadows and Raffensperger on the GA call? Want to see Trump's phone records from Jan 6? Who else did he call that we don't know about? What did Trump and Pence talk about after the riot? Was the pentagon told to deliberately scale down the national guard presence and response? On who's orders?

They could have asked this stuff and figured out what happened.
dirtywick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 12:03 AM   #2799
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,241
Originally Posted by dirtywick View Post
Yes I do think it would have mattered, his lawyers were completely outclassed and unprepared. Their opening remarks flipped one Senator alone.

Maybe they'd want to hear from Mark Meadows and Raffensperger on the GA call? Want to see Trump's phone records from Jan 6? Who else did he call that we don't know about? What did Trump and Pence talk about after the riot? Was the pentagon told to deliberately scale down the national guard presence and response? On who's orders?

They could have asked this stuff and figured out what happened.
This wasn't about Trump's guilt or innocence for the GOP. That was obvious with their fixation on the "constitutionality" excuse. It was about finding an excuse to NOT find him guilty. You are living in La La Land if you think ANTHING the House Managers could have brought in would have changed ten more GOP votes.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2021, 12:12 AM   #2800
Bubba
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 5,269
Imagine if Officer Sicknick texted his brother, after the Jan 6 riot:

"I got pepper sprayed a couple times, but I'm in good shape."

Quote:
Of course, it is entirely possible ó perhaps even probable ó that this is true. But without an autopsy report, and with indications that Sicknick was able to get back to his office from the siege, later told his brother he was in good shape despite being pepper-sprayed, and bore no signs of blunt-force trauma, why maintain this assertion? After all, the Times has updated its story because the story, as originally published, was misleading. And the Democratic House managers ó after resting their allegation solely on the Timesí dubious fire-extinguisher claim ó essentially steered clear of the circumstances surrounding Sicknickís death during their impeachment trial presentation.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/...yFiE4eOhH-6s_E
Bubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.