House Democrats are charging ahead this week to impeach President Trump anew for his role in Wednesday’s attack on the U.S. Capitol — and this time they might have some GOP support.
No House Republicans crossed the aisle 13 months ago when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her caucus impeached Trump for leveraging U.S. aid to pressure Ukrainian officials to investigate his rival, President-elect Joe Biden.
But last week’s violent siege of the Capitol by pro-Trump supporters — an assault that occurred with Congress in session and Vice President Pence presiding — has infuriated a host of GOP lawmakers, some of whom are now considering support for the ensuing impeachment charge, which Democrats introduced on Monday.
The resolution, which charges Trump with “inciting violence against the Government of the United States,” will hit the House floor on Wednesday. And a number of Republicans have suggested they might be on board.
Centrist Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), an Iraq and Afghanistan war vet who’s clashed with Trump, has signaled support for impeachment.
"I'll vote the right way, you know, if I'm presented with that,” Kinzinger said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” program. “I just think it's probably not the smartest move right now, but I think that's going to be out of my hands."
A day later, after the article of impeachment was introduced, Kinzinger's spokesman struck a harsher tone and indicated the Illinois Republican may very well vote with Democrats.
“Congressman Kinzinger is committed to doing what is right, no matter the political cost. What President Trump did last week was incite violence and encourage a mob to attack the United States Capitol. Clearly, the President violated his oath of office and is unfit to serve," the spokesman said in a statement.
Kinzinger won re-election in November by 29 percentage points.
Republicans are closely watching moderate House GOP members facing tough reelections in 2022, including Tuesday Group Co-Chairs John Katko (N.Y) and Fred Upton (Mich.), as well as Reps. Jaime Herrera Beutler (Wash.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.).
GOP Conference Chair Liz Cheney (Wyo.), a Trump critic who opposed Republican efforts to overturn the certification of Biden’s election victory, has not yet said how she will vote. But on a conference call Monday, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told fellow House Republicans he opposed impeachment.
House Democrats are racing to adopt the new impeachment charge in the short window before Jan. 20, when Trump is scheduled to leave office. The resolution was formally introduced by Democratic Reps. David Cicilline (R.I.), Ted Lieu (Calif.), Jamie Raskin (Md.) and Jerry Nadler (N.Y.). Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) announced later on Monday that the House will rush the resolution to the floor Wednesday.
“We have a president who most of us believe participated in encouraging an insurrection, an act on this building and on democracy and trying to subvert the counting of the presidential ballot,” Hoyer told reporters in the Capitol on Monday morning.
For many first-term Republicans, Wednesday’s impeachment roll call will be the first major vote of their congressional career. Several of the lawmakers, including Reps. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) and Peter Meijer (R-Mich.), are furious over the Capitol assault and have blamed GOP colleagues for pushing to overturn the election without basis.
“When it comes to impeachment, it’s something we’re strongly considering at this point. … What we saw on Wednesday left the president unfit for office,” Meijer told WXMI, the Fox affiliate in Grand Rapids.
But Mace said she was worried impeachment could inflame partisan tensions that are already at a boiling point.
“We were sitting ducks in the halls of Congress. … Everyone was put at risk, unnecessarily so,” Mace told CNN on Sunday, adding that “we have to hold the president accountable for what happened.”
But she has called on Biden to urge Democrats to back off impeachment, warning, “We need to be very careful about the rhetoric, about being divisive right now in the next 10 days.”
The comments highlight the dilemma facing Republicans after Wednesday’s shocking attack on the Capitol complex. On one hand, GOP lawmakers want to burnish their law-and-order bona fides by holding those responsible for the violent siege to account. On the other, they don’t want to alienate the party’s conservative base, which remains largely loyal to the president, and risk the backlash in the form of either a primary challenge or a threat to their personal safety.
Some Republicans on the Hill said there’s another consideration for GOP lawmakers still on the fence: how their vote will look if Trump incites more violence and bloodshed leading up to Inauguration Day or in the months to come.
“That was always something we knew we would have to grapple with after the election: what to do about Trump,” said one Republican source on the Hill. “The events of the past week have revealed that Trumpism is not the future of the Republican Party. We have to say who we are, what we stand for and how we can win.”
House Democrats are expected to pass their impeachment article easily Wednesday, regardless of how many Republicans join them. The terrifying assault on the Capitol has unified Democrats of all stripes, from liberal members of "the squad" to conservative-leaning Blue Dogs, all of whom say Trump’s refusal to acknowledge his election defeat — combined with his entreaty to supporters to march on the Capitol and “fight like hell” to overturn the results — fueled the tensions leading to the violent breach.
It remains unclear, however, when House Democrats will send the article to the Senate — an issue that seems to be dividing the caucus.
Several prominent Democrats, including Hoyer and Cicilline, said Monday that they want to deliver the resolution across the Capitol immediately after passage, setting the stage for Senate action just as Biden takes office.
But others, including Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.), the Democratic whip, have suggested the better plan would be to hold the article in the House to allow Biden the time to seat his Cabinet in the earliest stages of his new administration — a process that might be disrupted by an impeachment trial.
There’s virtually no chance the Senate would convict Trump, which requires support from two-thirds of the upper chamber. But it is likely that the number of supportive Republicans would increase relative to a year ago, when only Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) broke ranks and backed one of the two Democratic impeachment articles related to Trump’s Ukraine dealings.
This time around, Romney could be joined by other moderate Republicans fed up with the turmoil of the Trump years, and furious with the president’s role in stirring up Wednesday’s mob. That list includes Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Ben Sasse (Neb.).
“I will definitely consider whatever articles they might move,” Sasse told CBS over the weekend.
The senate trial be held in a dem controlled senate so they’ll hear all the witnesses this time. Pence can end the bleeding but he’s trump whipping boy and he evidently likes being whipped.
I think a handful of Republican senators and a bunch of house republicans are going to get censured or removed too. Pelosi brought up the 14th amendment in dealing with what to do with them.
Quote:
14th Amendment, Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
It’s worth it. It keeps him from drawing his lifetime pension. It cut him off from lifetime secret service details too. Let him go back to being a private citizen without further grifting the American tax payers. Lastly it keeps him from ever holding office again. Kneecapping him and his crazy followers thinking he’ll be back in 2024.
Gotta admit, I'm no fan of Trump, but this seems like it's not worth it to me.
I do think that his actions are best handled after he leaves office..
He needs to be taken down as quickly as the capital was breached. It disgusts me 90 percent of republicans are not on board with defending the constitution.
I'm not sure it does anything but keep him from seeking office again, according to fact checkers on FB. BUT letting him slide sets a precedent that we just can not have... what happens when the next would be dictator comes along and is actually smart enough to pull something like this off successfully? You can't let it just stand.
Sasse with his speech in the Senate after the riot cleared and his words since have captured my attention, in a positive way. I'm always skeptical when it comes to politicians, but pleased when you juxtapose him with a guy like Cruz or Hawley.
I think the American people deserve the truth. Whatever that truth turns out to be. While this may not be a popular idea, I'm hoping the senate waits until Biden is president to hold the impeachment trial.
My reasoning for that is that as long as Trump is president, he holds the power to withhold witnesses based on Executive Privilege. It's the very tool he used to stop any first hand witnesses from testifying during his first impeachment. As long as he holds the power to prevent the people from knowing the truth he will use it.
Once he is no longer president he loses that privilege and the raw truth can come out.
Until the newly elected senators take the oath of office, it will be up to McConnell when the senate decides to hear it. According to current information available, McConnell wouldn't bring it to the floor of the senate until January 19th. One day before Trump leaves office.
Mitch McConnell outlines what a second Trump impeachment trial might look like
It takes a two thirds majority of the senate to vote to remove a president from office. Trump will no longer be in office but that same two thirds rule still applies for an impeachment conviction.
You can pretty much bet that will never happen. But with Trump no longer having executive privilege, the entire story and truth of everything that has gone on can be shown. Actual witnesses can make that happen. Trump used his Executive Privilege in the first impeachment trial to prevent that from happening.
That's never going to happen. Even if he feels the senate is going to vote to remove him, he'll just pardon his family and cronies before they vote to remove him.
The senate trial be held in a dem controlled senate so they’ll hear all the witnesses this time. Pence can end the bleeding but he’s trump whipping boy and he evidently likes being whipped.
While I'm ready for Trump to be out of office, I'm glad Pence won't invoke the 25th... I think that's a really bad precedent to set...
I do think he needs to be impeached again... I'm just hoping that the unrest that is sure to come in the next couple of weeks is controlled...
I think the real objective is to prevent Trump from ever holding office again.
I don’t know if there is a way to do that outside of impeachment or a conviction of insurrection or sedition that would kick in the 14th amendment but that would limit his future.
I'm sure the FBI is doing just that. Visitors logs as well.
James Clyburn had these comments:
Kyle Griffin @kylegriffin1 Rep. James Clyburn on CNN: "I have an unmarked office that you have got to know exactly where it is."
"For some reason, these [rioters] showed up at that office ... They didn't go to where my name was ... That to me indicates that something untoward may have been going on."
And this snippet from an article from the Boston Globe:
As people rushed out of other buildings on the Capitol grounds, staffers in Pressley’s office barricaded the entrance with furniture and water jugs that had piled up during the pandemic. Groh pulled out gas masks and looked for the special panic buttons in the office.
“Every panic button in my office had been torn out — the whole unit,” she said, though they could come up with no rationale as to why. She had used them before and hadn’t switched offices since then. As they were escorted to several different secure locations, Groh and Pressley and her husband tried to remain calm and vigilant — not only of rioters but of officers they did not know or trust, she said.
This should be easily confirmed/rejected by reviewing videotapes. I would imagine that's part of the investigation that's already underway.
Agreed - was my first thought also ... and to be 100% honest I hope it's not true, but I will not be at all surprised if it is true. Like always, anyone helping people to break the law need to be punished to the full extent of the law.
I would much prefer they skip the hype-building and just make announcements when they have their ducks in a row. The #1 reason we're in this mess is because person(s) went off making very serious accusations without (ever) presenting any evidence.
I would much prefer they skip the hype-building and just make announcements when they have their ducks in a row. The #1 reason we're in this mess is because person(s) went off making very serious accusations without (ever) presenting any evidence.
Was just about to write something similar.... and it directly relates to the impeachment. Gather and present the FACTS and EVIDENCE - then proceed. Don't sensationalize and don't rush to judgement based on snippets.
That would be presuming that you think the FBI is trying to "hype" what happened rather than give people a glimpse of what actually happened.
We have people trying to say it really wasn't that bad. We have people saying it was just some wild mob that really didn't know what they were doing.
I see the FBI statement as letting Americans know that wasn't what this was at all. I don't think they can present evidence to be used in trials, that will be used to connect things together to the public at this point.
But they can damned well let us know that this attack on the capital went much deeper than we know and it was far more planned than some would lead us to believe. I'm glad they let us know that and to help tamper the "let's just move on" crowd.
Trump Impeached again. This time a bipartisan result. 10 gop abandoned the big lie. The only President to be impeached twice. Only trump could get more bipartisan support for impeachment than any other Presidential impeachment in history.
Trump Impeached again. This time a bipartisan result. 10 gop abandoned the big lie. The only President to be impeached twice. Only trump could get more bipartisan support for impeachment than any other Presidential impeachment in history.
Doesn't it have to pass in the Senate? I don't know how the process works.
Trump Impeached again. This time a bipartisan result. 10 gop abandoned the big lie. The only President to be impeached twice. Only trump could get more bipartisan support for impeachment than any other Presidential impeachment in history.
Doesn't it have to pass in the Senate? I don't know how the process works.
The house passes an article or articles of impeachment. the Senate then checks out the proof, etc, and votes on it.
This is nothing more than a smear trying to, out of anger, finish off Trump. There probably will be no Senate vote.
It's an angle the dems have tried for 4 years. the goal is to make sure Trump can never run for public office again. I wonder why.
You knew the dems would vote for it, in the house, and there were some repub's that did due to their fear of losing their seat. After all, a seat in congress is extremely rewarding, monetarily.
Trump Impeached again. This time a bipartisan result. 10 gop abandoned the big lie. The only President to be impeached twice. Only trump could get more bipartisan support for impeachment than any other Presidential impeachment in history.
Doesn't it have to pass in the Senate? I don't know how the process works.
The house passes an article or articles of impeachment. the Senate then checks out the proof, etc, and votes on it.
This is nothing more than a smear trying to, out of anger, finish off Trump. There probably will be no Senate vote.
It's an angle the dems have tried for 4 years. the goal is to make sure Trump can never run for public office again. I wonder why.
You knew the dems would vote for it, in the house, and there were some repub's that did due to their fear of losing their seat. After all, a seat in congress is extremely rewarding, monetarily.
Its kind of sad because they made a public spectacle of themselves.
Pelosi Violates Own Rules in Impeachment Debate, Refers to Self as ‘Wife, Mother, Grandmother, Daughter’
Alana Mastrangelo
13 Jan 2021
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) violated her own rules for the 117th Congress on Wednesday when she referred to herself as “a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter” on the House floor during the debate regarding the second impeachment of President Donald Trump.
“I stand before you today as an officer of the Constitution, as Speaker of the House of Representatives,” said Pelosi on Wednesday. “I stand before you as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter, a daughter whose father proudly served in this Congress.”
.@SpeakerPelosi, apparently forgetting about her prohibitions on “gendered" language: "I stand before you as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter. A daughter whose father proudly served in this Congress." pic.twitter.com/s2KzkxTNAw
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) January 13, 2021
Pelosi and Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern (D-MA) unveiled the rules for the 117th Congress earlier this month, which contained “future-focused” proposals, including the elimination of terms referring to sex, such as “father, mother, son, and daughter.”
The proposal included the creation of the “Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth,” which requires Congress to “honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender neutral.”
In clause 8(c)(3) of rule XXIII, terms such as “father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, half sister, grandson, or granddaughter” are removed.
In their place, terms such as “parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin, sibling’s child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, stepchild, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild” are to be used.
Days later, Democrats officially passed the sexless speech codes for the House of Representatives.
Pelosi, however, violated her own rules as she stood before Congress on Wednesday during a House hearing on the impeachment of President Trump
Its kind of sad because they made a public spectacle of themselves.
They all spoke on emotions instead of facts.
But I guess that is the liberal way.
Interesting take.
The Capital Building was stormed and occupied by a bunch of wanna-be militia types - incited to do so because they are so emotionally distraught over Trump losing the election ... Hmmmmmmmmm.
Its kind of sad because they made a public spectacle of themselves.
They all spoke on emotions instead of facts.
But I guess that is the liberal way.
Interesting take.
The Capital Building was stormed and occupied by a bunch of wanna-be militia types - incited to do so because they are so emotionally distraught over Trump losing the election ... Hmmmmmmmmm.
You cant blame the President for what a bunch of wack job extremists do.
They will do what they want.
I want to see some evidence that Trump instigated this. Whining about election results doesnt really cut it.
You've stated you don't condone what happened last week.
That is correct, and I don't condone it, contrary to some whack jobs on here that insist I liked it since I voted for Trump.
However, I HAVE seen a couple on here state they didn't support the riots and looting, and the most recent attack on Trump supporters with this: This WAS Antifa. I don't support violence BUT, this violence was okay.
Quote:
Yet you don't see the need to impeach after the fascist incited an insurrection?
No. I don't. There is literally only 1 reason for impeachment at this point in time. Well, 2 really. 1. To guarantee Trump can't hold fed. office again, and 2. Some representatives are hoping to extend their stay in the house.
Pelosi Violates Own Rules in Impeachment Debate, Refers to Self as ‘Wife, Mother, Grandmother, Daughter’
Alana Mastrangelo
13 Jan 2021
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) violated her own rules for the 117th Congress on Wednesday when she referred to herself as “a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter” on the House floor during the debate regarding the second impeachment of President Donald Trump.
“I stand before you today as an officer of the Constitution, as Speaker of the House of Representatives,” said Pelosi on Wednesday. “I stand before you as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter, a daughter whose father proudly served in this Congress.”
.@SpeakerPelosi, apparently forgetting about her prohibitions on “gendered" language: "I stand before you as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter. A daughter whose father proudly served in this Congress." pic.twitter.com/s2KzkxTNAw
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) January 13, 2021
Pelosi and Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern (D-MA) unveiled the rules for the 117th Congress earlier this month, which contained “future-focused” proposals, including the elimination of terms referring to sex, such as “father, mother, son, and daughter.”
The proposal included the creation of the “Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth,” which requires Congress to “honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender neutral.”
In clause 8(c)(3) of rule XXIII, terms such as “father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, half sister, grandson, or granddaughter” are removed.
In their place, terms such as “parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin, sibling’s child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, stepchild, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild” are to be used.
Days later, Democrats officially passed the sexless speech codes for the House of Representatives.
Pelosi, however, violated her own rules as she stood before Congress on Wednesday during a House hearing on the impeachment of President Trump
Honestly, I would think many Repubs fear Trump more than the Dems do. That tweet from Lindsey Graham from waaaay back about what a Trump presidency would do to the country and the Repub party (it was not flattering, and coming from someone who went on to hold Trump's bucket of poo quite a bit), I think, is pretty indicative of what the establishment Repubs think about Trump's ongoing effect on the party will be.
I think, their strategy will be to walk a tight rope to get Trump out but somehow hang onto as much of 'his' voters as possible.
Trump Impeached again. This time a bipartisan result. 10 gop abandoned the big lie. The only President to be impeached twice. Only trump could get more bipartisan support for impeachment than any other Presidential impeachment in history.
Doesn't it have to pass in the Senate? I don't know how the process works.
The house passes an article or articles of impeachment. the Senate then checks out the proof, etc, and votes on it.
This is nothing more than a smear trying to, out of anger, finish off Trump. There probably will be no Senate vote.
It's an angle the dems have tried for 4 years. the goal is to make sure Trump can never run for public office again. I wonder why.
You knew the dems would vote for it, in the house, and there were some repub's that did due to their fear of losing their seat. After all, a seat in congress is extremely rewarding, monetarily.
Its kind of sad because they made a public spectacle of themselves.
They all spoke on emotions instead of facts.
But I guess that is the liberal way.
Yes, I agree, Republicans made fools of themselves by not following the law..
It's rather simple. Trump incited the actions of those that tried to over throw the government and change the results of an election.
He's guilty.. Plain as day. So what do republicans do?
they talk about Trumps economic accomplishments.. but they forget to look at how he totally botched the Covid pandemic.. They ignore that he broke the law.
BY the way, when they said that he cut taxes for everyday people, that is a flat out lie... He postponed taxes for everyday people... What he did was cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations.
How does that help me and you.
As for the wall, did we get the check from Mexico yet?
I think that's a good assessment. We all know how Cruz, Rubio, and Graham felt about Trump when they were running against him vs how they acted after he got elected. It's all about poll numbers and staying in office to them.
To further your logic, before Trump, the Republicans I think had a more firm grasp on the entire conservative base, and it wasn't that difficult to ensure the majority of that demographic's vote. After Trump's election, you have his very fervent base (freedom caucus for example), more traditional Republicans (Lincoln project), and then the moderates and the swing voters.
There has been a ton of polarization on the right. If Trump's supporters carry momentum over the next four years, it will be a crazy primary in 2024 because you will have candidates that will have to find some way to appease all of these demographics, and then be palatable enough to win the general election. I have no idea how that will play out.
--------
As far as the impeachment goes, I think it requires 67 votes, correct? Will it take place when the new Senate seats? If that's the case, they will need 17 Republican votes. That seems like a lot. If it has any chance of succeeding, I think it will have to be McConnell being very public about his support of it.
My view might not be totally correct (please correct me if I'm wrong), but I think the same thing is going on within the Dems already. You have a party that's pretty fractured and sometimes has issues when it's time to come together. I don't think what the Repub party is about to go through is all that unique... it's just how they got there and maybe the degree of fractured-ness. I think the R-party would be better served in the long run by cutting a certain portion free (not sure I would even say this about the Dems).
As for impeachment, I almost feel the same way about this one as I did round 1. You're asking a group of people that have benefited greatly from a lack of accountability to suddenly start enforcing it. Congress is literally the last group I would expect to take up the call. Maybe the vote to remove will be a little closer, but the end result will be the same. This is a group that has a LOT to lose if accountability began to be enforced.
And I know what some will say, but screeching for accountability at a time when it doesn't hurt you or yours at all (and actually benefits) is not actual accountability.
I think the real objective is to prevent Trump from ever holding office again.
I don’t know if there is a way to do that outside of impeachment or a conviction of insurrection or sedition that would kick in the 14th amendment but that would limit his future.
I believe the reason they are doing this is so a non-politician will never run for president again. They was someone they can control. It's a warning saying if you run we will destroy you and your family.
It doesn't matter what posters *think* - it matters what the law says. And this is a good breakdown. What is missing (in my opinion) is the contributing and orchestrated message from Trump family and allies, a lot of which was more inflammatory and the inference was of fighting and battling and the violent elements of the what happened.
How about during the riot he did nothing for 2 hours hell he probably stalled anyone tying to do anything for 2 hours. I am sure he was sitting back and enjoying the show. Would love to see don JR video of that.
Yeah, I could be way off too, but I like the conversation. My perception is that the Dems and Repubs both had unity issues prior to 2016 with Tea Party vs Conventional Repubs and Progressives vs Conventional Dems, and whatnot.
The difference to me is that the Dems seem to be struggling to keep things together, but - as a whole - seem like they're at least somewhat showing a semblance of cohesion. I think they were able to unify in this last election period largely because of their common perceptions of Trump. With Biden elected, though, you can already see some friction starting between the progressives and the more conventional Liberals.
On the Repub/Conservative side, I think Trump was the axe that split the wood. I think there is still the common unity against the Democrats as a whole, but now it just feels more like "the enemy of my enemy" instead of "let's bridge our differences and work together."
Disclaimer: this is just how I perceive things, and I could be off, but I won't know that until the conversations keep going. I very much abhor political parties in general, let alone a two party system. I'd much rather prefer the parties break up into multiples.
There's also an additional layer to this, as far as the steps from impeachment to finding him guilty. It's an unfortunate (and completely illogical, imo).
At the final vote of the last impeachment, we had Senators that voted not guilty alongside statements that made it clear that he was guilty. They said, in no uncertain terms, that Trump did the things that he was accused of, but voted not guilty because they didn't want him removed from office. How they said that with a straight face is beyond me, but beyond the bar to clear to impeach a president and then prove he did it with evidence and whatnot, there's also an additional layer of political BS that needs to be cleared in order for anything substantive to happen.
Normally I concentrate on my life, Browns, Braves, Tribe.
Partisan politics disgusts me. The hypocrisy is so rampant in politics. I can't handle it.
People like Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and democrats as well their lies and self agenda's are to much for me.
trump brought me out because it was so obvious what this guy "was." trump U was who he was. A fraud. A brat put into power by his father. He became the Don King of self promotion in real estate. A weak businessman who bankrupted numerous businesses. A person of no moral character who built a "brand" through lies, deceit, and crimes.
He was so bad for this country. What he did to the presidency was no different than what he did before. He used his lies to further his brand and power.
The worst part was he unleashed the bad side of many. He empowered hatred, division, and white supremacists.
He stained democracy and this country. History will be just in how he is remembered.
Trump Impeached again. This time a bipartisan result. 10 gop abandoned the big lie. The only President to be impeached twice. Only trump could get more bipartisan support for impeachment than any other Presidential impeachment in history.
Doesn't it have to pass in the Senate? I don't know how the process works.
The house passes an article or articles of impeachment. the Senate then checks out the proof, etc, and votes on it.
This is nothing more than a smear trying to, out of anger, finish off Trump. There probably will be no Senate vote.
It's an angle the dems have tried for 4 years. the goal is to make sure Trump can never run for public office again. I wonder why.
You knew the dems would vote for it, in the house, and there were some repub's that did due to their fear of losing their seat. After all, a seat in congress is extremely rewarding, monetarily.
Its kind of sad because they made a public spectacle of themselves.
They all spoke on emotions instead of facts.
But I guess that is the liberal way.
Yes, I agree, Republicans made fools of themselves by not following the law..
It's rather simple. Trump incited the actions of those that tried to over throw the government and change the results of an election.
He's guilty.. Plain as day. So what do republicans do?
they talk about Trumps economic accomplishments.. but they forget to look at how he totally botched the Covid pandemic.. They ignore that he broke the law.
BY the way, when they said that he cut taxes for everyday people, that is a flat out lie... He postponed taxes for everyday people... What he did was cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations.
How does that help me.
As for the wall, did we get the check from Mexico yet?
Its kind of sad because they made a public spectacle of themselves.
They all spoke on emotions instead of facts.
But I guess that is the liberal way.
Awe.... Isn't that sweet. You do realize you said the same thing in 2018, right? You do see how the 2020 elections went, right?
When you bring the truth front and center to Americans, it has consequences. What you call a spectacle resulted in the democrats not only winning the presidency, but also taking over the senate. Not just taking it over, but accomplishing that very goal in your own home state. It must have been agonizing to watch first hand the hate of trump blow up right in your own front yard.
Yet you are still in denial. Enjoy the next four years.
When it comes to Ted Cruz who couldn't see this coming? Cruz couldn't even defend his wife and his dad against trump's attacks on his own family. After Trump said all of that Cruz couldn't wait to suck up to him.
When a man can't stand up for his own family, nobody should expect him to stand up for democracy.
So I keep reading quotes from these patriots who have been arrested... they all say that Trump told them to go to the capitol building. Pretty sure that constitutes the first part of what we needed to establish regarding who was responsible.
At any rate, looks like GB is pulling away. Might have to pay attention to that.
Maybe go to bed. Just like when we were kids, on Christmas eve I wanted to go to bed early because it seemed like Christmas day came sooner. Go to bed early, game day will come sooner!
What was the goal when you insinuated AOC performing a sexual act on you?
Is this true? Did anyone else see this comment?
Did you actually say this, Ballpeen?
My guess is no, it didn't happen. It was stated on the 13th. No proof yet.
But, it's how things go in here, and in the country. You don't need proof, allegations are enough.
Thanks for the post and the insight, but I'd really like Ballpeen to answer my question for himself. The way I was raised, a direct question deserves a direct answer. He's had days to respond... crickets.
So I think I'll take this opportunity to ask the question again, because I don't want to assume anything:
Ballpeen: did you actually make a post about having a sitting member of congress perform a sexual act on you? Other posters: did you see this post by Ballpeen?
Well, you asked rocket, not peen. So there's that.
The way I was raised, we went to the accuser first to see what proof there was. I'm sure you understand that concept. Rocket needs to, in his words, bring receipts. He's famous for saying that.
But, I agree, we need to see receipts from the accuser. Rocket has had days to respond. And he hasn't.
Did it happen? I don't know, but I don't remember seeing it.............but for some, just the accusation is enough?
No... I quoted RocketOptimist, but I directly asked Ballpeen the question. I'm pretty sure he saw my post, because he's contributed to the thread since I posted it.
But you know what? It's all good- I've just come up with a simple, elegant solution: I'm going to PM Ballpeen himself and ask him the question directly. He & I have a PM history that goes back as long as You & I, and I trust him to tell me the truth. A direct question deserves a direct answer.
What was the goal when you insinuated AOC performing a sexual act on you?
Is this true? Did anyone else see this comment?
Did you actually say this, Ballpeen?
My guess is no, it didn't happen. It was stated on the 13th. No proof yet.
But, it's how things go in here, and in the country. You don't need proof, allegations are enough.
Thanks for the post and the insight, but I'd really like Ballpeen to answer my question for himself. The way I was raised, a direct question deserves a direct answer. He's had days to respond... crickets.
So I think I'll take this opportunity to ask the question again, because I don't want to assume anything:
Ballpeen: did you actually make a post about having a sitting member of congress perform a sexual act on you? Other posters: did you see this post by Ballpeen?
I hate unsolved mysteries.
I didn't see any earlier request.
I have a vague recollection. I don't remember the total context. Many times context isn't evident in 1 or 2 posts, as I illustrated a few comments back.
I guess the answer would be yes and no. It would depend on how deeply one wants to read into the words and take those words as a serious statement.
I think I said something along the lines of "I have something she can suck on". How that came in to the conversation, I don't recall, but it wasn't a request for lip service. lol....more along the lines of she can kiss my ass.
So if you or others want to use those words as me requesting her to literally kiss my ass, go ahead.
I agree that districts have been bodgered up for years. Sometimes to add more or less or one party or to add more or less minorities.
Every group wants to tinker with districts when their party is able to change the district lines.
One group notoriously isn’t just tinkering they do total restorations in those districts and you know it. You probably approve. Wouldn’t shock me at all.
Words matter. Trump supporters still don’t get that. Like this fool......
This is a problem, congressional districts should not be drawn by legislative bodies. California moved to an independent commission.
There should be logic, like you cannot split a county into more than 1 district unless there it is necessary to do so to accommodate the representation. Counties with more than one representative should be filled as completely as possible.
Computer models allow gerrymandering down to the precinct level. Let's say we have an ideal 50/50 division between the parties. The ideal split is to set your party up at 60/40 and the other party up at 10/90. That way you get more representatives and control of the legislature.
Actually, that’s not what happened at all. I remember because Peen always tries to tell me he’s my friend, yet disparages women over and over. He even apologized to the women on the board. I rolled my eyes and moved on, as fighting misogyny on this board is a losing situation.
He called her a bar maid. And said he could see himself getting a blow job from her way before talking politics with her.
He called her a bar maid. And said he could see himself getting a blow job from her way before talking politics with her.
I don’t forget posts like that. Ever.
Thanks for this, Jules.
Bits and pieces of this are starting to sound somewhat familiar. I can't remember an exact time stamp, but I do remember this conversation stringing out over a few days. I may have missed the 'bar maid' remarks, but I'm pretty sure I was there for the general discussion.
He called her a bar maid. And said he could see himself getting a blow job from her way before talking politics with her.
I don’t forget posts like that. Ever.
Thanks for this, Jules.
Bits and pieces of this are starting to sound somewhat familiar. I can't remember an exact time stamp, but I do remember this conversation stringing out over a few days. I may have missed the 'bar maid' remarks, but I'm pretty sure I was there for the general discussion.
This was started a couple years ago, wasn't it?
Oh boohoo. The left on this forum made plenty of derogatory comments about Melania.
The left on this forum made/continues to make derogatory slurs about women. (Karens)
There's also the left here who made sexual comments about AOC.
Its kind of laughable that you all are on some witch hunt when you do the same thing.
I think it's awful to sexualize her, but the calling her a barmaid as an insult frosts my nads. First, she's a congress woman representing New York in congress... I'd bet peen and all the other hoity toity GOPers that try to job shame her with that have NEVER held a position that esteemed... As a woman, I think she is fairly hot, but I listen to her too and she has a much more beautiful mind, IMHO. She's far from dumb, sometimes a little naive, but never dumb. And she is also very young. It must burn holes in their souls to see such a successful and influential Latina woman with power over them.
I think it's awful to sexualize her, but the calling her a barmaid as an insult frosts my nads. First, she's a congress woman representing New York in congress... I'd bet peen and all the other hoity toity GOPers that try to job shame her with that have NEVER held a position that esteemed... As a woman, I think she is fairly hot, but I listen to her too and she has a much more beautiful mind, IMHO. She's far from dumb, sometimes a little naive, but never dumb. And she is also very young. It must burn holes in their souls to see such a successful and influential Latina woman with power over them.
Hope that didn't cross any lines. If so, sorry.
You have made sexual comments about her in the past.
I have not made a derogative sexual comment about her at all, get the receipts! I've never disagreed with her being hot, or good looking... that is not derogative, it's using my eyes. I have also defended her and others including you from those that treat women like that on here several times. I know you can take care of yourself in the melees on here, but she's not in here to do that. Probably wouldn't if she was, but her twitter feed is full of zingers for her detractors. She'd educate you in about two seconds if she even noticed you to begin with.
I have not made a derogative sexual comment about her at all, get the receipts! I've never disagreed with her being hot, or good looking... that is not derogative, it's using my eyes. I have also defended her and others including you from those that treat women like that on here several times. I know you can take care of yourself in the melees on here, but she's not in here to do that. Probably wouldn't if she was, but her twitter feed is full of zingers for her detractors. She'd educate you in about two seconds if she even noticed you to begin with.
She is an ignorant puppet with handlers who spews a bunch on nonsense. She was picked to be a puppet based on her looks so people like you will fall in line.
He called her a bar maid. And said he could see himself getting a blow job from her way before talking politics with her.
I don’t forget posts like that. Ever.
Thanks for this, Jules.
Bits and pieces of this are starting to sound somewhat familiar. I can't remember an exact time stamp, but I do remember this conversation stringing out over a few days. I may have missed the 'bar maid' remarks, but I'm pretty sure I was there for the general discussion.
This was started a couple years ago, wasn't it?
Oh boohoo. The left on this forum made plenty of derogatory comments about Melania
...or any conservative woman, past or present including Candace Owens...and board members ignore the 'treatment of women and black lives matter' when the woman is a "conservative" ...
Actually, that’s not what happened at all. I remember because Peen always tries to tell me he’s my friend, yet disparages women over and over. He even apologized to the women on the board. I rolled my eyes and moved on, as fighting misogyny on this board is a losing situation.
He called her a bar maid. And said he could see himself getting a blow job from her way before talking politics with her.
I don’t forget posts like that. Ever.
That does come back...thanks..if I offended you, I am sorry, but no, I don't apologize for what was said.
If it makes you or any of the others feel any better, I don't have a desire to do either one of those things with her.
He called her a bar maid. And said he could see himself getting a blow job from her way before talking politics with her.
I don’t forget posts like that. Ever.
Thanks for this, Jules.
Bits and pieces of this are starting to sound somewhat familiar. I can't remember an exact time stamp, but I do remember this conversation stringing out over a few days. I may have missed the 'bar maid' remarks, but I'm pretty sure I was there for the general discussion.
This was started a couple years ago, wasn't it?
Oh boohoo. The left on this forum made plenty of derogatory comments about Melania.
The left on this forum made/continues to make derogatory slurs about women. (Karens)
There's also the left here who made sexual comments about AOC.
Its kind of laughable that you all are on some witch hunt when you do the same thing.
Yeah, that's the same thing.
Making excuses for terrible behavior is the Trumpian way though. You know it's not the same thing and there has been no actual comparison. It's like a child who threw a rock and broke the window. "But Bobby was throwing rocks in the river so I thought I could throw rocks at a window."
Lame.
Who on the left in this forum made sexual comments about AOC? As usual you're writing checks your ass can't cash.
Not that long. And not that shocking. It deserves space here.
The Pentagon blocked members of President Joe Biden’s incoming administration from gaining access to critical information about current operations, including the troop drawdown in Afghanistan, upcoming special operations missions in Africa and the Covid-19 vaccine distribution program, according to new details provided by transition and defense officials.
The effort to obstruct the Biden team, led by senior White House appointees at the Pentagon, is unprecedented in modern presidential transitions and will hobble the new administration on key national security matters as it takes over positions in the Defense Department on Wednesday, the officials said.
Biden openly decried the treatment his aides were receiving at the Pentagon in December, calling it “nothing short, in my view, of irresponsibility” after meetings were canceled ahead of Christmas. He said his people were denied information on the SolarWinds hack, and said his team “needs a clear picture of our force posture around the world and our operations to deter our enemies.”
But people involved with the transition, both on the Biden team and the Pentagon side, gave POLITICO a more detailed picture of what was denied, saying briefings on pressing defense matters never happened, were delayed to the last minute, or were controlled by overbearing minders from the Trump administration's side.
“Defense has traditionally been a bipartisan business between and among professionals, and this is terrible optics for those who want to copy this pettiness in the future,” said Mackenzie Eaglen, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. The effort to block the transition from key national security information is “useless, poor form, and horrible precedent.”
Pennsylvania Lawmaker Played Key Role in Trump’s Plot to Oust Acting Attorney General
The congressman’s involvement underlined how far the former president was willing to go to overturn the election, and Democratic lawmakers have begun calling for investigations into those efforts.
WASHINGTON — When Representative Scott Perry joined his colleagues in a monthslong campaign to undermine the results of the presidential election, promoting “Stop the Steal” events and supporting an attempt to overturn millions of legally cast votes, he often took a back seat to higher-profile loyalists in President Donald J. Trump’s orbit.
But Mr. Perry, an outspoken Pennsylvania Republican, played a significant role in the crisis that played out at the top of the Justice Department this month, when Mr. Trump considered firing the acting attorney general and backed down only after top department officials threatened to resign en masse.
It was Mr. Perry, a member of the hard-line Freedom Caucus, who first made Mr. Trump aware that a relatively obscure Justice Department official, Jeffrey Clark, the acting chief of the civil division, was sympathetic to Mr. Trump’s view that the election had been stolen, according to former administration officials who spoke with Mr. Clark and Mr. Trump.
Mr. Perry introduced the president to Mr. Clark, whose openness to conspiracy theories about election fraud presented Mr. Trump with a welcome change from the acting attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, who stood by the results of the election and had repeatedly resisted the president’s efforts to undo them.
Mr. Perry’s previously unreported role, and the quiet discussions between Mr. Trump and Mr. Clark that followed, underlined how much the former president was willing to use the government to subvert the election, turning to more junior and relatively unknown figures for help as ranking Republicans and cabinet members rebuffed him.
Mr. Perry’s involvement is also likely to heighten scrutiny of House Republicans who continue to advance Mr. Trump’s false and thoroughly debunked claims of election fraud, even after President Biden’s inauguration this week and as Congress prepares for an impeachment trial that will examine whether such talk incited the Capitol riot.
It is unclear when Mr. Perry, who represents the Harrisburg area, met Mr. Clark, a Philadelphia native, or how well they knew each another before the introduction to Mr. Trump. Former Trump administration officials said that it was only in late December that Mr. Clark told Mr. Rosen about the introduction brokered by Mr. Perry, who was among the scores of people feeding Mr. Trump false hope that he had won the election.
But it is highly unlikely that Mr. Trump would have known Mr. Clark otherwise. Department officials were startled to learn that the president had called Mr. Clark directly on multiple occasions and that the two had met in person without alerting Mr. Rosen, those officials said. Justice Department policy stipulates that the president initially communicates with the attorney general or the deputy attorney general on all matters, and then a lower-level official if authorized.
As the date for Congress to affirm Mr. Biden’s victory neared, Mr. Perry and Mr. Clark discussed a plan to have the Justice Department send a letter to Georgia state lawmakers informing them of an investigation into voter fraud that could invalidate the state’s Electoral College results. Former officials who were briefed on the plan said that the department’s dozens of voter fraud investigations nationwide had not turned up enough instances of fraud to alter the outcome of the election.
Mr. Perry and Mr. Clark also discussed the plan with Mr. Trump, setting off a chain of events that nearly led to the ouster of Mr. Rosen, who had refused to send the letter.
After The New York Times disclosed the details of the scheme on Friday, the political fallout was swift. Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and the incoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent the Justice Department a letter on Saturday that said he was investigating efforts by Mr. Trump and Mr. Clark “to use the Department of Justice to further Trump’s efforts to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election.”
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, said that it was “unconscionable that a Trump Justice Department leader would conspire to subvert the people’s will.” He called on the department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, to investigate “this attempted sedition.”
Mr. Horowitz has already opened an investigation into whether Trump administration officials improperly pressured Byung J. Pak, who abruptly resigned this month as the U.S. attorney in Atlanta after being pressed to take actions related to the election, according to a person briefed on the inquiry. Mr. Durbin is investigating that matter as well.
Mr. Trump also tried to force Justice Department officials, including Mr. Rosen and the acting solicitor general, Jeffrey Wall, to file a lawsuit before the Supreme Court that would challenge Mr. Biden’s victory, according to a person briefed on the request.
One of Mr. Trump’s outside lawyers even drafted a brief for the department to file to the court. Department officials and the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, told Mr. Trump that the plan would fail for several reasons, including the fact that the department did not have the grounds to challenge the outcome, the person said.
The fight between Mr. Trump and Justice Department officials over the Supreme Court filing was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.
The episode with Mr. Clark and Mr. Perry is yet another example at impeachment managers’ disposal as they put together their case that Mr. Trump should be disqualified from holding office again.
Mr. Clark declined to comment on his relationship with Mr. Perry, and he categorically denied devising any plan to oust Mr. Rosen. He said that there had been “a candid discussion of options and pros and cons with the president” that had been inaccurately described by The Times, but he declined to provide details. He declined to say anything more about his conversations with Mr. Trump or Justice Department lawyers because of “the strictures of legal privilege.”
Asked whether his conversations with the president had violated the department policy governing contact with the president, he said that senior lawyers at the agency provided legal advice to the White House as part of their duties. “All my official communications were consistent with law,” he said.
Mr. Clark, a member of the conservative Federalist Society, had been appointed the acting head of the civil division in September. He also oversaw the department’s environmental and natural resources division, where he had worked under President George W. Bush.
Neither Mr. Perry nor his top aides responded to repeated requests for comment.
Some Senate Republicans, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, have grown increasingly worried that if they do not intervene and distance themselves from Mr. Trump, the havoc wreaked by the former president could hurt Republicans’ political fortunes for years to come. The episode amounts to an unwelcome reminder that damaging information around his presidency could continue to emerge even though Mr. Trump is no longer in office.
And Mr. Perry’s role in the discussions could further escalate tensions in the House, where Democratic lawmakers were already livid at Republicans for fanning the flames before the Capitol riot, with some rank-and-file members calling for the expulsion of lawmakers who led efforts to overturn the election.
The pressure that Mr. Trump placed on the Justice Department, including any plan that he may have considered to remove Mr. Rosen, also raises legal questions for him.
Mr. Trump’s duty as president was to ensure that “laws be faithfully executed for the benefit of the country,” and efforts to interfere in the election could be considered a violation of his constitutional duty, said Neil Eggleston, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis and a White House counsel under President Barack Obama.
There is little chance that a Justice Department letter sent to Georgia lawmakers would have resulted in the state’s invalidating its Electoral College votes.
But the plan was consistent with the posture Mr. Perry had taken since November, when he began to falsely claim that there had been rampant fraud in the election, and throughout it all, Mr. Perry has remained defiant. Facing calls to resign over his role in the efforts to overturn the election, Mr. Perry issued a one-word response: “No.”
Mr. Perry, a retired brigadier general in the Pennsylvania Army National Guard and an Iraq War veteran, has previously been scrutinized for his openness to the conspiratorial. He baselessly suggested that the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas by a lone gunman could have been influenced by “terrorist infiltration through the southern border.” and refused to support a resolution that condemned QAnon, a pro-Trump conspiracy movement. (Mr. Perry said he believed that the resolution infringed on individuals’ right to free speech and that he did not personally subscribe to the movement.)
An early supporter of the “Stop the Steal” movement, Mr. Perry was one of 126 House Republicans who joined a legal brief in December supporting an extraordinary lawsuit seeking to overturn Mr. Biden’s victory. And he joined over two dozen of his colleagues who urged Mr. Trump to direct William P. Barr, the attorney general, to “investigate irregularities in the 2020 election.”
He objected on behalf of 79 other House Republicans to certifying Pennsylvania’s electoral results, even though he later acknowledged Mr. Biden as the president-elect.
The plan that Mr. Perry devised with Mr. Clark set off a crisis at the Justice Department. When Mr. Clark approached Mr. Rosen with the Georgia letter at the end of December, Mr. Rosen refused to send it, according to four former administration officials. On Jan. 3, Mr. Clark notified Mr. Rosen that he would be taking his job at Mr. Trump’s behest.
As Mr. Rosen prepared to meet Mr. Trump later that day and fight for his job, his top deputies, including the acting deputy attorney general, Richard P. Donoghue, and his outgoing chief of staff, Patrick Hovakimian, convened the department’s senior leaders on a conference call, according to five former officials with knowledge of the call.
They told the department leaders that Mr. Rosen’s job was in jeopardy because of Mr. Clark’s machinations and said they would resign if Mr. Rosen was removed. They ended the call by asking their colleagues to privately consider what they would do if that happened. Over the next 15 minutes, all of them emailed or texted Mr. Hovakimian, saying that they would quit.
While Mr. Rosen, Mr. Donoghue and other top department and White House lawyers spent nearly three hours with Mr. Trump and Mr. Clark, debating the merits of sending the letter to Georgia lawmakers, Mr. Hovakimian drafted an email to the department’s senior leaders, including those who were not aware of what was transpiring at the White House, in anticipation of Mr. Rosen’s removal, according to two people briefed on the letter.
In it, he explained that Mr. Rosen had resisted Mr. Trump’s repeated calls to use the department’s law enforcement powers for improper ends and that the president had removed him, according to a person who reviewed the email. He wrote that he and Mr. Donoghue were resigning immediately and encouraged his colleagues to think hard about what they would do and to always act in the interests of the United States.
When Mr. Hovakimian received word that Mr. Rosen had been allowed to stay, he drafted a new email that he sent to the anxiously awaiting officials: Mr. Rosen and the cause of justice had won.
Sedition might be a foregone conclusion after this evidence gets introduced at impeachment. There may be a lot of Republicans trying to avoid jail soon.
Romney says that Trump impeachment trial is 'constitutional' and needed 'for accountability, truth, and justice' John L. Dorman Sun, January 24, 2021, 2:39 PM
Sen. Mitt Romney says that a Senate impeachment trial held after Trump's departure is constitutional.
The House impeached Trump for "incitement of insurrection" for his role in the Capitol riots.
Romney voted to convict Trump of abuse of power in the former president's first impeachment trial.
Sen. Mitt Romney did not reveal if he would vote to convict former President Donald Trump for "incitement of insurrection" in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial, but he feels as though the proceedings are constitutional.
On "Fox News Sunday," the Utah Republican and 2012 GOP presidential nominee said that the current article "suggests impeachable conduct" as it pertains to the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.
"I think there will be a trial and I hope it goes as quickly as possible but that's up to the counsel on both sides," he said. "There's no question that the article of impeachment that was sent over by the House suggests impeachable conduct, but we have not yet heard either from the prosecution or the defense."
Romney added: "I'll get a chance to hear from them, and I'll do my best as a Senate juror to apply justice as well as I can understand it."
In February 2020, Romney was the only Republican senator who voted to convict the president of abuse of power in the Senate trial of his first impeachment over the Ukraine scandal.
Host Chris Wallace asked Romney if the current article of impeachment should be tossed as a matter of procedure, since Trump is no longer is office.
"The Democrats have the majority in the Senate and I doubt they're going to go along with that move," he replied. "At the same time, if you look at the preponderance of the legal opinion by scholars over the years … the preponderance of opinion is that yes, an impeachment trial is appropriate after someone leaves office."
He then added: "If we're going to have unity in our country, I think it's important to recognize the need for accountability, for truth and justice."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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".
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.
Carry on...I am just fearful you folks will have thrown away any last chance to mend fences.
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.
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.
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.'
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.
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.
...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.
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.
...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?
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.
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.
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.
...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?
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....
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. ""
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.”"
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
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.”"
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
You forgot some others - They are (not) the party of Law and Order ... They are (not) the party for small government...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe, Maybe not. Who was the Minnisota senator that resigned for being his silly, ex SNL self?
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'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
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Peen isn't telling the entire story by any stretch of the imagination.
Think if you will about people robbing a bank. One guy goes inside and robs it. One guy is the out man. One guy is the getaway driver. They are holding an impeachment trial to get the guy who went inside the bank while his getaway driver and the lookout guy managed to get on the jury.
The first impeachment trial? Let's look at that for just a moment. When the president has the power to claim Executive Privilege in order to block every first hand account of what actually happened it makes it very hard to show the evidence. That's what happened. And everyone who did testify was punished by that administration.
Just want to make sure I respond to both of your posts
I agree with the dynamic you're talking about with the getaway driver. I think he should go down in flames this time around. I am skeptical that it happens though.
As far as the first trial, I'm not arguing that there were legitimate grounds, and to be honest, I think his relationship with Putin/Russia alone is far worse and more concerning than just about anything I've seen from a president in my lifetime.
Where I think it was dumb was on the tactical level. At that point in time, the Democrats needed a real smoking gun to actually get a conviction, and they knew that, and knew they probably wouldn't get the R's in the Senate to convict, which also likely happened because of the retaliation that you mention. In my mind, the tactics of it all obviously didn't lead to a conviction, which looked very unlikely in the first place, and it caused a recoil and further emboldening on Trump's side.
I guess my question to you would be, what is it you think Trump could do, other than maybe shoot someone with thousands of witnesses, that would make Republican senators ever convict Trump?
And I don't see the dems all that differently. There's no doubt Bill Clinton committed perjury. He obviously lied under oath. If that doesn't fall under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" category I don't know what would. But it's funny how Dems will say, "Bill Clinton got impeached for a blow job". They never talk about how he actually committed perjury.
But I think we must admit that we've gotten to the point in our country that a president can get away with almost anything and get away with it. Their own party will refuse to hold them accountable in almost any situation.
I didn't think they'd get the votes either, but (to me) that's not as important/impactful as why they didn't get the votes. The 'why' is politicians are going to politician.
Even if it were due to some sort of procedural loophole that got him out of it, I could deal with/wrap my brain around that one... but it wasn't. It came down to politicians not having the stones to do the right thing.
My answer to your question is that I honestly don't know. Something more than what happened the first time around. It needs a real smoking gun.
I was hoping that January 6th would be enough, and I think it definitely would have had a much better shot than what happened the first time around, but it looks like the R's are regressing, which is truly insane to me, considering those same R's legitimately had to shelter in place last month because of what the president was pedaling.
He's not speaking to the gravity of differences between the impeachable offenses.
His point is that arbitrary political affiliation has taken precedence over concrete evidence in impeachment trials, whichever the side, and that is a very dangerous thing.
Yeah, my point was what constitutes an impeachable offense. I think in both cases that burden is met yet in both cases their party excused the behavior based on political affiliation.
Conservative claims of online censorship 'a form of disinformation:' study
Claims that conservative voices are being censored online by social media platforms are not backed by evidence and are themselves a disinformation narrative, according to a report released Monday.
The New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights’ report concluded that anti-conservative bias claims, boosted by some top Republican lawmakers including former President Trump, are not based on any tangible evidence.
“The claim of anti-conservative animus is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it. No trustworthy large-scale studies have determined that conservative content is being removed for ideological reasons or that searches are being manipulated to favor liberal interests,” the report stated.
Republicans have ramped up accusations that social media companies have an anti-conservative bias after Facebook and Twitter took action to ban Trump’s account following the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.
Twitter says it has permanently banned the former president from its platform, while Facebook is leaving the final decision up to its independent oversight body.
The allegation of censorship has been key in Republicans’ attacks on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects social media platforms from liability associated with third-party content posted on their sites.
Despite the repeated accusations by Republicans, the report found that by “many measures, conservative voices — including that of the ex-president, until he was banished from Twitter and Facebook — often are dominant in online political debates.”
For example, the report highlighted the engagement on Trump’s Facebook page compared to now-President Biden’s page during the three months leading up to Election Day. Trump elicited 87 percent of the total 307 million post interactions between the two, compared to Biden’s 13 percent.
Additionally, the report noted that Fox News and Breitbart News led the pack in terms of Facebook interactions with posts by media organizations from Jan. 1 through Nov. 3 of last year. Fox News had 448 million interactions and Breitbart had 295 million; the closest behind them was CNN, at 191 million interactions.
With Biden in office, Republicans have continued to push back against Section 230 over the unfounded accusations of anti-conservative biases.
The report recommends the Biden administration work with Congress to update Section 230, rather than pushing for a repeal of the law as Trump sought before leaving office.
“The controversial law should be amended so that its liability shield is conditional, based on social media companies’ acceptance of a range of new responsibilities related to policing content. One of the new platform obligations could be ensuring that algorithms involved in content ranking and recommendation not favor sensationalistic or unreliable material in pursuit of user engagement,” the report stated.
Biden’s nominee to serve as the secretary of Commerce, current Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo (D), said last week during a Senate confirmation hearing that the law needs some reform, indicating the administration is open to amending it.
Biden during his presidential campaign said Section 230 should be revoked, but he has largely not detailed plans moving forward.
The report also recommends the Biden administration create a new Digital Regulatory Agency. The agency would be charged with enforcing the responsibilities of a revised Section 230.
Additionally, it recommends the Biden administration pursue a constructive reform agenda for social media, including pressing the companies on improving and enforcing content policies.
As for social media companies, the report recommends the industry provide greater disclosure on content moderation actions, offer users a choice among content moderation algorithms, undertake more “vigorous” human moderation of influential accounts and release more data for researchers.
What a bunch of losers. Reports are now out that many of the insurrection trump supporters he asked to attack the Capitol building didn’t even vote in the 2020 election. Lol
White House reviewing whether Trump should continue receiving intel briefings
The White House is conducting a review to determine whether former President Trump should continue receiving intelligence briefings now that he has left office.
Speaking at the White House press briefing on Monday, spokeswoman Jen Psaki said President Biden’s national security team is looking into the matter.
“It’s something that is under review,” Psaki said.
Former presidents typically have access to intelligence briefings after leaving office.
However, Democrats — and even some former Trump administration officials — have warned that the former president cannot be trusted with national security secrets, believing he could reveal sensitive information or seek to profit off of it.
Sue Gordon, who was principal deputy director of national intelligence during the Trump administration, urged in a recent op-ed that Trump be cut off from intelligence briefings, saying he would be “unusually vulnerable to bad actors with ill intent.”
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) began pushing for Trump to be cut out of the loop even before he left office on Jan. 20.
"There's no circumstance in which this president should get another intelligence briefing, not now, not in the future,” he said. “I don't think he can be trusted with it now, and in the future he certainly can't be trusted."
White House reviewing whether Trump should continue receiving intel briefings
The White House is conducting a review to determine whether former President Trump should continue receiving intelligence briefings now that he has left office.
Speaking at the White House press briefing on Monday, spokeswoman Jen Psaki said President Biden’s national security team is looking into the matter.
“It’s something that is under review,” Psaki said.
Former presidents typically have access to intelligence briefings after leaving office.
However, Democrats — and even some former Trump administration officials — have warned that the former president cannot be trusted with national security secrets, believing he could reveal sensitive information or seek to profit off of it.
Sue Gordon, who was principal deputy director of national intelligence during the Trump administration, urged in a recent op-ed that Trump be cut off from intelligence briefings, saying he would be “unusually vulnerable to bad actors with ill intent.”
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) began pushing for Trump to be cut out of the loop even before he left office on Jan. 20.
"There's no circumstance in which this president should get another intelligence briefing, not now, not in the future,” he said. “I don't think he can be trusted with it now, and in the future he certainly can't be trusted."
I think he should be included. He never showed up anyways. They could send trump and his supporters on crazy wild geese chases. And if anything leaks we’ll know who to arrest.
Conservative claims of online censorship 'a form of disinformation:' study
Claims that conservative voices are being censored online by social media platforms are not backed by evidence and are themselves a disinformation narrative, according to a report released Monday.
How about the airwaves and cable TV?
By Eric Mack
CNN is making no mistake about it: It wants to censor and close Newsmax from broadcasting as a cable news channel.
Apparently jolted by the fact Newsmax has skyrocketed to become the 4th highest-rated cable news channel in the country, the liberal CNN is decrying what it calls Newsmax's "election denialism" and is seeking to have it "deplatformed" from cable and satellite systems across the nation.
Oliver Darcy, CNN's leftwing media critic, has been demanding cable operators drop Newsmax, which is currently carried by every major system in the nation. Newsmax is also streamed free by most OTT platforms and devices.
In a CNN column in early January, Darcy falsely claimed conservative media caused the protests at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
"After all, it was the very lies that Fox, Newsmax, and OAN spread that helped prime President Trump's supporters into not believing the truth: That he lost an honest and fair election," Darcy wrote.
Darcy's demands have been echoed on CNN's shows, including their Sunday media show "Reliable Sources" hosted by liberal media analyst Brian Stelter.
On this week's Sunday show, Stelter's guests focused on deplatforming Newsmax.
Previously, CNN had led efforts to deplatform President Donald Trump from Twitter.
"We are going to have to figure out the OANN and Newsmax problem," Alex Stamos, a former Facebook chief security officer, told CNN's Stelter. "These companies have freedom of speech, but I'm not sure we need Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and such bringing them into tens of millions of homes."
In a brazen call for censorship, Stamos echoed CNN demand conservative voices and news outlets be blacklisted and closed out of cable television and the Internet.
"We have to turn down the capability of these conservative influencers to reach these huge audiences," Stamos said. "There are people on YouTube that have larger daytime audiences than CNN."
Darcy doubled down, advancing the McCarthy-like political witch hunt by tweeting a fresh demand cable operators which carry Newsmax consider closing down the outlet:
"Just a reminder that neither @Verizon, @ATT, nor @comcast have answered any questions about why they beam channels like OAN [sic] & Newsmax into millions of homes. Do they have any second thoughts about distributing these channels given their election denialism content? They won't say."
In his tweet, Darcy failed to note AT&T is the parent company of CNN, and by removing Newsmax from cable lineups it reduces serious competition for his network, especially as Newsmax continues to rapidly increase audience and is on a trajectory to overtake CNN in viewership.
While far-left activists jumped to support a potential silencing of Newsmax, others noted the censorship effort runs afoul of both freedom of speech and anti-trust laws.
Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer exposed the hypocrisy, if not double standard, of the suggestion of silencing conservative channels, tweeting:
"You knew it would happen. Some want to take conservative media off the air because they bought into Trump's election theories. On those grounds, shouldn't CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC be taken off the air because they bought into [Russian] collusion theories? This censorship must stop."
In a statement released Sunday, Newsmax said, contrary to Darcy's and Stamos' claims, Newsmax never denied the election results.
The network called all contested states for Biden as they were certified and accepted him as president-elect Dec. 14, after the meeting of the Electoral College.
Newsmax also noted, while it justifiably covered the president's allegations about the election, and interviewed his lawyers and supporters – as did Fox News and Fox Business News, it never said all allegations were true.
The network did note, after years of CNN falsely claiming the Steele Dossier was valid and the Russian collusion claim against Trump was credible, it was never held accountable for its misreporting. Newsmax never called for CNN to be shut down.
There may be some cred to a Twitter as an example to censor material they deem unsuitable, at least for now. In this day and age, Twitter platforms are media platforms IMO. Or at least nearing that point I am sorry to say.
There isn't for something like this.
We are walking dangerous ground when we start talking about Bill of Rights as if they need to not be there. TASS and Pravda isn't where we want to go.
I don't know who said it, but "You can give away your rights, but you have to fight to get them back".
White House reviewing whether Trump should continue receiving intel briefings
The White House is conducting a review to determine whether former President Trump should continue receiving intelligence briefings now that he has left office.
Speaking at the White House press briefing on Monday, spokeswoman Jen Psaki said President Biden’s national security team is looking into the matter.
“It’s something that is under review,” Psaki said.
Former presidents typically have access to intelligence briefings after leaving office.
However, Democrats — and even some former Trump administration officials — have warned that the former president cannot be trusted with national security secrets, believing he could reveal sensitive information or seek to profit off of it.
Sue Gordon, who was principal deputy director of national intelligence during the Trump administration, urged in a recent op-ed that Trump be cut off from intelligence briefings, saying he would be “unusually vulnerable to bad actors with ill intent.”
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) began pushing for Trump to be cut out of the loop even before he left office on Jan. 20.
"There's no circumstance in which this president should get another intelligence briefing, not now, not in the future,” he said. “I don't think he can be trusted with it now, and in the future he certainly can't be trusted."
Pretty sure it's so they can be called upon to consult. I also think they may be the last emergency fall back in case of disaster... probably some secret memo.
White House reviewing whether Trump should continue receiving intel briefings
The White House is conducting a review to determine whether former President Trump should continue receiving intelligence briefings now that he has left office.
Speaking at the White House press briefing on Monday, spokeswoman Jen Psaki said President Biden’s national security team is looking into the matter.
“It’s something that is under review,” Psaki said.
Former presidents typically have access to intelligence briefings after leaving office.
However, Democrats — and even some former Trump administration officials — have warned that the former president cannot be trusted with national security secrets, believing he could reveal sensitive information or seek to profit off of it.
Sue Gordon, who was principal deputy director of national intelligence during the Trump administration, urged in a recent op-ed that Trump be cut off from intelligence briefings, saying he would be “unusually vulnerable to bad actors with ill intent.”
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) began pushing for Trump to be cut out of the loop even before he left office on Jan. 20.
"There's no circumstance in which this president should get another intelligence briefing, not now, not in the future,” he said. “I don't think he can be trusted with it now, and in the future he certainly can't be trusted."
I'll do you one better. Why does any President need to receive these briefings once they're out of office?
The PDB is not the same for each President who is presently out of office. The standard for who is entitled to read classified intell. remains "need to know" and the individuals "level of security clearance".
Now, Trump might not qualify for the same level of clearance and access he qualified for as a sitting President.
Lindsey Graham threatens Democrats: If you call even one witness for impeachment trial, we’ll open up 'Pandora's box'
He threatened to call the FBI to testify
Phil Shiver
February 02, 2021
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) warned Democratic colleagues Monday night that if they decide to call even one witness in the Senate's upcoming impeachment trial against former President Trump, they'll be opening up "Pandora's Box."
POLL: What scares you the most?
Last month, the Democrat-controlled House voted to impeach Trump a second time for "incitement of insurrection" after a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 while Congress was in session. The process has now moved to the Senate, where a trial is set to begin next week.
Graham, the outgoing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed that he looks forward to a speedy trial and acquittal of Trump. But he noted that should Democrats choose to turn it into a "political commercial" and prolong the business for "weeks and months" by calling witnesses, Republicans are prepared to play ball by calling the FBI to testify about security failures at the U.S. Capitol.
"If you open up that can of worms [by calling witnesses], we'll want the FBI to come in and tell us about how people actually pre-planned these attacks and what happened with the security footprint at the Capitol," Graham said.
"You open up Pandora's box if you call one witness," he continued. "I hope we don't call any and we vote and get this trial over next week when it starts."
Lindsey Graham repeats his warning not to call witnesses during the trial. He says if Democrats vote to call a sing… https://t.co/PpWSE4a8qQ — Acyn Torabi (@Acyn Torabi)1612226807.0
With the trial's Feb. 9 start date looming, Reuters reported Monday that the House Democrats in charge of impeachment proceedings in the Senate are expected to announce whether or not they will call witnesses by as early as Tuesday.
Democrats are expected to face an uphill climb toward a conviction, especially after 45 of the GOP's 50 senators voted in a procedural motion to object to impeachment proceedings last week, leading Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to call the prospect "dead on arrival." Democrats would need at least 17 GOP senators to declare Trump guilty in order to garner the two-thirds vote required to convict.
I was listening to the Dan Abbrams Show on Potus radio yesterday and one of his callers had an interesting take on the impeachment trial and I was wondering what you guys thought about it. It goes as follows:
The Democrats are making a mistake by taking this Impeachment to trial. The reasoning being that there is almost no way that 17 republican senators will vote guilty. So trump will be spouting off "I was exonerated twice, see I did nothing wrong!"
Whereas, since trump has already been impeached a 2nd time, if it never goes to trial then it will always hang over him like a black cloud.
I had not thought of it that way and would love to here what both pro-trump and anti-trump posters think about it.
I think the decision to go to trial shouldn't be based on whether 17 spineless Republicans will or won't vote guilty - neither should it be made based on having a stigma hang over Trump.
The entire "Impeachment" process might be political in nature, which has been discussed before - but it should be based on facts and what's "right".
Did Trump provide the fuel that lead to the protest and the violence? Is it provable? If yes - then go to trial. If not then don't. End of.
Because we have spineless politicians who will vote party regardless of what's right or wrong, shouldn't determine what action is taken.
The way I see is there should be a public record of the evidence for people in future generations to look at. Either there is evidence to present or there is not. In this case there is a vast amount of evidence to present.
Trump is almost 75 years old. He isn't long on this earth to crow about anything. Let the people see the evidence and decide for themselves. By now it's already clear that the vast majority of Americans fully understand you can't believe a word the man says.
White House reviewing whether Trump should continue receiving intel briefings
The White House is conducting a review to determine whether former President Trump should continue receiving intelligence briefings now that he has left office.
Speaking at the White House press briefing on Monday, spokeswoman Jen Psaki said President Biden’s national security team is looking into the matter.
“It’s something that is under review,” Psaki said.
Former presidents typically have access to intelligence briefings after leaving office.
However, Democrats — and even some former Trump administration officials — have warned that the former president cannot be trusted with national security secrets, believing he could reveal sensitive information or seek to profit off of it.
Sue Gordon, who was principal deputy director of national intelligence during the Trump administration, urged in a recent op-ed that Trump be cut off from intelligence briefings, saying he would be “unusually vulnerable to bad actors with ill intent.”
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) began pushing for Trump to be cut out of the loop even before he left office on Jan. 20.
"There's no circumstance in which this president should get another intelligence briefing, not now, not in the future,” he said. “I don't think he can be trusted with it now, and in the future he certainly can't be trusted."
Pretty sure it's so they can be called upon to consult. I also think they may be the last emergency fall back in case of disaster... probably some secret memo.
I'll amend/edit my post to emphasize the 'need'. Sounds to me like former presidents automatically receive these. Per what you suggested, it should be easy for a former president to retain receipt of that info... but the default process should pretty much be that of any other employee leaving a job.
I was listening to the Dan Abbrams Show on Potus radio yesterday and one of his callers had an interesting take on the impeachment trial and I was wondering what you guys thought about it. It goes as follows:
The Democrats are making a mistake by taking this Impeachment to trial. The reasoning being that there is almost no way that 17 republican senators will vote guilty. So trump will be spouting off "I was exonerated twice, see I did nothing wrong!"
Whereas, since trump has already been impeached a 2nd time, if it never goes to trial then it will always hang over him like a black cloud.
I had not thought of it that way and would love to here what both pro-trump and anti-trump posters think about it.
I'd be ok with waiting longer to send this to trial in the senate.
The longer this weighs on Trumps mind, the better I like it.
Also, as you can see, each day, more and more of those that attacked the capital are being charged and that means more and more evidence is being discovered. Most all is damning to Trump.
So the case keeps getting stronger and stronger.
Still, I don't think they'll ever get 17 Republicans to vote for conviction.
By the way, voting against conviction says to me that republicans think it's ok to incite insurrection.
None of this is a surprise. It was expected that the Dems would invite trump to testify under oath and it was expected that that trump would decline. Next step, the impeachment managers need to decide if they are going to subpoena trump or not.
Key Democrat asks Trump to testify under oath for impeachment trial
David Knowles Thu, February 4, 2021, 2:36 PM
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., sent a letter Thursday to former President Donald Trump, inviting him to provide testimony under oath in regards to the impeachment trial that will begin in the U.S. Senate next week.
Raskin, the Democrats’ lead impeachment manager, said he was requesting Trump’s testimony in light of the response issued by the former president's lawyers to impeachment charge of "incitement of insurrection" for his role in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.
“Two days ago, you filed an Answer in which you denied many factual allegations set forth in the article of impeachment,” Raskin wrote to Trump. “You have thus attempted to put critical facts at issue notwithstanding the clear and overwhelming evidence of your constitutional offense. In light of you disputing these factual allegations, I write to invite you to provide testimony under oath, either before or during the Senate impeachment trial, concerning your conduct on January 6, 2021.”
On Tuesday, Trump’s lawyers issued their response to the article, arguing that impeachment was not constitutional since Trump was no longer president and that his inflammatory statements at a rally that immediately preceded the storming of the Capitol by his supporters were protected by the First Amendment.
“It is denied that President Trump incited the crowd to engage in destructive behavior,” the legal team’s response stated. “It is denied that the phrase ‘If you don't fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore’ had anything to do with the action at the Capitol as it was clearly about the need to fight for election security in general, as evidence by the recording of the speech.”
Trump had exhorted his supporters to head to the Capitol to voice their displeasure with lawmakers who were set to certify the results of the 2020 election.
Raskin pressed Trump to testify no later than next Thursday.
“We would propose that you provide your testimony (of course, including cross-examination) as early as Monday, February 8, 2021, and not later than Thursday, February 11, 2021,” Raskin wrote. “We would be pleased to arrange such testimony at a mutually convenient time and place.”
Noting that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that Trump was not immune from legal proceedings while serving as president, Raskin told Trump that his refusal to testify could be read as an admission of guilt.
“If you decline this invitation, we reserve any and all rights, including the right to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021,” Raskin said in the letter.
In response, Trump lawyers Bruce Castor and David Schoen refused Raskin’s request, calling it a “public relations stunt.”
“Your letter only confirms what is known to everyone: You cannot prove your allegations against the 45th President of the United States, who is now a private citizen,” Castor and Schoen wrote.
‘It has to be dramatic, it has to be big’: Trump allies urge impeachment team to focus on election conspiracy
More content below Chris Riotta Fri, February 5, 2021, 3:15 PM
Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial in the Senate will be a performative spectacle promoting debunked conspiracy theories of rampant voter fraud when it kicks off next week — that is, if some of the former president’s closest allies get their way. Steve Bannon, the ex-White House chief strategist charged with fraud over a border wall fundraising scheme, acknowledged the Democratic Party has a “compelling” case against Mr Trump.
In an interview published on Friday with Politico, Mr Bannon said: “He is not going to be convicted, so we must address November 3rd. And the best place to adjudicate this is the well of the US Senate.”
“It has to be dramatic,” he added. “It has to be big. It has to be the big lie versus the big steal.”
Reports have indicated the former president wanted his legal team to focus on his false claims of a rigged election, leading to five attorneys fleeing from his side less than two weeks before the trial. Those lawyers were replaced by Bill Castor, a former district attorney most known for declining to prosecute Bill Cosby, and David Schoen, a lawyer who has bragged about representing “all sorts of reputed mobster figures” in court.
According to Politico, many of Mr Trump’s advisers have urged his team not to focus on the deadly Capitol riots last month that followed his nearby rally, where he gave a 70-minute speech in which he refused to concede and said: “If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore.”
The US House of Representatives impeached Mr Trump for fomenting the deadly insurrection, the first time in American history a president has been impeached twice. Senate Democrats would require at least 17 Republicans to join them in voting to convict Mr Trump in order to pave the way to bar him from ever holding elected office again.
However, it seems unlikely the Senate will convict Mr Trump after a majority of Republican senators voted against holding the trial while challenging the constitutionality of impeaching a former president.
“The Democrats have a very emotional and compelling case,” Mr Bannon told Politico. “They’re going to try to convict him in the eyes of the American people and smear him forever.”
Some said the team should not focus on the false claims of voter fraud, including Alan Dershowitz, who told the news outlet it would be a “serious mistake” for Mr Castor and Mr Schoen to revisit such conspiracy theories. The Politico report said the attorneys were planning on addressing the constitutionality of the trial, which has been a subject of debate among experts. Still, many constitutional scholars have said the trial was fair game, with some noting how the impeachment began in the House under Mr Trump’s tenure in the White House. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer vowed to hold the trial last month, calling the decision of 45 GOP senators to vote against the proceedings “deeply irresponsible” in a speech.
"Only five Republican senators were willing to take a principled stand against this reckless and ill-advised effort by members of this body who are eager to excuse President Trump's campaign to overturn the election and apparently to excuse his incitement of the mob that every one of us experienced in this Capitol," he said. "I would simply say to all of my colleagues, make no mistake, there will be a trial, and the evidence against the former president will be presented in living color for the nation and every one of us to see once again."
Here is what I think is going down with this whole thing.
1) Trumps team and his allies are going to turn this into a crapshow-no discussion about Jan 6 but their side will talk about the same made up garbage that has been dismissed in 60+ lawsuits.
2) no way in hell trump gets on a stand and puts his hand on a bible. no how, no way. ask him, subpoena him...no way he gets on a stand under oath-he simply does not have the capability to answer questions honestly.
3) in the end, not much will come about with all the grandstanding except it will look like dysfunctional government at work again.
4) he will not get convicted in the Senate because there will not be 17 republicans who cross the aisle to convict trump. Most will say he is already out of office so this is a waste of time.
5) as soon as this is over, trump will go on a tour to all of the republicans that cross him and this will be the start of the 2024 maga tour. to primary the r's that cross him.
6) as soon as the repubs say that this is a waste of time and fail to convict because trump will never seek office again and this is over without conviction, trump will announce that he is running in 2024
5) as soon as this is over, trump will go on a tour to all of the republicans that cross him and this will be the start of the 2024 maga tour. to primary the r's that cross him.
Trump ‘plotting revenge tour’ against opponents after his impeachment trial
Gustaf Kilander Fri, February 5, 2021, 10:10 AM
Former President Donald Trump is planning a revenge tour around the country after the end of his second impeachment trial to campaign against Republicans who voted for his impeachment, according to a report. 10 House Republicans voted to impeach the then-President Trump.
Mr Trump has been advised that it would be unwise to go out and rail against incumbent Republicans before the end of the trial despite that Mr Trump acquittal is almost a foregone conclusion at this point.
A Republican close to Mr Trump told Insider: "Even he recognises that we have Trump fatigue. Even he knows that you can get overexposed, and he wore the electorate out. And that was part of the problem. He clearly wore the country out with his behaviour between the election and the inauguration."
"Twitter did him a favour," the Republican added, referring to the former president's lifetime ban from the platform. Even so, advisors are telling Mr Trump that he should speak publicly soon in order to not lose his vice-like grip on the party.
A former Trump campaign adviser told Insider that the longer Mr Trump remains holed up at Mar-A-Lago, his South Florida club, the less of a serious 2024 contender he becomes.
The vast majority of Republican voters are still in Mr Trump's camp with the latest poll from Quinnipiac released 4 February showing that 86 per cent of Republicans believe the Senate should acquit Mr Trump and 76 per cent of them believe the lie that there was widespread fraud in the election. Overall, a majority of Americans, 59 per cent, does not believe that there was widespread fraud.
Read more: Follow the latest updates on the post-presidency of Donald Trump
Mr Trump's tour would reportedly focus on the ten House Republicans who voted for his impeachment, with one of the possible targets being Anthony Gonzalez, who represents a district outside Cleveland, Ohio, a district which Mr Trump won with 57 per cent of the vote in 2020. Mr Gonzalez himself fared a little bit better, getting 63 per cent of the vote in his first reelection bid.
The former president - who values loyalty over perhaps anything else - is also preparing to possibly start trying to take down any Senators who vote for his conviction in the upcoming impeachment trial or cross him in any other way.
He's already urged South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem to take on Senator John Thune in 2022 because of Mr Thune's criticism of Mr Trump's attempts to overturn the election. Mr Thune won reelection in the state in 2016 with almost 72 per cent of the vote, while Mr Trump won the state in 2020 with ten per cent less of the vote.
Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski could also be targeted as she has been one of the most outspoken Republican critics of Mr Trump during his time in office and she was one of five Republicans last month who voted with Democrats to strike down a resolution saying that an impeachment trial for a former president would be unconstitutional. Mr Trump won the state of Alaska in 2020 with 52.8 per cent to Joe Biden's 42.8 per cent.
Even as plans are being made, Trump spokesperson Jason Miller told Insider that it was "too soon to discuss specific 2022 campaign activity".
While stewing in Florida, one of Mr Trump's most high profile antagonists of late, House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney who voted to impeach him, won the support of 145 of her colleagues to stay in the position, with only 61 members voting to remove her after the wing of the party most loyal to Mr Trump forced a vote on whether she was to stay in the position, thinking they had the votes to remove her.
Republicans close to Mr Trump said this was likely to have angered him as he is eager to get out in public and criticise congressional Republicans who he thinks have betrayed him.
Mr Trump's lawyers quickly denied a request from House Democrats that he testify under oath during the Senate impeachment trial, but despite passing on this speaking opportunity, some with inside knowledge believe that Mr Trump will be out and swinging at his perceived enemies sooner rather than later.
Former RNC spokesman Doug Heye told Insider that Mr Trump "is clearly shell shocked from the reaction to January 6 and losing his social media platform... We don't know how long that will last, but it's safe to assume we'll be hearing from him at some point."
Democrats spoke about feelings. Trump council speaking about facts.
I haven't watched or heard a thing ... but when you say the Trump council is talking about facts, does that mean they are talking about how the Election was NOT stolen? Does that mean they are acknowledging that Trump's rhetoric and claims of a stolen, fraudulent election are LIES? Did they talk about the 80+ court cases that Trump lost while he promoted those lies? Did they talk about how the ONLY reason for the protest and occupation of the Capitol Building was because of those lies?
Those are all facts ... hopefully that's what you were referring to.
Democrats spoke about feelings. Trump council speaking about facts.
I haven't watched or heard a thing ... but when you say the Trump council is talking about facts, does that mean they are talking about how the Election was NOT stolen? Does that mean they are acknowledging that Trump's rhetoric and claims of a stolen, fraudulent election are LIES? Did they talk about the 80+ court cases that Trump lost while he promoted those lies? Did they talk about how the ONLY reason for the protest and occupation of the Capitol Building was because of those lies?
Those are all facts ... hopefully that's what you were referring to.
They are talking about how you cant impeach someoneone who isnt President. Its unconstitutional. Which is 100% true.
But apparently libtards make up their own laws when the facts dont align with their feelings.
According to sources close to trump he was screaming at the TV and is vehemently unhappy with the two lawyers who made their poor and weak opening arguments.
And BTW there are others who have been impeached after leaving office. Look it up. It’s constitutional. And it’s the law. You’re just perpetrating another big lie. Pffft trump supporters. Clapping at that performance. The house mangers rocked the show and the trump team screwed the pooch. Fact.
According to sources close to trump he was screaming at the TV and is vehemently unhappy with the two lawyers who made their poor and weak opening arguments.
And BTW there are others who have been impeached after leaving office. Look it up. It’s constitutional. And it’s the law. You’re just perpetrating another big lie. Pffft trump supporters. Clapping at that performance. The house mangers rocked the show and the trump team screwed the pooch. Fact.
Its not constitutional, but feel free to live in your alternate imaginary reality.
According to sources close to trump he was screaming at the TV and is vehemently unhappy with the two lawyers who made their poor and weak opening arguments.
And BTW there are others who have been impeached after leaving office. Look it up. It’s constitutional. And it’s the law. You’re just perpetrating another big lie. Pffft trump supporters. Clapping at that performance. The house mangers rocked the show and the trump team screwed the pooch. Fact.
Its not constitutional, but feel free to live in your alternate imaginary reality.
A majority bipartisan vote on the Senate floor just sad it was constitutional and disagree with your imaginary reality. So feel free to disappear in it.
According to sources close to trump he was screaming at the TV and is vehemently unhappy with the two lawyers who made their poor and weak opening arguments.
And BTW there are others who have been impeached after leaving office. Look it up. It’s constitutional. And it’s the law. You’re just perpetrating another big lie. Pffft trump supporters. Clapping at that performance. The house mangers rocked the show and the trump team screwed the pooch. Fact.
Its not constitutional, but feel free to live in your alternate imaginary reality.
A majority bipartisan vote on the Senate floor just sad it was constitutional and disagree with your imaginary reality. So feel free to disappear in it.
It doesnt suprise me that libtards make up their own laws when the current ones dont align with their feelings.
You most certainly are spouting off with emotions and ignoring fact and precedent.
And that's all you have posted - again and again and again ... nothing to back your opinion and emotions up. Just chanting a mantra like a good Cult of Trump girl.
The impeachment of William Belknap, the Secretary of War under President Ulysses S. Grant, is more instructive. In 1876, just minutes before the House was set to impeach Belknap for accepting bribes, he resigned his position. The House went ahead and impeached him anyway. The Senate also proceeded to try him, amid debate about whether resigning should allow an official to evade impeachment and conviction. A majority of the Senate voted to convict Belknap, but not the required two-thirds, so he was acquitted. The vast majority of senators who voted to acquit did so not because they thought that he wasn’t guilty of the offense but, rather, because he was no longer an official.
The Belknap case provides clear Senate precedent for trying a former official after he has left office.
You most certainly are spouting off with emotions and ignoring fact and precedent.
And that's all you have posted - again and again and again ... nothing to back your opinion and emotions up. Just chanting a mantra like a good Cult of Trump girl.
The impeachment of William Belknap, the Secretary of War under President Ulysses S. Grant, is more instructive. In 1876, just minutes before the House was set to impeach Belknap for accepting bribes, he resigned his position. The House went ahead and impeached him anyway. The Senate also proceeded to try him, amid debate about whether resigning should allow an official to evade impeachment and conviction. A majority of the Senate voted to convict Belknap, but not the required two-thirds, so he was acquitted. The vast majority of senators who voted to acquit did so not because they thought that he wasn’t guilty of the offense but, rather, because he was no longer an official.
The Belknap case provides clear Senate precedent for trying a former official after he has left office.
Please learn how to read and what a fact is.
Quote:
just minutes before the House was set to impeach Belknap for accepting bribes, he resigned his position.
So they filed for impeachment while he was still in office.
Trump is not President, nor in any kind of government office. He is a private citizen.
OMG. Get a freaking clue. In 1876, just minutes before the House was set to impeach Belknap for accepting bribes, he resigned his position. The House went ahead and impeached him anyway. The Senate also proceeded to try him, amid debate about whether resigning should allow an official to evade impeachment and conviction.
House AND Senate impeached him ANYWAY. That's called: P.R.E.C.E.D.E.N.T
OMG. Get a freaking clue. In 1876, just minutes before the House was set to impeach Belknap for accepting bribes, he resigned his position. The House went ahead and impeached him anyway. The Senate also proceeded to try him, amid debate about whether resigning should allow an official to evade impeachment and conviction.
House AND Senate impeached him ANYWAY. That's called: P.R.E.C.E.D.E.N.T
You are the one who needs a clue. That dude HELD AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT POSITION WHEN THE TRIAL STARTED. THE POINT OF IMPEACHMENT IS TO REMOVE SOMEONE FROM OFFICE.
Democrats spoke about feelings. Trump council speaking about facts.
I haven't watched or heard a thing ... but when you say the Trump council is talking about facts, does that mean they are talking about how the Election was NOT stolen? Does that mean they are acknowledging that Trump's rhetoric and claims of a stolen, fraudulent election are LIES? Did they talk about the 80+ court cases that Trump lost while he promoted those lies? Did they talk about how the ONLY reason for the protest and occupation of the Capitol Building was because of those lies?
Those are all facts ... hopefully that's what you were referring to.
They are talking about how you cant impeach someoneone who isnt President. Its unconstitutional. Which is 100% true.
But apparently libtards make up their own laws when the facts dont align with their feelings.
"Unconstitutional" implies that a law or procedure borne from state action directly contradicts the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land. That is why you can have trials in absentia or why states can't legalize slavery, because the Constitution specifically says you can't do that. With that in mind, how is this trial unconstitutional?
It doesn't say the President has to be a sitting President. And, as has already been pointed out, if you're looking for precedent about the interpretation, an out-of-office official has already been impeached before.
It does imply that the President has to be a sitting President. You can't remove someone who isn't in office. I don't feel like looking up the exact language, they went over it in the trial today. Too tired for this tonight.
I just did a Ctrl F for impeachment in the Constitution to make sure I wasn't going crazy.
"Imply" is an argument that often gets two sides before the Supreme Court so that they can give their official interpretation of the Constitution, and they often defer to the stare decisis of precedent.
In this case, the Belknap scenario serves as precedent in favor of the impeachment process. There is no precedent serving Trump's team. They have to rest their argument on "imply" at best while the counterargument is that the Constitution says nothing about the impeachment TRIAL needing to take place for a sitting president, and then bolstering that argument with the Belknap precedent.
It's all a moot point anyway because people are just going to vote on party lines like always, but I don't think the constitutionality argument carries weight here.
It's all a moot point anyway because people are just going to vote on party lines like always, but I don't think the constitutionality argument carries weight here.
Nailed it.
And sleazey spineless GOP will not impeach him - they will lie and repeat this same bogus Bull Crap about unconstitutional. And if the world is still here in another 200 years - at some point, some slimey POS human scumbag who is all about exploiting the position of POTUS for his own gain will use this precedent to his advantage. Hell at the rate Hawley is going it might be sooner than we think.
It does imply that the President has to be a sitting President. You can't remove someone who isn't in office. I don't feel like looking up the exact language, they went over it in the trial today. Too tired for this tonight.
So what you are saying is that you truly believe that ANY president, whether Republican or Democrat, can do whatever they please at the end of their presidency because they can’t be impeached in time? You can’t truly think that can you? If Obama did something like this you would truthfully say oh well? I don’t think so.
You should absolutely be held accountable for the events that take place when you are in office that you contributed to, no matter what party you belong to. I guess being an independent must not cloud my brain.
So what you are saying is that you truly believe that ANY president, whether Republican or Democrat, can do whatever they please at the end of their presidency because they can’t be impeached in time?
I get why you asked the question, but to be honest, that question is moot.
Donald John Trump was impeached on January 13. His term expired on January 20. He was a sitting POTUS at the time of his impeachment. The trial is a separate procedure, conducted only after impeachment was confirmed.
Another fact that renders Schoen's and Castor's arguments moot: legal/historical precedent already exists to support the position that impeachment can occur after a politician's tenure has expired (Belknap).
So what you are saying is that you truly believe that ANY president, whether Republican or Democrat, can do whatever they please at the end of their presidency because they can’t be impeached in time?
I get why you asked the question, but to be honest, that question is moot.
Donald John Trump was impeached on January 13. His term expired on January 20. He was a sitting POTUS at the time of his impeachment. The trial is a separate procedure, conducted only after impeachment was confirmed.
Another fact that renders Schoen's and Castor's arguments moot: legal/historical precedent already exists to support the position that impeachment can occur after a politician's tenure has expired (Belknap).
Dems Play Trump’s Remarks at Impeachment Trial But Leave Out Call to ‘Peacefully and Patriotically Make Your Voices Heard’
U.S. Senate
Kristina Wong
9 Feb 2021
Democrats played a deceptively edited video of former President Donald Trump’s speech on January 6, 2020, at the beginning of the impeachment trial on Tuesday, leaving out his call for supporters to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
The video shows Trump saying, “We’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down…to the Capitol.”
The video then cuts to supporters yelling, “Let’s take the Capitol!” and “We are going to the Capitol!” It then cuts to people trying to get past fence barriers, and then to an earlier part of Trump’s speech where he said in regards to his fight against the election results, “we fight like hell.”
The video then says: “President Trump ends his speech and urges his mob to move toward the Capitol.”
It then shows Trump saying:
So we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give…our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re try–going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
It then goes to protesters violently clashing with police, protesters breaching the Capitol, and some chanting “Fight for Trump!”
The video was edited to make it l0ok as if Trump had urged supporters to go and violently breach the Capitol building.
However, nowhere in his remarks did Trump encourage violence, and he even called on supporters to “peacefully” make their voices heard.
He said:
Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down — we’re going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol — and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. Lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today, we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections. But whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time. Far longer than this four year period.
…
So we are going to — we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give — the Democrats are hopeless, they are never voting for anything, not even one vote but we are going to try –give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re try — going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here. This is incredible
It does imply that the President has to be a sitting President. You can't remove someone who isn't in office. I don't feel like looking up the exact language, they went over it in the trial today. Too tired for this tonight.
So what you are saying is that you truly believe that ANY president, whether Republican or Democrat, can do whatever they please at the end of their presidency because they can’t be impeached in time? You can’t truly think that can you? If Obama did something like this you would truthfully say oh well? I don’t think so.
You should absolutely be held accountable for the events that take place when you are in office that you contributed to, no matter what party you belong to. I guess being an independent must not cloud my brain.
Nice try but all these unicorns are now flying around in trumplandia where their deplorable leader resides.
It does imply that the President has to be a sitting President. You can't remove someone who isn't in office. I don't feel like looking up the exact language, they went over it in the trial today. Too tired for this tonight.
Sure you can try him after he is gone for actions during his time. Even the guy that trumps lawyers mentioned said that you can't try a president after he is gone said trumps lawyers said that the lawyers seriously screwed up what he said
And this is also to assure that he never holds federal office again
A constitutional law professor whose work is cited extensively by former President Donald Trump's lawyers in their impeachment defense brief says his work has been seriously misrepresented.
In a 78-page brief filed in the U.S. Senate on Monday, Trump's lawyers rely heavily on the work of Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt, author of the seminal article about impeachment of a former president. His work is cited 15 times in the Trump brief, often for the proposition that the Senate does not have the authority under the Constitution to try an impeached former president.
The problem is that Kalt's 2001 book-length law review article concluded that, on balance, the historical evidence is against Trump's legal argument.
"The worst part is the three places where they said I said something, when, in fact, I said the opposite," Kalt said in an interview with NPR.
Trump Impeachment Trial: Live Updates Trump Impeachment Trial: Live Updates Trump's lawyers argue that the Senate lacks jurisdiction because Trump is already out of office, making an impeachment trial pointless. Kalt argues that impeachment is about more than removal; it's about accountability and deterrence. "The framers worried about people abusing their power to keep themselves in office," he adds. "The point is the timing of the conduct, not the timing of the legal proceeding."
Kalt is among more than 170 leading constitutional scholars who have formally weighed in on this issue, telling the Senate that contrary to Trump's assertion, it does have the authority to try him.
What they're showing is exactly what happened. Republicans were warned over and over again how dangerous Trump's words were and what it would lead to. Their response? "No it won't!". Then when you show them plainly that's what happened, they say, "No it didn't!" Then they try to make some outrageous claim that he can't be held accountable.
They have done nothing but enable a want to be dictator who purposefully set about an attempted overthrow of our election process to install an illegal government.
The presentation being shown by the democrats will live on throughout history a prime example of what happened here and none of their BS can hide that or cover it up.
Let's face it - when the march happened - the day happened - none of us were shocked at what happened because it was foreseeable. The stage had been set by Trump over the proceeding weeks. . . That's powerful too. If it was foreseeable, how was it not then being instigated by everything Trump had said up to that point?
Let's face it - when the march happened - the day happened - none of us were shocked at what happened because it was foreseeable. The stage had been set by Trump over the proceeding weeks. . . That's powerful too. If it was foreseeable, how was it not then being instigated by everything Trump had said up to that point?
If it was foreseeable then why wasn't there better security?
Ask the people in charge. Many people saw this coming and gave a warning. The problem comes when nobody takes things like this seriously until it's too late. Even then they pretend it's not the fault of the person who caused it.
If was forseeable and nobody did anything then seems some other people should be impeached also. Or it was not that forseeable other than to some conspiracy theorists.
Let's face it - when the march happened - the day happened - none of us were shocked at what happened because it was foreseeable. The stage had been set by Trump over the proceeding weeks. . . That's powerful too. If it was foreseeable, how was it not then being instigated by everything Trump had said up to that point?
If it was foreseeable then why wasn't there better security?
Exactly. Thank you.
I feel certain that aspect will become relevant for the prosecutors. Maybe you don't remember that extra security was suggested and deliberately squashed. Maybe you don't know or remember that there was a HUGE delay in the National Guard being asked to help and approval being granted ... I'm sure your selective memory has NOTHING to do with your pre-determined verdict and partisan political view.
I don't have a selective memory, I just don't obsess that much about politics. It's fun to me to poke liberals because of your TDS. Trump is long gone and he still lives in your head. haha
This all seems overblown to me. When AOC exaggerates her "story" to manipulate people, I just roll my eyes. These people don't care about what actually happened, they are just scared crapless of Trump and don't want to deal with him in 2024.
When Congress starts caring about the business owners whose business is destroyed by BLM and Antifa riots, I'll start caring about their scary moment in Congress when some doofy guy with buffalo horns knocked on their door. This is just karma calling.
First, I thought we had a world wide company store.
(A company store is like in West Virginia, a group of empoloyees whole lives were isolated to the company mine or company of one corporate job, and the job would build the store and set the prices which kept the workers poor.)
(Found out I was really thinking about a company town, not just a store)
(Continuing to read I came across the concept of Paternalism.)
So, we have a World Wide Paternalism, in a World Wide Company Store of a Company Town, and often these whole towns would go deserted when the job ended, or the coal was no longer needed,
and at that point the people would be forced to go elsewhere, but the problem this time,
is when the World Wide economy colappses in this world wide company store of internet and electrostatic George jetsonism,
There will be not anywhere to go a few miles down the road, there will be mass starvation.
But, I'm telling you, (company store), it explains the actions of the left if you think the whole world is necessary to be told paternalism.
Only way anything the left ever makes sense, is to know, they don't care about people only the oligopoly of all things evil puppet big corporation or big money. (and with a creepy crazy cult of worship the scientists on the side)
If Trump ran in 2024 he would get less votes than this election and lose again. You can think whatever you like but that's the truth of it.
I think you would be pretty disappointed with regards how much time most of anyone thinks about Trump. But when you come to a political forum and Trump is (was) POTUS and he was so incompetent and his Cult were so loud and so wrong ... yeah, you'll see a lot of posts about him.
We'll see most of the posts about Biden once the impeachment is over - I'll remember that any time a Trump supporter posts something about Biden it means that Biden is living in their heads according to your take.
Only way anything the left ever makes sense, is to know, they don't care about people only the oligopoly of all things evil puppet big corporation or big money. (and with a creepy crazy cult of worship the scientists on the side)
You talked about Projecting the other day. I think this is maybe an example? This and when you suggested the Democrats wanted to give $3 million per child in child support or whatever insanity you posted ....
You don't have a point. You don't have an argument - so you project these totally random, crazy moronic scenarios that have no basis or relationship to Democratic goals, thoughts or ideal and to make them fit our hate filled narrative you have to project them ridiculous and extreme.
Do please take care and I hope someone is there as a support mechanism for you.
You'll see lots of posts about Trump because any time someone posts something negative about the current administration there will be a Trump whataboutism.
You'll see lots of posts about Trump because any time someone posts something negative about the current administration there will be a Trump whataboutism.
Possibly - and possibly it will be 100% justified. For example - we've had no talk of fiscal responsibility as Trump has done nothing to address national debt (other than make it worse with a tax giveaway that went 80% to his 1 percenter buddies) .... Whenever the Cult starts piping in about spending money and fiscsal responsibility ... it will be pertinent to say WHERE WERE YOU WHEN TRUMP WAS IN OFFICE?
And you can deflect that any way you want - but it will be valid.
You'll see lots of posts about Trump because any time someone posts something negative about the current administration there will be a Trump whataboutism.
Possibly - and possibly it will be 100% justified. For example - we've had no talk of fiscal responsibility as Trump has done nothing to address national debt (other than make it worse with a tax giveaway that went 80% to his 1 percenter buddies) .... Whenever the Cult starts piping in about spending money and fiscsal responsibility ... it will be pertinent to say WHERE WERE YOU WHEN TRUMP WAS IN OFFICE?
And you can deflect that any way you want - but it will be valid.
Wrong. I was talking about Harri's ho tendencies and Perfect started whining about covid. Grasping some straws there.
If even you, would take a look around you'd see the democrats in conjunction with whatever evil they follow have taken control of even your own life and any kind of a Country the USA was 7 years ago, it is not anymore, and I doubt you'll escape the consequences that will effect us all. But if you want to deflect what you don't want to admit it will only last for so long.
Possibly - and possibly it will be 100% justified. For example - we've had no talk of fiscal responsibility as Trump has done nothing to address national debt (other than make it worse with a tax giveaway that went 80% to his 1 percenter buddies) .... Whenever the Cult starts piping in about spending money and fiscsal responsibility ... it will be pertinent to say WHERE WERE YOU WHEN TRUMP WAS IN OFFICE?
And you can deflect that any way you want - but it will be valid.
You are largely correct. There are right and wrong times to make these comparisons..
But what we will see is that no matter what dumb thing Biden might say/do, the immediate response will not be to address it as a dumb thing.. the reaction will be compare it to some dumb thing Trump did and prove that, while our side is dumb, they aren't as dumb as your side.. and that's how politics in general is in a race to bottom... the goal isn't to be good, it's to not be as bad as the others.
When Biden makes bad policy, ties to coerce foreign governments to nobble or investigate political enemies ... generally does anything generally against the good of the country or our allies ... I will be happy to criticize him. If he lies constantly and relentlessly - same thing.
If he mis-speaks or says dumb crap from time to time? I doubt I will pay it much attention - unless for example he suggests to inject bleach to fight a virus. Trump said dumb things every week. I didn't worry about those - except when they lead to repercussions.
We'll see. I'm not expecting great things. But while the bar was set ridiculously low by Trump - Biden is doing alright. He's letting people do their job. He doesn't need to be the center of attention or get credit for things real or imagined. He's stayed out of the impeachment. Hasn't added to the hate and division within the country. Small wins, but an improvement.
You'll see lots of posts about Trump because any time someone posts something negative about the current administration there will be a Trump whataboutism.
Possibly - and possibly it will be 100% justified. For example - we've had no talk of fiscal responsibility as Trump has done nothing to address national debt (other than make it worse with a tax giveaway that went 80% to his 1 percenter buddies) .... Whenever the Cult starts piping in about spending money and fiscsal responsibility ... it will be pertinent to say WHERE WERE YOU WHEN TRUMP WAS IN OFFICE?
And you can deflect that any way you want - but it will be valid.
Wrong. I was talking about Harri's ho tendencies and Perfect started whining about covid. Grasping some straws there.
Anything to divert from the fact that trump incited a violent mob of insurrectionists and sent them to sack the capitol of the United States . Which they did, killing 5. We’ve seen this game before from trump supporters. Pffft ya’ll keep bowing to your guilty as charged fallen dictator.
Why are you guys even engaging them on this? Trump is guilty, we all know it, the rest is political BS. Same way with Russiagate and Impeachment 1.0. This is their game. Dilute the facts, muddy the waters, scream unfair, scream bias, and all the while they know too. They know he is scum and they are good with that because they think he pwned the libs.
I don't care if the Senate convicts or not, they won't rewrite the history on this one. Trump is going to go through some things, I'd say a lot of things before this all goes away. I hope at some point he pays the price for everything he did to divide us and hurt us as a nation. I don't want him to pay for single thing he's not guilty of because there is plenty he is guilty of to go after him for.
According to sources close to trump he was screaming at the TV and is vehemently unhappy with the two lawyers who made their poor and weak opening arguments.
And BTW there are others who have been impeached after leaving office. Look it up. It’s constitutional. And it’s the law. You’re just perpetrating another big lie. Pffft trump supporters. Clapping at that performance. The house mangers rocked the show and the trump team screwed the pooch. Fact.
It's not constitutional, but feel free to live in your alternate imaginary reality.
A majority bipartisan vote on the Senate floor just sad it was constitutional and disagree with your imaginary reality. So feel free to disappear in it.
The Senate has no authority to determine what is or isn't constitutional. The Judiciary is where that is decided. Trust me.
However, this seems to fall more under the prevue of Administrative Law. At least the basics of an impeachment. The fact the former President isn't sitting is troubling.
That said, there is obviously debate whether or not it is constitutional. How the courts might decide on that is anyone's guess. For now, my feeling is the courts want no part of this since it is largely a legislative procedural matter. The courts let the legislature hack it out, then instruct them on the legal standing of the issue.
If Mr. Trump is acquitted by the Senate, no harm, no foul is where the courts are at this point. If he is found guilty, you can bet it will end up in the Supreme Court. That is where the matter of constitutionality will be determined and any conviction will be upheld or overturned. This issue may ultimately have to be determined by the courts. These are unchartered waters that may need a ruling to set some guidance.
I come to this conclusion because at this point, there is no reasons for the court to intervene, because no rights are being infringed and no harm has been caused to this point. The media needs to clean up their act, as well as the Senate. The vote wasn't an affirmation of the process being constitutional, it was affirmation the Senate believes it is constitutional. There is big difference. Both bodies are leading citizens in to thinking otherwise.
There is precedent. That is what counts because the Constitution is unspecific. Period.
I am not even sure what precedent you are talking about, but it doesn't matter.
The Senate doesn't determine what is or isn't constitutional.
If so, we don't need courts.
They can set rules for their chamber, and they can pass laws, but has we have seen many times, laws passed by the legislature are struck down all the time. Now the rules once limited to people inside government are now stretching to private citizens. Or at least seem to be.
The Senate has no more authority to deem a law or action constitutional then does your local city counsel.
Understand, I am not advocating against the trial moving forward, but I can see the mob is starting to do what they do, so it's time to bow out.
Think what you want. Nobody knows more than you people.
There is precedent. That is what counts because the Constitution is unspecific. Period.
It also passes the common sense test. Arguing to get out of an impeachment simply because our government moves at glacial speed is bottom-of-the-barrel WEAK.
There is precedent. That is what counts because the Constitution is unspecific. Period.
It also passes the common sense test. Arguing to get out of an impeachment simply because our government moves at glacial speed is bottom-of-the-barrel WEAK.
Not to mention Moscow Mitch preventing the trial from taking place while he was in office...
Well bless your heart, you got it all figured out. Those radical lefties fighting for fair pay, lower cost health care, equal rights, climate action, wealth equality, and a return to core values/normalcy are definitely the issue. They should definitely look to the great examples set by the right. Insurrection, killing people to get your way, being too stupid to realize you are going to jail, and just otherwise acting deplorable 24/7/365... AND they would get to say libtards a lot, like really a lot... seems to be a QOP favorite.
There is a radical right side, but they are limited to the fringe and have no more affect in the world than antifa.
America just watched 8 hours of testimony and collaborating video that shows them directly attacking the seat of our government. An attack that has left 7 people dead, and over 100 officers injured. They certainly weren't "limited" on 1/6 when they got their marching orders from the Top at the Ellipse, and overran law enforcement. The certainly aren't "limited" as far as national security agencies are concerned. They've hit #1 status as the most imminent threat to this country for at least 6 years running. Evidently, your edition of Webster's has a different set of definitions than my edition.
Quote:
Can't say for the same for the radical left fringe which are currently imbedded in congress and need to be kicked out.
Of course, you couldn't. Others' mileage definitely varies. That scary, scary 'Squad' you hate so much wasn't bear-spraying Capitol Police, smashing police officers with fire hydrants, or using the American flag as a battering ram. At that moment, those awful 'radical leftists' were being escorted by security away from people with cudgels, chemical weapons, tactical gear and personal restraints.
Well bless your heart, you got it all figured out. Those radical lefties fighting for fair pay, lower cost health care, equal rights, climate action, wealth equality, and a return to core values/normalcy are definitely the issue. They should definitely look to the great examples set by the right. Insurrection, killing people to get your way, being too stupid to realize you are going to jail, and just otherwise acting deplorable 24/7/365... AND they would get to say libtards a lot, like really a lot... seems to be a QOP favorite.
You trying to make yourself feel better for being a radical left fringe member. That's ok. People will pat your head and continue on their way.
The kind of mind that creates that AND shares that is not something I wish to associate myself with... Just get your scarlet T on the way out and keep stepping.
Well bless your heart, you got it all figured out. Those radical lefties fighting for fair pay, lower cost health care, equal rights, climate action, wealth equality, and a return to core values/normalcy are definitely the issue. They should definitely look to the great examples set by the right. Insurrection, killing people to get your way, being too stupid to realize you are going to jail, and just otherwise acting deplorable 24/7/365... AND they would get to say libtards a lot, like really a lot... seems to be a QOP favorite.
You trying to make yourself feel better for being a radical left fringe member. That's ok. People will pat your head and continue on their way.
Really? That's the best you have? ...like I said, bless your heart.
Well bless your heart, you got it all figured out. Those radical lefties fighting for fair pay, lower cost health care, equal rights, climate action, wealth equality, and a return to core values/normalcy are definitely the issue. They should definitely look to the great examples set by the right. Insurrection, killing people to get your way, being too stupid to realize you are going to jail, and just otherwise acting deplorable 24/7/365... AND they would get to say libtards a lot, like really a lot... seems to be a QOP favorite.
You trying to make yourself feel better for being a radical left fringe member. That's ok. People will pat your head and continue on their way.
Really? That's the best you have? ...like I said, bless your heart.
I agree that we all know you're a radical extremist. It's old news on the forum these days. You will have to come up with something better to get a better response.
The GOP has been like a big moldy fruit cake since the teabaggers and libertarians broke the party just over a decade ago. The muted racism behind that movement was mostly a reaction to the first black president. THese are the people that gave rise to Trump... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to do that math.
Now after the last 4-5 years of the GOP carrying all the banners of hate, the chickens have come home to roost. Those same forces that propelled Trump to the highest office in the land control the party. If you're not nuts enough to buy in to the demagoguery and cult of personality, then YOU are the enemy. Decent people, mostly RINOs, are leaving the party in the thousands; so there goes the crumb of the cake.
The greatest generation and boomers are aging out fast, so there goes the crust that kept the party formed, the chewy fruity bits that are unrecognizable, and a bit of the mold.
And Trump controls all the Qnuts, the stupid, the clueless, the impressionable, the Kool Aid drinkers, the faithful, and all of the GOP youth. And if elected GOPers at all levels of government don't do exactly what Master T wants, he'll take all of these people (majority of the base) and go start his own patriot game. So there goes the nuts, the odd mix of spices (all but 1), and all the sugar (youth energy).
All that's left, still thinking they should just run their mouths bemoaning the situation, projecting aggressively at the left, and thinking what they have to say is still somehow relevant... well that's just a pile of salt covered with mold dust. And in a very short time that is all that will be left of the GOP. Don't forget your scarlet T on the way out.
Your ignorance speaks volumes if you think Trump has any influence on anyone who is not a lefty. He was not a popular President, and he is out of office.
It's all the libtards who keep him alive and carry on his "legacy" with their stupid whining about him, you included.
Trump lives on in this stupid impeachment. Trump lives on in head of every libtard out there. You are permanently brain damaged.
Meanwhile the right just laughs and knows that 2022 is coming with some fresh GOP blood.
But the bull cartoon hits a little closer to accurate. You have senators (the Cruz's, Graham's, etc) that are doing the math of how many votes they can/can't stand to lose by dropping support for a guy that's being impeached for instigating a coup.
It’s a very simple question that trump supporters can’t seem to answer without a spin job:
If trump didn’t spend his entire time claiming the election was rigged and fraudulent and conceded, would the riots have happened?
We all know the answer to that question.
Also, the impeachment is constitutional simply because he was impeached in the house prior to leaving office. So him being out off office now is irrelevant.
Listened off and on today again - maybe 40 minutes total.
Having done jury duty - I know the prosecutors spend too much time telling you, telling you again, reframing and telling you once more. I get that. I just find it a bit annoying.
But they did a very good job and tied it all together and laid it out plain as day for any thinking individual. Relaying exactly what happened in MI as a result of his words and planned attack & violence on the MI Governor - showing that there is a foreseeable consequence to his words. The calculated way in which lay all the fear mongering and repeated the lie of a stolen election over and over. His words. The words of those that have served him including Kelly, stating in plain English the attack was a direct result of Trump, his words, tweets and actions. Trump's non-response to the attack, not calling for it to stop, not tweeting - literally loving it. The lack of remorse (ever) the video from the evening of the attack telling those that carried out the attack that he loved them. The calls to keep delaying the certification of the votes DYURING the attack.
It's not even close. I think the Democratic house managers did such a good job I would not be surprised if a couple of Republicans grow a spine. Not enough - because there's too many scumby POS like Hawley, Cruz and Graham ... but some. We'll see.
Also, the impeachment is constitutional simply because he was impeached in the house prior to leaving office.
Precisely. I made this point a couple days ago, rendering moot any argument od constitutionality. The defense team and supporting GOP senatorial cast have claimed that you can't impeach a POTUS who is already out of office. Fact: he was impeached a full week before his term expired. Trial is a separate process, not beholden to terms of office or timeline.
Contitutionality: a moot point, not rooted in law, precedent or practice.
I will watch tomorrow. I'm interested to see what game Team 45* brings.
GOP Senators Criticized For Not Paying Rapt Attention, Enthralled by Impeachment Trial
By Rick Moran
Feb 11, 2021 (Senate TV via AP)
Some Republican Senators are being criticized for not sitting in rapt attention as Democrats make their case for impeachment. One Republican was seen chewing gum on the floor. Another was nodding off (just like half the viewers).
The Hill’s Alexander Bolton reports that “Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was spotted tracing the watermark of the Capitol on a legal pad while Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) appeared to read a magazine article and Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) gazed at a 2021 calendar.” All this while the most momentous moment in American history was being played out before their eyes?
In Communist China when Mao was speaking, anyone caught not paying enough attention was taken out and shot. No doubt some Democrats think that shooting would be too good for any Republican who isn’t enthralled by the impeachment proceedings.
Several Republican senators drew criticism Wednesday for appearing to pay only half-hearted attention to House impeachment managers’ arguments as the trial stretched into its fourth hour.
Several whispered among themselves, while others chewed gum, doodled or struggled to stay awake.
The Republicans started paying closer attention when House impeachment managers began airing footage from inside the Capitol after it was breached in Jan. 6, including some that showed Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s (D-Calif.) staff barricading themselves in an office minutes before a group of rioters walked down a hallway.
This may surprise GOP critics but life goes on even during impeachment. I pity senators sentenced to being forced to watch and listen to this clown show.
Can you blame them for desperately trying to keep themselves amused?
Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) was described by one reporter in the chamber as appearing to struggle to stay awake while Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) didn’t seem to pay much attention to Rep. Joe Neguse’s (D-Colo.) presentation.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) popped snacks into his mouth under his mask and at one point walked into the cloakroom, emerging moments later with a glass of milk. Milk and water are the only beverages allowed on the floor under Senate rules.
A pity. I bet most of those Republicans could have used a good belt to stay awake.
The main target of the attention-enforcers was Sen. Josh Hawley who refused to sit at his little desk in the chamber, instead sitting in the gallery apparently sprawled across a couple sets, lounging as if he was watching a ballgame.
That body language was criticized by the former senator he defeated, Claire McCaskill.
“He’s proud to pull himself apart from everyone else and be the only guy. This is all political for him. It’s all political theater. That’s why he’s up there with his feet over the chair,” she said on MSNBC.
“He’s probably working on his book manuscript,” she added. “It’s very disrespectful.”
It turns out that Hawley, the former attorney general of Missouri, was reading trial briefs and the notes he made on them. But his posture was poor and he wasn’t sitting up ramrod straight. How that improves listening skills is a mystery.
Do you notice how the Democrats are drifting closer and closer to authoritarianism? Not listening closely enough is a punishable offense. What’s next? Being forced to bend the knee when a Democrat enters the room?
Democrats spoke about feelings. Trump council speaking about facts.
WHAT?
Have you watched any of the proceedings thus far.
All the Managers have done is spout FACTS.. Yes, they did it with feeling,., No doubt, but facts are facts
Are you trying to say that trump didn't say what he said, that he didn't tweet what he tweeted?
Are you trying to say that the capital wasn't attacked? are you trying to tell everyone that those that attacked the capital weren't trump supporters regardless of the videos showing otherwise.
Basically the impeachment managers have shown time and time again that Trump led this insurrection. He was the one they fought for. He is the guy that told the "BIG LIE" that he won.... (he didn't)
The hardest part for me is understanding how anyone can interpret these things as anything less than inciting insurrection.
Trump is guilty... But it won't matter unless we get some republicans to grow a set and stand up to do the right thing.
Democrats spoke about feelings. Trump council speaking about facts.
WHAT?
Have you watched any of the proceedings thus far.
All the Managers have done is spout FACTS.. Yes, they did it with feeling,., No doubt, but facts are facts
Are you trying to say that trump didn't say what he said, that he didn't tweet what he tweeted?
Are you trying to say that the capital wasn't attacked? are you trying to tell everyone that those that attacked the capital weren't trump supporters regardless of the videos showing otherwise.
Basically the impeachment managers have shown time and time again that Trump led this insurrection. He was the one they fought for. He is the guy that told the "BIG LIE" that he won.... (he didn't)
The hardest part for me is understanding how anyone can interpret these things as anything less than inciting insurrection.
Trump is guilty... But it won't matter unless we get some republicans to grow a set and stand up to do the right thing.
You’re talking to someone that has proven they don’t pay attention to details. Eve claimed she never knew COVID symptoms could be mild, like a cold. She was upset no one told her. This was just a month or so ago. So... how surprised are you?
Democrats spoke about feelings. Trump council speaking about facts.
WHAT?
Have you watched any of the proceedings thus far.
All the Managers have done is spout FACTS.. Yes, they did it with feeling,., No doubt, but facts are facts
Are you trying to say that trump didn't say what he said, that he didn't tweet what he tweeted?
Are you trying to say that the capital wasn't attacked? are you trying to tell everyone that those that attacked the capital weren't trump supporters regardless of the videos showing otherwise.
Basically the impeachment managers have shown time and time again that Trump led this insurrection. He was the one they fought for. He is the guy that told the "BIG LIE" that he won.... (he didn't)
The hardest part for me is understanding how anyone can interpret these things as anything less than inciting insurrection.
Trump is guilty... But it won't matter unless we get some republicans to grow a set and stand up to do the right thing.
You’re talking to someone that has proven they don’t pay attention to details. Eve claimed she never knew COVID symptoms could be mild, like a cold. She was upset no one told her. This was just a month or so ago. So... how surprised are you?
And you see Eve believes the fact that 5 US citizens are dead only as a direct result of trump exercising his first amendment rights. She actually believes his 1st amendment rights protect him from not fulfilling his oath of office while he was the Potus. She actually still believes this is unconstitutional even after Republicans and Democrats voted in the Senate that it is constitutional.
Nikki Haley breaks with Trump: 'We shouldn't have followed him'
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley issued stunning remarks breaking with former President Trump, telling Politico in an interview published Friday that she believes he “let us down.”
“We need to acknowledge he let us down,” Haley, who served in her ambassador role under Trump, said. “He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him, and we shouldn’t have listened to him. And we can’t let that ever happen again.”
Haley’s remarks are her strongest yet against the former president in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and come as Trump's legal team is set to present its defense of Trump on Friday in his second Senate impeachment trial.
The House impeached the former president for a second time shortly after the insurrection, saying his unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud following his election loss to President Biden and his comments earlier that day incited the mob that stormed the Capitol.
The former South Carolina governor told Politico that she has not spoken with Trump since the mob attack, further expressing her disappointment with remarks he gave at a rally ahead of the assault condemning his own vice president, Mike Pence.
“When I tell you I’m angry, it’s an understatement,” Haley said. “I am so disappointed in the fact that [despite] the loyalty and friendship he had with Mike Pence, that he would do that to him. Like, I’m disgusted by it.”
Haley said that the president "believes he is following" his oath of office by challenging the election results, adding, "There’s nothing that you’re ever going to do that’s going to make him feel like he legitimately lost the election."
"He’s got a big bully pulpit. He should be responsible with it," she said.
Haley in the days immediately following the attack said in a speech to Republican National Committee (RNC) members that Trump was “badly wrong with his words” at his Jan. 6 rally.
"And it wasn’t just his words," she added at the time. "His actions since Election Day will be judged harshly by history."
Haley said in Friday's Politico interview that when she gave the RNC address, she "was not expecting a whole bunch of love from that speech."
“I know how much people love Donald Trump. I know it. I feel it," she continued. "Whether it’s an RNC room or social media or talking to donors, I can tell you that the love they have for him is still very strong. That’s not going to just fall to the wayside.”
She went on to say, “Nor do I think the Republican Party is going to go back to the way it was before Donald Trump. I don’t think it should."
Instead, Haley argues, "what we need to do is take the good that he built, leave the bad that he did, and get back to a place where we can be a good, valuable, effective party. But at the same time, it’s bigger than the party."
"I hope our country can come together and figure out how we pull this back," she added.
Haley, who many speculate is a possible 2024 presidential contender, announced a new political action committee last month named after her Stand for America advocacy group. Her spokeswoman Chaney Denton said at the time that the PAC would be focused on helping get conservatives back in control in the House and Senate in 2022.
Bradley Crate, the treasurer for Haley’s PAC, was the treasurer for Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016 and Sen. Mitt Romney’s (R-Utah) top financial adviser for both his presidential runs.
The rally, the event, the "Stop the Steal", the "Hang Mike Pence" .... none of it would have happened without Trump, his lies, his tweets and his campaign to overturn the will of the American voters. But - what did you expect?
Democrats spoke about feelings. Trump council speaking about facts.
WHAT?
Have you watched any of the proceedings thus far.
All the Managers have done is spout FACTS.. Yes, they did it with feeling,., No doubt, but facts are facts
Are you trying to say that trump didn't say what he said, that he didn't tweet what he tweeted?
Are you trying to say that the capital wasn't attacked? are you trying to tell everyone that those that attacked the capital weren't trump supporters regardless of the videos showing otherwise.
Basically the impeachment managers have shown time and time again that Trump led this insurrection. He was the one they fought for. He is the guy that told the "BIG LIE" that he won.... (he didn't)
The hardest part for me is understanding how anyone can interpret these things as anything less than inciting insurrection.
Trump is guilty... But it won't matter unless we get some republicans to grow a set and stand up to do the right thing.
You’re talking to someone that has proven they don’t pay attention to details. Eve claimed she never knew COVID symptoms could be mild, like a cold. She was upset no one told her. This was just a month or so ago. So... how surprised are you?
And you see Eve believes the fact that 5 US citizens are dead only as a direct result of trump exercising his first amendment rights. She actually believes his 1st amendment rights protect him from not fulfilling his oath of office while he was the Potus. She actually still believes this is unconstitutional even after Republicans and Democrats voted in the Senate that it is constitutional.
Kick rocks. I'm going to laugh at you people when Trump isn't impeached by the Senate.
I do understand that. But this is bigger than party. This was an attempt to overthrow our elections and install an illegitimate government. Just remember your stance on this when the shoe ends up on the other foot. Because despite what you may believe, I think there are enough crazy democrats that could one day try the same thing.
Now the senate republicans either have the balls to convict him or they will be remembered in history as the trump supporting losers that they are. And besides this is just the beginning of legal issues for trump. Karma is a bitch.
And continuing to support him will continue to cost you. It has already cost you The White House and the senate. But some people never learn. Anyone paying attention knows he's guilty and so do most of the voters.
That's what this is all about. If you thought the 2020 election was bad, wait to see how much more voters come out against all the trumpians now that he attempted a coup.
And trump’s lawyers suck so bad. All they have is to point at Democrats and say it’s their fault trump is a pos. And that’s what they just closed their defense on?
Democrats spoke about feelings. Trump council speaking about facts.
WHAT?
Have you watched any of the proceedings thus far.
All the Managers have done is spout FACTS.. Yes, they did it with feeling,., No doubt, but facts are facts
Are you trying to say that trump didn't say what he said, that he didn't tweet what he tweeted?
Are you trying to say that the capital wasn't attacked? are you trying to tell everyone that those that attacked the capital weren't trump supporters regardless of the videos showing otherwise.
Basically the impeachment managers have shown time and time again that Trump led this insurrection. He was the one they fought for. He is the guy that told the "BIG LIE" that he won.... (he didn't)
The hardest part for me is understanding how anyone can interpret these things as anything less than inciting insurrection.
Trump is guilty... But it won't matter unless we get some republicans to grow a set and stand up to do the right thing.
You’re talking to someone that has proven they don’t pay attention to details. Eve claimed she never knew COVID symptoms could be mild, like a cold. She was upset no one told her. This was just a month or so ago. So... how surprised are you?
And you see Eve believes the fact that 5 US citizens are dead only as a direct result of trump exercising his first amendment rights. She actually believes his 1st amendment rights protect him from not fulfilling his oath of office while he was the Potus. She actually still believes this is unconstitutional even after Republicans and Democrats voted in the Senate that it is constitutional.
Kick rocks. I'm going to laugh at you people when Trump isn't impeached by the Senate.
I'm going to laugh at Republicans for having no guts to stand up to Trump...
As for me, I never expected they would convict him.. Republicans simply don't have the courage to stand up and do what's right.
Laugh all you want, but what you are really laughing at is the incompetence of the Republican Senators....
New details about Trump-McCarthy shouting match show Trump refused to call off the rioters By Jamie Gangel, Kevin Liptak, Michael Warren and Marshall Cohen, CNN Updated 10:29 PM ET, Fri February 12, 2021
In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the Capitol was under attack, then-President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did.
"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.
McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump's supporters and begged Trump to call them off.
Trump's comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the then-President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, "Who the f--k do you think you are talking to?" according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call. The newly revealed details of the call, described to CNN by multiple Republicans briefed on it, provide critical insight into the President's state of mind as rioters were overrunning the Capitol. The existence of the call and some of its details were first reported by Punchbowl News and discussed publicly by McCarthy.
The Republican members of Congress said the exchange showed Trump had no intention of calling off the rioters even as lawmakers were pleading with him to intervene. Several said it amounted to a dereliction of his presidential duty.
"He is not a blameless observer, he was rooting for them," a Republican member of Congress said. "On January 13, Kevin McCarthy said on the floor of the House that the President bears responsibility and he does."
Speaking to the President from inside the besieged Capitol, McCarthy pressed Trump to call off his supporters and engaged in a heated disagreement about who comprised the crowd. Trump's comment about the would-be insurrectionists caring more about the election results than McCarthy did was first mentioned by Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Republican from Washington state, in a town hall earlier this week, and was confirmed to CNN by Herrera Beutler and other Republicans briefed on the conversation.
"You have to look at what he did during the insurrection to confirm where his mind was at," Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House Republicans who voted last month to impeach Trump, told CNN. "That line right there demonstrates to me that either he didn't care, which is impeachable, because you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it, which makes me so angry." "We should never stand for that, for any reason, under any party flag," she added, voicing her extreme frustration: "I'm trying really hard not to say the F-word."
Herrera Beutler went a step further on Friday night, calling on others to speak up about any other details they might know regarding conversations Trump and Pence had on January 6.
"To the patriots who were standing next to the former president as these conversations were happening, or even to the former vice president: if you have something to add here, now would be the time," she said in a statement. Another Republican member of Congress said the call was problematic for Trump.
"I think it speaks to the former President's mindset," said Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, an Ohio Republican who also voted to impeach Trump last month. "He was not sorry to see his unyieldingly loyal vice president or the Congress under attack by the mob he inspired. In fact, it seems he was happy about it or at the least enjoyed the scenes that were horrifying to most Americans across the country." As senators prepare to determine Trump's fate, multiple Republicans thought the details of the call were important to the proceedings because they believe it paints a damning portrait of Trump's lack of action during the attack. At least one of the sources who spoke to CNN took detailed notes of McCarthy's recounting of the call.
Trump and McCarthy did not respond to requests for comment.
It took Trump several hours after the attack began to eventually encourage his supporters to "go home in peace" -- a tweet that came at the urging of his top aides.
At Trump's impeachment trial Friday, his lawyers argued that Trump did in fact try to calm the rioters with a series of tweets while the attack unfolded. But his lawyers cherry-picked his tweets, focusing on his request for supporters to "remain peaceful" without mentioning that he also attacked then-Vice President Mike Pence and waited hours to explicitly urge rioters to leave the Capitol.
A source close to Pence said Trump's legal team was not telling the truth when attorney Michael van der Veen said at the trial that "at no point" did the then-President know his vice president was in danger.
Asked whether van der Veen was lying, the source said, "Yes." Former Pence aides are still fuming over Trump's actions on January 6, insisting he never checked on the vice president as Pence was being rushed from danger by his US Secret Service detail.
It's unclear to what extent these new details were known by the House Democratic impeachment managers or whether the team considered calling McCarthy as a witness. The managers have preserved the option to call witnesses in the ongoing impeachment trial, although that option remains unlikely as the trial winds down.
The House Republican leader had been forthcoming with his conference about details of his conversations with Trump on and after January 6.
In the end I think they will find until they do this they will continue to lose. A carnival barker will only get you so far. It's played its course.
I mean let's face it, when a Jewish man wins a senate seat in Georgia of all places, the writing is on the wall. Though it seems it's still going to take a while before they see it.
I just wanted to point out to them that while I may disagree with them from a policy standpoint, there are still some Republicans out there with some character. They have a choice.
The facts have been laid out. This is no longer about opinions.
OMG !! Witnesses at a trial ? A chance for the TRUTH to come out? No Trump Lawyer spin saying the evidence is hearsay?
Call me Naïve - I don't care - I think this *might* be a tipping point. The evidence we might here now is going to be from Trump's allies, I really think it may sway some and if there are 4 or 5 more with the courage to make it public, then it may snowball. There is safety in numbers.
You would think there are far more important issues affecting this nation than trying to impeach a president for the 2nd time. Impeaching Trump does not help those families Who are struggling to make ends meet or the business owners forced to close their doors
Yeah, punishment for creating insurrection to overturn an election and install an illegitimate government to power should be very low on the priority list.
Then, when it happens again because there was no penalty for it the first time it happened, can we then ask you why you thought it was no big deal?
Ignoring and excusing an insurrection to overthrow our government isn't anything logical to say at this point. It seems you'll excuse anything and everything Trump has done by just saying, "they hate Trump". So far that's all you've done.
I guess it's fine for him to call Georgia election officials and tell them to "find" enough votes for him to win too. At this point you'll spout anything to excuse him from trying to steal an election and install an illegitimate government take over.
You take liberties with words said, excluding other statements to fit your opinion of facts, and then attack, belittle, and belabor. All while ignoring your side, and statements made by your side, that don't fit with your agenda.
I understand the outrage of young people. At your age you should have outgrown that by now.
You're the one who agreed that there were "more important things" than holding accountable the man who orchestrated an attempted takeover of our government, not me. Step up and own it instead of pointing the finger at someone else.
For the first time in the history of the USA there was not a peaceful transition of power. Whether folks want to get on board with the insurrection verbiage or not, protesters gathered under the fake premise that the election had been stolen and tried to stop the process of Biden being confirmed as the winner of the election. Protesters - fueled by Trump's lies and tweets - ran through the Capitol Building screaming to Hang Mike Pence.
Posters can brush that off as the new norm and nothing to worry about if they want. Those that want to think critically (as one poster has mentioned recently) will think it's worth trying to ensure this never happens again instead of looking the other way.
You would think there are far more important issues affecting this nation than trying to impeach a president for the 2nd time.
...and you'd be wrong, imo.
These proceedings are driven by far more than simple animus for a single person. Evidence shows us that this individual fomented a deadly insurrection that led frenzied citizens to directly attack the very heart of our government and democracy. There is no issue more important than that.
This trial not only promotes accountability, it also sets precedent, and establishes a standard under which future presidents will be held. A mob of rioters attacked the Capitol, stormed through its hallways coming within yards of targeted legislators in an attempt to overthrow those who would certify the election. They erected a gallows on the steps of the US seat of government with the full intent of stretching the necks of anyone they deemed to be a foe of the outgoing POTUS.
This must be done, it must be done now, and it must be done for the future of our nation. And here's why: we barely survived this presidential term because the architect was so stunningly stupid. The next would-be demagogue will most likely be more intelligent, disciplined and tactical than this one... and America would not survive another term such as this.
Those people you are so concerned with have a much better chance of getting help in a democracy than a dictatorship. So, first things first: stabilize the country, hold the criminals accountable, and display for all Americans the willingness to stand up against tyrants. If this individual is held responsible in the court of public opinion, it will act as a deterrent for future aspirants.
Besides, there is nothing that says America can't help those in need and punish wrongdoers at the same time. She has been doing it since 1776.
Well said. Now all you need to do is believe that then President Trump directed their actions.
Legit question for you:
If - through witness testimony it is shown that Trump heard about the violence and storming of the Capitol Building. Was asked by Trump allies and Republicans to [A] Send support & the National Guard [B] Directly address the insurgents and tell them to stand down/stop [C] Tweet the same ..... but instead he did nothing by watched the process AND had himself or Rudy and/or others reach out to Republican Allies and asked them to use the occupation to delay and not to certify State votes for Biden ....
What is your opinion at that point? I mean we KNNOW there was no protest without Trump's lies and fake claims of a stolen election which he began MONTHS AGO. We know they were gahtered specifically at that time and day because of Trump.... That's fact.
What happens in the scenario where witnesses testify that Trump did nothing to stop the occupation for 3 hours or more, and used that time to ask others to continue the delay?
I mean you can always wimp out and say you don't want to answer a hypothetical question if it means you have to say he's guilty, right?
After Nov. 3 2020 we don't know what this illegitimate government is capable of.
You are a laugh a minute. Bless. But I think it's time for you to go on ignore. Hopefully one of the rationale Trump supporters can walk you back at some point.
Well, today is the day that killed our country as today is the day that Republicans set the precedent that a president can do whatever they want at the end of their term as there isn’t time to impeach them in time and hold them accountable.
I find it hilarious that their main argument is that this was both “rushed” and at the same time “illegitimate because he’s out of office”
Future presidents all get a get out of jail free card at the end of their terms and that is very dangerous, for both Democrats and Republicans.
The New York Times In Georgia, a New District Attorney Starts Circling Trump and His Allies
After six weeks as a district attorney, Fani T. Willis is taking on a former president.
And not just that. In an interview about her newly announced criminal investigation into election interference in Georgia, Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, made it clear that the scope of her inquiry would encompass the pressure campaign on state officials by former President Donald Trump as well as the activities of his allies.
“An investigation is like an onion,” she said. “You never know. You pull something back, and then you find something else.”
Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times
She added, “Anything that is relevant to attempts to interfere with the Georgia election will be subject to review.”
Willis, whose jurisdiction encompasses much of Atlanta, has suddenly become a new player in the post-presidency of Trump. She will decide whether to bring criminal charges over Trump’s phone call to Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, asking him to “find” votes to erase the former president’s loss there, and other efforts by Trump allies to overturn the election results. The severity of the legal threat to Trump is not yet clear, but Willis has started laying out some details about the inquiry.
She and her office have indicated that the investigation will include Sen. Lindsey Graham’s phone call to Raffensperger in November about mail-in ballots; the abrupt removal last month of Byung J. Pak, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, who earned Trump’s enmity for not advancing his debunked assertions about election fraud; and the false claims that Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, made before state legislative committees.
She laid out an array of possible criminal charges in letters sent to state officials and agencies asking them to preserve documents, providing a partial map of the potential exposure of Trump and his allies. Trump’s calls to state officials urging them to subvert the election, for instance, could run afoul of a Georgia statute dealing with “criminal solicitation to commit election fraud,” one of the charges outlined in the letters, which if prosecuted as a felony is punishable by at least a year in prison.
The misinformation spread by Giuliani could prove problematic, as Willis said in her letters that she would review “the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies.” Georgia law bars “any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement” within “the jurisdiction of any department or agency of state government.”
Willis is also open to considering not just conspiracy but racketeering charges. As she put it in the interview, racketeering could apply to anyone who uses a legal entity — presumably anything from a government agency to that person’s own public office — to conduct overt acts for an illegal purpose. In this case, it applies to the pressure the president and his allies exerted on Georgia officials to overturn the election.
Willis has brought a novel racketeering case before. In 2014, as an assistant district attorney, she helped lead a high-profile criminal trial against a group of educators in the Atlanta public school system who had been involved in a widespread cheating scandal.
Racketeering cases tend to make people think of mob bosses, who have often been targets of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO, since it was enacted in 1970. Asked how racketeering applied in the cheating scandal and in an election case, Willis said, “I always tell people when they hear the word racketeering, they think of ‘The Godfather,’” but she noted that it could also extend to otherwise lawful organizations that are used to break the law.
“If you have various overt acts for an illegal purpose, I think you can — you may — get there,” she said.
Willis, 49, who easily won election last year, is the daughter of an activist defense lawyer who was a member of the Black Panthers, and she is also a veteran prosecutor who has carved out a centrist record. She views the case before her as a critical task.
“It is really not a choice — to me, it’s an obligation,” she said. “Each DA in the country has a certain jurisdiction that they’re responsible for. If alleged crime happens within their jurisdiction, I think they have a duty to investigate it.”
For their part, Trump and his allies are girding for a second criminal investigation, alongside an ongoing fraud inquiry before a grand jury in Manhattan. This past week, Jason Miller, a senior adviser to Trump, called the Georgia investigation “simply the Democrats’ latest attempt to score political points by continuing their witch hunt against President Trump, and everybody sees through it.”
Willis has many challenges before her, and not just relating to this inquiry. She replaced a controversial prosecutor who faced lawsuits accusing him of sexual harassment. In an overhaul of her office’s anti-corruption unit, which will handle the Trump investigation, she removed all eight lawyers and has since hired four, with a fifth on the way. The police in Atlanta, as elsewhere, are both maligned and demoralized, and 2020 was one of Atlanta’s deadliest years in decades. She must also decide how to proceed with the case of Rayshard Brooks, a Black man fatally shot by a white police officer last year.
“I have 182 open, unindicted homicides involving 222 defendants,” she said. “I have a sex crime unit that is backed up. But I am very capable of identifying great people to work in this office who are dedicated to the cause of making this county safer, and I do not get to be derelict in my duty, because I have other responsibilities.”
Clark D. Cunningham, a law professor at Georgia State University in Atlanta, said it appeared that Willis might be “pulling out all the stops” for the Trump case, “because of the range of the types of crimes that are mentioned in that letter,” he said, adding, “and particularly the talk about racketeering and conspiracy.”
The pressure campaign to overturn the Georgia election results began on Nov. 13, when Graham, a Trump ally from South Carolina, made a phone call to Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state. Raffensperger, a Republican, later said that Graham had asked him if he had the authority to throw out all mail-in votes from particular counties, a suggestion the secretary of state rebuffed. (Graham disputed Raffensperger’s account.)
On Dec. 3, Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, made an appearance before a Georgia state Senate committee, saying that “there’s more than ample evidence to conclude this election was a sham,” and laid out a number of false claims. Two days later, Trump called Brian Kemp, Georgia’s Republican governor, to press him to call a special session of the legislature to overturn the election. Trump then called Georgia’s Republican attorney general, Chris Carr, and pressured him not to oppose a legal attempt to challenge the elections results in Georgia and other swing states.
Because of the flurry of Trump calls, Willis said she believes that she is the only official with jurisdiction who does not have a conflict of interest. As she wrote in her letters to other public officials, “this office is the one agency with jurisdiction that is not a witness to the conduct that is the subject of the investigation.”
Even after Raffensperger recertified the election results on Dec. 7, Trump’s efforts intensified. Three days later, Giuliani testified virtually before a state House committee, repeating false claims that poll workers at an Atlanta arena had counted improper ballots stuffed in suitcases, when they were simply using the normal storage containers. “They look like they’re passing out dope,” he said during the hearing.
Gabriel Sterling, a top aide to Raffensperger, has derided the claims as a ridiculous, “‘Oceans 11’ type scheme,” adding, “This has been thoroughly debunked.”
Giuliani returned on Dec. 30, telling a Senate committee, “You had 10,315 people that we can determine from obituaries were dead when they voted,” and adding: “So, right away, that number you submitted to Washington is a lie. It’s not true! It’s false!” The numbers, however, were farcical; state officials have found only two instances in which votes were cast in the names of people who had died.
The pressure campaign culminated when Trump himself called Raffensperger on Jan. 2. “I just want to find 11,780 votes,” Trump said on the call, fruitlessly searching for ways to reverse his election loss.
Willis is also reviewing the departure of Pak, a Trump appointee. Shortly before Pak’s resignation, Trump’s acting deputy attorney general, Richard Donoghue, told Pak that the president was unhappy that he wasn’t pursuing voter fraud cases.
Willis has said that her office would request subpoenas “as necessary” when the next Fulton County grand jury convenes in March.
She appears undaunted. As she put it, “this is not a 9-to-5 job.” For her, lawyering is a family calling. Her father is John Clifford Floyd III, a longtime civil rights activist and defense lawyer.
“My dad was a single father that raised me,” she said. When she was a young girl in Washington, D.C., she said, her father would take her to court with him on Saturday mornings as he took on new clients who had been arrested the previous night.
“There was an old white Irish judge,” she recalled. “He would let me come sit up on the bench with him,” she recalled. While she was on his lap, the judge would ask her, “should we send them home, or are they going to the back?”
She decided then that she wanted to be a judge, but her father explained that she had to be a lawyer first. So her career ambition was set. While she embraces some of the prosecutorial reform efforts favored by the left, including diversion programs that keep some offenders out of jail, Willis has also said that she has a “conservative side” that separates her from the new wave of progressive prosecutors.
Heretofore, she has been best known for the Atlanta school case, in which 11 educators were convicted of racketeering and other crimes. The case drew criticism in some quarters for overreach.
“I’ve been criticized a lot for that case, but I’m going to tell you what I tell people if I’m taking criticism for defending poor Black children, because that’s mainly what we were talking about,” she said. The only chance many such children have to get ahead is through the public education system, she said, adding, “So if what I am being criticized for is doing something to protect people that did not have a voice for themselves, I sit in that criticism, and y’all can put it in my obituary.”
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
This is a link to Senator Burr's letter on why he voted to convict trump Sorry I don't know how to post a tweet - this was my 1st attempt and I failed miserably
Glad you're down with not holding people accountable.
The problem is, I'm not 'down' with that. The issue is, regardless of what the libs said, Trump did nothing wrong. I'm sorry you're 'down with' convicting someone using only half truths, and lies. And the garbage msm presents you.
Today may very well be the day that American Democracy fell. I'm not interested in what trumpian sycophants have to say anymore. Just take your scarlet T on the way out the door and try to avoid "Cancel Culture" from here on out... I'd wish you good luck with that but I really just don't care what happens to you. The cult of Trump and their leader are the antithesis of traditional American values, especially patriotism.
Glad you're down with not holding people accountable.
The problem is, I'm not 'down' with that. The issue is, regardless of what the libs said, Trump did nothing wrong. I'm sorry you're 'down with' convicting someone using only half truths, and lies. And the garbage msm presents you.
Seems like many Republican Senators, even those that votes to acquit, disagree with you.
Senate acquits Trump for 2nd time, as 7 Republicans join Democrats in guilty vote Jon Ward·Senior Political Correspondent Sat, February 13, 2021, 4:12 PM
The U.S. Senate voted Saturday to acquit former President Trump on a charge of “incitement of insurrection” in connection with the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol by his supporters, concluding the second impeachment trial of his term in office. A majority of senators found Trump guilty, but the vote fell short of the two-thirds margin required to convict.
A total of 57 Senators voted to convict Trump of the impeachment article brought by the U.S. House of Representatives, with seven Republicans joining all 50 Democrats in the chamber. It was the most bipartisan impeachment vote of the five in the nation’s history. Trump claimed in a statement that it was “the greatest witch hunt in the history of our country.”
But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, issued a blistering speech on the Senate floor just after the vote in which he lashed Trump and said he held him directly and uniquely responsible for the riotous insurrection.
“There is no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it,” McConnell said. “The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. And having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet earth.”
And McConnell went through the defenses mounted by Trump’s attorneys, dismissing each. He expressed agreement with many of the House manager’s arguments.
McConnell also dismissed the Trump attorney’s claim that impeachment was an attempt “to disenfranchise 74 million-plus American voters” who voted for Trump in the 2020 election.
“That’s an absurd deflection,” McConnell said. “74 million americans did not invade the Capitol. Hundreds of rioters did. 74 million americans did not engineer the campaign of disinformation and rage ... One person did. Just one.”
But in the end, after “intense reflection,” McConnell said he ended up concluding the Constitution did not allow the Senate to convict a former president. The irony is that McConnell on Jan. 13 rejected talk of beginning the Senate trial immediately while Trump was still president.
Sen. Ben Sasse, R-NE, one of the seven Republicans who voted to convict, addressed this Constitutional question directly in a statement.
"This trial is constitutional because the president abused his power while in office and the House of Representatives impeached him while he was still in office," Sasse said. "If Congress cannot forcefully respond to an intimidation attack on Article I instigated by the head of Article II, our constitutional balance will be permanently tilted. A weak and timid Congress will increasingly submit to an emboldened and empowered presidency. That’s unacceptable."
McConnell was not the only Republican who cast a "not guilty" vote who then issued statements condemning Trump's actions and holding him responsible for the insurrection.
"The actions and reactions of President Trump were disgraceful, and history will judge him harshly," said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV.
Minority Whip John Thune, R-SD, said: “My vote to acquit should not be viewed as exoneration for [Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, or in the days and weeks leading up to it. What former President Trump did to undermine faith in our election system and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power is inexcusable.
Saturday’s vote marked the second time Trump was both impeached in the House and then acquitted in the Senate, with the first coming one year and one week ago.
A month ago, however, Congress had moved ahead with the second impeachment on the assumption that there was a real possibility the Senate would convict him and bar him from holding future office. The events of Jan. 6 were unspeakably horrific, and many Republicans openly blamed Trump for sparking the insurrection.
At that time, McConnell signaled he wanted an impeachment and that he was open to voting to convict. McConnell was one of just many Republicans who minced no words in holding Trump directly responsible for the violent and deadly attack that left 5 dead, including one police officer, and injured scores, including around 150 police.
Trump lied for months to his supporters that the election was stolen, disregarding over 60 court cases that found no evidence of cheating, and summoned his supporters on Jan. 6
But within days, political considerations began to push their way back into the minds of many Republican members of Congress. And it dawned on many of them that Trump and right-wing media organs that support him still controlled how many Republican voters view reality. The conclusion: many of them would lose their jobs if they voted to hold Trump accountable.
And so just a week after the vicious and unprecedented assault on democracy, only 10 House Republicans voted to impeach Trump, rather than the flood that appeared ready to do so in the hours after Jan. 6, when lawmakers of both parties feared for their lives as the mob ransacked the Capitol.
McConnell, who holds significant sway over other Senate Republicans, began to waffle, and on Jan. 26 he voted that it was unconstitutional for the Senate to hold a trial for a former president.
Still, other Republicans and the public remained in suspense over what McConnell might do, even if it appeared increasingly unlikely he would vote to convict. And then on Saturday morning, the Kentucky Republican confirmed it: he would vote to acquit, even though he did say it was a “close call.”
For roughly two hours on Saturday morning, it appeared that the trial would extend for more than one day, and possibly for weeks or longer. House managers proposed calling witnesses, and the Senate approved the request by a vote of 55-to-45.
But after it became clear that it would require 60 votes to actually approve the rules for calling witnesses, the managers backed off. Hardline Trump loyalists such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, had made it clear they would seek to bog the Senate down to a grinding halt and not allow the Senate to do any other business other than the trial, turning it into a partisan circus and blocking progress on a COVID relief bill.
During closing arguments, Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., gave a stirring speech in which he dismissed the defense of Trump’s attorneys as a collection of “distractions and excuses” and pleaded with Republican senators to put the country’s welfare above their own political interests.
“The consequence of not doing so is just too great,” Neguse said.
He also responded to the barrage of accusations from Trump’s attorneys that the impeachment was motivated by irrational animus for Trump.
“This trial was not born from hatred. Far from it. It is born from love of country,” Neguse said. “It is our desire to maintain it, our desire to see America at its best.”
And he warned the senators that if they did not repudiate Trump and hold him accountable, the horrors of January 6 could be repeated.
“The cold hard truth as to what happened on January 6 can happen again. I fear, like many of you do, that the violence that we saw on that terrible day may be just the beginning,” Neguse said. “We have shown you the ongoing risks and the extremist groups that grow more emboldened every day. Senators, this could not be the beginning. It can't be the new normal. It has to be the end, and that decision is in your hands.”
The Republican senators who found Trump guilty were Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Burr and Cassidy were the big surprises. Burr, who is retiring in 2022, voted that the trial was unconstitutional but voted guilty anyway. Cassidy was the surprise Republican vote in favor of constitutionality, but then earlier this week he was photographed with notes suggesting he was leaning toward a not guilty vote.
The guilty vote was the biggest political risk for Cassidy, Sasse and Romney, who all represent conservative states and have not indicated any intent to resign. But Cassidy and Sasse were just reelected last fall, and will not be up for reelection until 2026.
Cassidy’s statement explaining his vote was just two sentences. “Our Constitution and our country is more important than any one person. I voted to convict President Trump because he is guilty,” he said.
Today may very well be the day that American Democracy fell. I'm not interested in what trumpian sycophants have to say anymore. Just take your scarlet T on the way out the door and try to avoid "Cancel Culture" from here on out... I'd wish you good luck with that but I really just don't care what happens to you. The cult of Trump and their leader are the antithesis of traditional American values, especially patriotism.
Oh, the drama of it all. You've had him impeached for over 4 years. Impeached AND convicted.
Hasn't happened.
Hey, would you want me on a jury for your possible, doubtful accusations?
Today may very well be the day that American Democracy fell. I'm not interested in what trumpian sycophants have to say anymore. Just take your scarlet T on the way out the door and try to avoid "Cancel Culture" from here on out... I'd wish you good luck with that but I really just don't care what happens to you. The cult of Trump and their leader are the antithesis of traditional American values, especially patriotism.
Oh, the drama of it all. You've had him impeached for over 4 years. Impeached AND convicted.
Hasn't happened.
Hey, would you want me on a jury for your possible, doubtful accusations?
What did McConnell have to say?
Quote:
“There is no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it,” McConnell said. “The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. And having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet earth.”
While McConnell did have the courage to explain and admit the fact that Trump was guilty of starting the riot and the resulting consequences that resulted due to the riot...McConnell still could not muster the courage to back up his talk with a vote to convict the liar in chief.
trumps own impeachment attorneys said he should be taken to court over this.
I seriously doubt that!
Trump Lawyer Van Der Veen: ‘My Home Was Attacked,’ ‘My Entire Family, My Business, My Law Firm Are Under Siege Right Now’
Jeff Poor
13 Feb 2021
Following former President Donald Trump’s acquittal on Saturday, defense attorney Michael Van Der Veen relayed his own personal situation for having taken the case during an appearance on FNC’s “America’s News HQ.
Van Der Veen revealed it has come at a cost but would not elaborate beyond personal property damage and threats to his family and well-being.
“My home was attacked,” he said. “I’d rather not go into that. To answer your question, my entire family, my business, my law firm are under siege right now. I don’t really want to go into that, though. What I’d really like to do is talk about the merits of the case.”
While McConnell did have the courage to explain and admit the fact that Trump was guilty of starting the riot and the resulting consequences that resulted due to the riot...McConnell still could not muster the courage to back up his talk with a vote to convict the liar in chief.
Recently, someone on one of those Sunday shows asked a question of the celebrated conservative columnist George Will.
If you know of him, then you'll know that he is as erudite and intellectually accomplished as the best of them, and his gift as a wordsmith is unmatched. When he gives an answer to a question in an interview, his word choice in speech is exactly what you'd read in his columns. His mind just works differently than most.
The question: "Why are Republican officials so unwilling to stand up to President Trump?"
Will: "Because they're invertebrate."
Notice how he dropped the "s" that usually hangs off the end of that word. That was on purpose. The absence of that "s" changed the word from plural noun ("spiders and squid are invertebrates")...
-to an adjective.
And that made all the difference in what he was saying.
invertebrate: adjective 1. having no spine or backbone. 2. lacking resolution; weak and purposeless. "a spineless coward"
Will used a terse, 3-word sentence to describe, denounce and decry the entire lot of them. That is prodigious talent and mastery.
George Will is at the vanguard of conservative intellectuals who have been warning America about this alarming trend within the Republican party for more than 20 years. I've been reading him since I was a young man, and he's been remarkably (sometimes maddeningly) consistent over all those decades. His adherence to bedrock conservative principles has pissed me off more than once, but I'll also say this: that same stalwart consistency of his has now placed him in total lockstep with my own views about the GOP's current direction. The irony is thick.
Will is at the vanguard of that conservative voice, but he's certainly not alone.
When I keep reading terms like "internal rot," "existential crisis," and "internal civil war" from these same pundits whom I've read for years, it makes me take notice. These are people whose traditional political leanings are in direct opposition to mine, but are also people whose patriotism and sincerity I've never once questioned.
They, like I are concerned with the path that the current GOP leadership is walking. They, like I loathe Donald Trump... for a shared, lengthy list of reasons.
