DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump Impeachment 2.0

I don't know if it is constitutional or not. I don't see that as the point here.

In a impeachment trial, unlike the English system where the House of Lords can impose penalty, the Senate can not. The worst that can happen is the Senate can remove the President from office. Since removal from office is moot, this is largely a symbolic, politically motivated matter and one IMO that shouldn't proceed forward.

The best thing President Biden can do is to put the weight of his office behind pushing this matter to the side. If he doesn't, it may cause serious harm in his efforts to foster national unity and overshadow much of his Presidency.

It's time to move on.

JMO

They can also ban him from running again.

Yes, I failed to mention that because that is more a procedural point motivated more by political motivation, and in reality is the goal in this matter.

Again, JMO.

A conviction for sedition will keep him from holding office AND be used in any criminal/civil cases brought against him for this crime. I hope they nail him to the wall as an example for the next would be fascist dictator.

You're acting like this has been dragging on for months. It hasn't even been 3 weeks. It's not time to move on because the act of a sitting president of inciting a riot in order to commit a coup and overturn a legitimate election has not been addressed. The US govt works slowly, and what he did needs to be addressed.

I think that some *cough cough* might believe the election was stolen and that the Capitol Building occupation was justified.

Some seem to believe the fraudulent voters are smarter than the US Government and outfoxed the State run elections. Some think there is a giant Deep State that includes the FBI and presumably William Barr and others now.

There are no facts or evidence to back this up or to rely on to substantiate those beliefs .... but there's lot's of "possibly" - "maybe" - "potentially" sort of language to make it seem like it's a reasonable man that doesn't eliminate a concept regardless of how many times it's been proven false.

Inconvenient and unnecessary to impeach a President if you believe that what he said was true and what he did was patriotic.

That's the crux of the point, and I agree. The precedent has been thrown out there that it will be dangerous to impeach a president who is no longer sitting in office.

I would counter that with the notion that it is more dangerous to let a president engage in gravely harmful and impeachable behavior in the last days of his/her presidency without repercussion.

Did you ever notice how they claim to want everyone held accountable for their actions? How they claim personal responsibility and personal accountability are things their party stands for?

Until it's one of their own. Then, "It's time to move on".

It is time to move on. I haven't made comment on responsibility and accountability.

You people can think what you want because I am.

Carry on...I am just fearful you folks will have thrown away any last chance to mend fences.

That didn't seem to bother you for four years while Trump was telling his followers that "If the Domocrats wins it will destroy America as we know it". It didn't seem to bother you that before both elections he was telling them that if he lost the election would be a fraud. For four years this man said hateful, inciteful, divisive things to divide this nation that led to January sixth. It didn't seem to bother you that he and he alone called all those people there and told them "We'll fight like hell" and then told them to march to the capitol.

Where were you then? Now that it's time for him to be held accountable you suddenly care about dividing America? I'm not sure what you're having trouble seeing here. What's trying to be done here is to insure nobody abuses the power of the presidency to create a situation where their followers from trying to overthrow our elections again.

To keep a cult leader from sitting in The White House again. If your side thinks throwing another tantrum and trying to overthrow the government again is the answer, they can just send hundreds more to jail for their crimes against The United states of America.

I never thought I would see the day where you would try to excuse criminal behavior. Especially when it was launched against your own country. But it appears that day has come.

I doubt even many Republicans will shed a tear for prosecuting the crimes involved with occupying the Capitol. At least, that would be my hope. The same people that were calling for a Gestapo-esque response to the BLM protests now want to sweep an attempted overthrow of a legit election under the table makes absolutely no sense, even for our political system.

Nah- it's simply blind hatred- because Hillary lost. Simple as that; let's not confuse the issue with stupid things like 'responsibility' and 'accountability.'

That's the story they've been telling for four years to excuse every nasty thing he's said and every terrible thing he's done.

It's why you don't see me around this forum very much any more.

To me, you can never expect consistency out of a politician. Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio being the prime example. They fit whatever narrative to the situation that is in front of them.

It is also why we have traditionally separated/isolated law enforcement from the political discussion. When there is a law, it is either broken or not by the action of a person. Law enforcement based upon political perspective is just one of the worst things possible, and we know that after the past few years.

I hated the riots over the past summer, just as much as the Capitol riot. But I am not granting equivalency. The Capitol riot was also insurrection which is a different crime.

If you look at how this happened you realize that one was a response to something bad happening (Breona Taylor, George Floyd, etc.) and the other was a conscientious effort to disrupt the election.

"Big Protest in DC on January 6" and "Be there. will be wild" as Trump Tweeted.

“We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.”

Republican response; "There's nothing to see here folks. Move along."

...Benghazi.. ..Hillary’s personal emails... ... Monica... ...Obama’s birth certificate... ....Fences and walls where raised by the GOP and trump supporters and you damn well know it.

You actually raise an excellent point, and one that I haven't thought nor heard of. If we can raise hell over Hillary's emails (which I agreed with), how can someone possibly justify pushing an attempted coup aside?

If impeaching Trump for what happened on January 6 is what is considered to be a "last chance" at mending fences, then yes, I would agree.

It's settled, then.


Lock them both up.

You know I found Hilary's actions regarding the email and data sump/deletion to be deplorable ! But then ... Trump admin has had it's own case of the same issue regarding email server/private email use....

https://www.businessinsider.com/ivanka-t...versies-2018-11

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...ications-tools/

As for the material and data Trump Admin did or didn't potentially expose through their actions ... we don't know yet. From the first article:

"""We know now how much classified information had spilled into the various e-mails sent and received by Hillary Clinton, and the risk to national security that existed as a result of that was not imaginary or overblown," Moss told INSIDER. "It was a serious breach of protocol and anyone else would have had their security clearance revoked."

But Moss added that we know all of this because there was an "an exhaustive two-year government investigation into the matter."

"No such investigation has occurred yet with respect to Ivanka’s e-mail practices, so we do not yet know just how reckless she was (or, conversely, was not) compared to Hillary Clinton," Moss added. ""

It won't do any good.

Except for a dead officer. Guess his life doesnt matter.

And after that, it was proven, by the reading of that section of the Constitution that Paul had no freaking idea what the hell he was speaking of

Did the constitution refence "former" in that reading - demonstrating that impeachment was intended to be applied to officials out of their former roles where they committed the offenses?? I think I read something about that.

GOP are so totally spineless that I have stopped expecting this to be anything other than a charade. I mean McConnell stated that Trump put those wheels in motion - or words to that affect - and yet here we are.

"“The mob was fed lies,” McConnell told the chamber, which two weeks earlier had been evacuated as rioters invaded the building. “They were provoked by the president and other powerful people.”"

Not in so many words.. Either way, remember, he was impeached while still in office.

There's only one problem with his BS excuse to try and obstruct the proceedings. Someone else has already been impeached and tried in a senate trial after they left office. A legal and historical precedent has already been set.

Meet the other American who was impeached and tried after leaving office

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-th...office-n1255516

Old Rand didn't tell you that part did he?

Duh... Moscow Mitch is dEeP STatE!

I know it's pointless to try to use common sense to understand how this impeachment process is going to go... but the 'it's too late now' loophole doesn't really make any sense. He tried to overturn an election to prevent leaving office (meaning he was at the end of his term), and then with all the foot-dragging and general lack of competence/effectiveness of these groups would generally mean that you can't put any sort of deadline on doing this.

I'm not Miss Cleo or anything, but I can tell you how it's going to go.

For years all they have done is say "Lock her up!" when it comes to Hillary.

With Trump you have video evidence of not only him firing up the crowd, but then after firing them up, sending them to the scene of the crime.

And what are they saying? We need to move on. It's too late because he is no longer in office. The Democrats are dividing us.

I could go on, but Republicans will do nothing because it's one of their own. Their claim used to be that they stood for personal responsibility and personal accountability. I mean you still hear them say it when it comes to topics where it suits their argument.

But nobody really takes them seriously about it anymore because, well, because all they've done for five years now is make excuses why they elected a jack ass.

To be fair - if the boot twas on the other foot, the Dems would be doing the same thing. There are differences between the parties and what they stand for - but in many slimey ways they are the same.

There's only one true difference as I see it. The Democrats are not the party that has claimed what seems like forever have been saying things like "We are the party of Christian values". "We are the party of family values." "We are the party of personal accountability and personal responsibility." "We are the moral majority."

These are things they can say no more. And as we see on this very board they act like it's those who are or lean Democrat who are the evil doers or want to destroy America as they know it.

Let's be honest here, they are the party that has sold their morals and self proclaimed values down the river for a demagogue.

I don't believe either party holds some moral high ground but they do. And their actions prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don't.

You forgot some others - They are (not) the party of Law and Order ... They are (not) the party for small government...

It's just so hard trying to keep up with all of their BS.

No, there's another problem...

"But Belknap was eventually acquitted, with the Senate failing to muster the two-thirds vote needed to convict".

Good luck getting the two-thirds!!

Two thirds isn't going to happen. It won't make Trump any less guilty and it will be on record for future generations to see.

And you totally dodged what the discussion was. Which I'm not surprised about at all.

The claim is that such a trial is unconstitutional and it is not. I gave you proof of that and of course you are trying to change the topic.

Here kitty, kitty.

I am proud of you man. You are talking with some balance in your tone. I appreciate that.

You seem to have overlooked the accuracy in other responses.





You mentioned balance but forgot about giving credit for accuracy.

I know I shouldn't assume... but I would hope everyone understands that regardless of -D- or -R- all politicians would pretty much do the same thing in this situation... protect themselves and their own and lash out at the other side however they can.

The "but they did it first" argument is tired.