DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump Impeachment 2.0

LOL...following me again...I complemented a poster who showed a bit of balance, and one who disagreed with you to a degree, so here you go.

Are you doing ok?

I read all of the posts. By your definition I follow everybody.

I'm doing fine. I'm not the one who has been on the board calling working people slugs. Telling people in politics I can't stand to give me a blow job. I should be asking you if you're doing okay.

Dang man, I think I live in your head.

I will leave you alone now so you can calm down and relax before you burst a vessel.

I'm not going to burst a vessel. There's nothing on here to get that worked up about. But it's a nice deflection for the weak minded who might buy into that BS.

I'm not the one who got so worked up I said the nasty things that you did. But you do you and point the finger in the other direction when you get called out. That's the only option you're left with.

100%

If you want to be truly fair.......if the boot was on the other foot there would have been a peaceful transfer of power like the 44 other times in the last 220+ year history of the USA when a new president was elected to the office.

Nothing says “Democracy” like protecting trump. Because if you don’t, his supporters will break into your house and kill you and your family.

trump campaigned on draining the swamp. He succeeded in enlarging it with mega earth movers filling it with the worst cancerous scum possible.

Regarding the transfer of Power I agree 100%. As far as "politics" and parties circling the wagons and doing what's convenient or in self interest over what's best for the country/right ... they are both guilty.

There you go mg...we agree. Politicians have long ago not been doing what is right for the people. DC is a corrupt system.

Almost all of them only care about getting re-elected and getting committee seats, because being on a committee is where you meet the people who hand out the money to the party. And where the money is being handed to the party is where individuals can make deals for themselves.

Period. End of discussion.

Totally agree here.

Maybe, Maybe not. Who was the Minnisota senator that resigned for being his silly, ex SNL self?

Al Franken

Al Franken resigned?

Well Lah tee freakin dah

His first iligit term, was one of the first, overly evident cases of election changing after the fact.

Al Franken was the senator I always liked to remember for being an actor in the movie "trading places"

Whom while wearing the sanitation worker suit, has an argument with his cohort on whose turn it was to drive the golf cart, and later mocked the gorilla with a gorilla impersonation.

Trump Impeachment 2.0
On with the Circus.

The circus left on January 20th.

Hillary investigated for years. Three weeks after insurrection. Let's move on, give the guy a break. There's a sham going on alright.

j/c...

Trump's impeachment defense is out. Bannon is reportedly encouraging him to go to the Senate himself.
Tim O'Donnell
Sun, January 31, 2021, 8:07 AM

Five attorneys who were prepared to defend former President Donald Trump in his upcoming Senate impeachment trial have departed his legal team, people familiar with the situation confirmed to CNN and The New York Times. Butch Bowers and Deborah Barbier, who were expected to be two of the lead attorneys, are out, as are Josh Howard, Johnny Gasser, and Greg Howard. No other attorneys have announced they were involved with the case, so it appears that, for now, Trump is defenseless.

The lawyers reportedly left because of a disagreement over legal strategy. Trump reportedly wanted them to push his unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud in last year's presidential election rather than focus on whether convicting a former president after he's out of office is constitutional, an argument that appears to be the consensus among Republicans and the reason he'll likely be acquitted. Bowers, a source said, lacked chemistry with Trump and the decision to leave was reportedly mutual.

It's unclear where Trump will go from here - his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani reportedly wants to take the case, but he's a potential witness in the trial because he spoke at the rally preceding the deadly Capitol riot Trump is accused of inciting, and the Times notes "almost all" of Trump's advisers blame Giuliani for the impeachment in the first place.

Considering GOP senators have signaled they won't vote to convict, some are wondering why Trump would even bother spending money on attorneys at all at this point.


Stephen Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist, thinks the former president should go the Senate himself because "he's the only one who can sell it," but aides are reportedly averse to the idea


https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-impeachment-defense-bannon-reportedly-130751966.html

Put that on pay per view TV - I'd pay to see that Schtick.

That would be interesting. I doubt I would pay for it.

Does it really matter if he has attorneys? I mean he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters. Sadly that's one of the few true things the man has said to America.

No it probably doesn't matter if he has lawyers or not. The republicans are so afraid that he will send out a mean tweet about him that they will never vote to convict him. Not even if there was a recording of him saying that he was going to incite a riot in an attempt to take over the government and turn America into a dictatorship with him as the dictator.

He doesn't need lawyers because it isn't a criminal trial. Why give cred to a kangaroo court?

The sad part is had this incident been done in the beginning, very possibly he would be convicted. The problem is the dems wasted all of their time pressing ridiculous charges against the guy, and now half the country doesn't and isn't going to listen to them.

Then why did he have a legal team to begin with?

Yeah, withholding hundreds of millions of dollars from a nation being attacked by Russia that had been approved already... then before giving it to them saying "I need you to do me a favor though", doesn't sound like anything criminal or something the mafia would do.

This is ridiculous.

Bingo!

Well, if Trump goes forward with the massive voter fraud defense, it really would be a legitimate twist on an insanity defense.... Trump is insane that won't drop the voter fraud claims....

But if you want your money, I'll need you to do a favor for me.

What's that?

He's talking about 45* withholding money from Ukraine (that Senate had already released) under the condition that they dig up dirt on Hunter Biden.

Not sure how I can do him a favor about that?

Why do you think it's a kangaroo court?

Here is one good reason

Whoever is presiding is supposed to be impartial. Charges brought forward by Democrats with a Democrat presiding over the hearings doesn't seem to be impartial, no?

Heck, you have people who are basically prosecuting also acting as jurors.

Now, to be clear. I am not pointing my finger at democrats. The whole system is political folly.

My fear is that a tactic not used for decades has now been invoked 3 times in the last 20 years or so. It has lost it's meaning.

As I said in another post, maybe on this thread, had this event happened before the last impeachment attempt, the President may very well have been convicted, but with the BS of the last 3 years or so, it falls of deaf ears.

Something from the last effort has stuck with me. More or less after it was over, Speaker Pelosi made a comment, saying something close to, you will always go down in history as being impeached. That told me all I needed to hear, the goal by her had been reached. She didn't really care if the guy was convicted, she just wanted to make sure he was impeached.

Seriously man, this isn't good where all of this is headed. It seems to be headed to the back alley. I am not sure if we can stop it.

That isn't good.

At the end of the day, this is easy. It's clear as day that Trump incited a riot that ended up being an attempted insurrection.

Those that won't vote to convict are not thinking

I am sorry. It isn't that clear.

I guess i will head back to my non-thinking self...geesh

I agree that the first attempt was grandstanding, and that it was a stupid thing to do. I obviously don't think they planned on something like the events of Jan 6 happening, and wanted to reach a goal of just obtaining impeachment, like you imply. They knew they wouldn't win. It was pretty obvious given the Senate majority and the fact there was more uniformity behind Trump among Republicans at the time. The Mueller Report was damning, but it didn't give them a smoking gun. They really had no end game other than impeaching him, which really backfired.

To me, I think that was like the boy who cried wolf, which is a problem this time around, because now is the point when you could argue there is a legitimate wolf. I differ with you in that I do think he needed to be impeached, and I think there are legitimate reasons to do so. However, I agree with you that I doubt it goes anywhere now that it appears the Republicans are falling back in line behind Trump (moreso than right after the Capitol events), and that I don't think anything comes from this.

What I don't understand is why some Republicans are going down this path. People like McCarthy have blatantly contradicted themselves and look foolish. I errantly began to think that guys like Kinzinger and Sasse could push the party back toward a dynamic that I could get on board with again, but it looks like it's reverting. I think there is still dissention in the ranks, but most still seem to want to either throw shade at the Democrats for the sake or throwing shade, or continue to latch on to Trump.

I'm kinda split on whether the first impeachment was grandstanding or not. The part that makes me think it wasn't simply grandstanding is because you had Republican Senators who went on record saying that they thought he was guilty, thought his conduct was un-presidential and dangerous... but voted not guilty simply because they didn't want a guy with an 'R' next to his name removed from office.

That right there suggests it was the inverse of a kangaroo court, and not grandstanding at all.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a kangaroo court, but I never was left with the impression that the first impeachment would actually get the votes it needed to actually obtain a conviction.

Knowing what I know from seeing Pelosi over the past few decades, I also feel like she barges forward without fully thinking things through as well.

When those Senators said that, I was left with the impression that they had to say something to acknowledge all the shadiness that was going on, but that it would never be enough to actually get them to step out of line to anger Trump's base.