Trump Impeachment 2.0

[B-Man]

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-political-logic-of-the-trump-trial-11612827029

 

CHARLES LIPSON: The Political Logic of the Trump Trial.

 

Democrats may end up paying a higher political price than they anticipate. The trial won’t only delay Mr. Biden’s program. It will tarnish his image as a “unifier” eager to work across party lines. That identity will be much harder to sustain after Democratic senators vote in lockstep to convict Mr. Trump and push through a mammoth Covid relief bill without any Republican votes.

 

With all or almost all Democrats supporting Mr. Trump’s conviction, the president will be pressed to declare his position. Whether Mr. Biden speaks out or not, he signaled his position when he refused to dissuade Mrs. Pelosi from transmitting the House’s article of impeachment to the Senate. The speaker wouldn’t have done so over the new president’s opposition.

 

As the trial unfolds, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris (who has begged off from presiding over the trial) will try to keep a low profile while avoiding any criticism of this party-line effort to denounce and convict Mr. Trump. That tacit approval will be universally applauded by Democrats and their media allies. But it leaves Mr. Biden facing backward, avenging grievances from the Trump years, not forward, advancing his own program. Partisan revenge is hard to reconcile with bipartisan restoration.

 

 

Presuming Democrats were ever interested in such a thing, of course.

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-political-logic-of-the-trump-trial-11612827029

 

CHARLES LIPSON: The Political Logic of the Trump Trial.

 

Democrats may end up paying a higher political price than they anticipate. The trial won’t only delay Mr. Biden’s program. It will tarnish his image as a “unifier” eager to work across party lines. That identity will be much harder to sustain after Democratic senators vote in lockstep to convict Mr. Trump and push through a mammoth Covid relief bill without any Republican votes.

 

With all or almost all Democrats supporting Mr. Trump’s conviction, the president will be pressed to declare his position. Whether Mr. Biden speaks out or not, he signaled his position when he refused to dissuade Mrs. Pelosi from transmitting the House’s article of impeachment to the Senate. The speaker wouldn’t have done so over the new president’s opposition.

 

As the trial unfolds, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris (who has begged off from presiding over the trial) will try to keep a low profile while avoiding any criticism of this party-line effort to denounce and convict Mr. Trump. That tacit approval will be universally applauded by Democrats and their media allies. But it leaves Mr. Biden facing backward, avenging grievances from the Trump years, not forward, advancing his own program. Partisan revenge is hard to reconcile with bipartisan restoration.

 

 

Presuming Democrats were ever interested in such a thing, of course.

Your party is dead. Keep spinning 

[SectionC3]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Boy, the Georgia Republican Party is in a real tight spot because of Trump. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/10/horror-show-republicans-want-ignore/

That might be the downfall.  The one place where everyone despises that loser.  The democrats detest him, and the republicans owe him a little payback for blowing the senate and messing with party regulars. And 

[SectionC3]

48 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

There has been more opportunity to find common ground on this board in the last several posts from @oldmanfan, @SoCal Deekand @All_Pro_Bills then there has been in a long time.  

 

While the conclusions differ on DJT, his actions and the charges against him, the reality is that we all agree that congress is the last place in America that we might want to look for anything approaching fairness, decency and people acting in the best interest of We The people.  

 

My epiphany came post W Bush.  I won't bore you with the details, but I've been a centrist and get-along guy my whole life.  It's not just a political thing, I'm the middle child of a close family and you learn early on that together, everyone achieves more (TEAM for those of you in Rio Linda).  In non-internet settings I have perfectly reasonable conversations about Trump/Pelosi/Biden/McConnell/Obama and the like.   While my friends/associates and I disagree on some substantive issues, it's hard to argue facts rationally.  The reality is that Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct, the same reality that reveals that Biden has been as well.  Trump makes off the cuff comments that make you shake your head, tis true, but 15 seconds and an internet search reveals some whoppers from Biden as well.  

 

Anyway--back to W.  The dealio was that he claimed that SH was pursuing/had WMD, and he prosecuted a war on that basis.  Ultimately, the argument was that W lead the USA into that war under false pretenses, that he sent young men and women into battle to fight and die for oil--something I believe any reasonable person on this board would consider a massive deal-breaker when it came to fostering/establishing/maintaining a close personal relationship with the man (and his sycophants like Cheney) in the future.

 

Yet, in spite of that stinging accusation, post W, look at what we get.  Obama/Bush together, all lovey dovey.  The Chosen and The War Criminal hand in hand, sharing cough drops and getting photographed at the inauguration of another supporter of the war for oil, Joe Biden.  Cheney's daughter, a senator herself, sitting in judgement of Trump while her father--allegedly the architect of the war fro oil and shooter of people's faces, he's off living a life of privilege, nary a thought or accusation since the day he left office.  

 

There is one major political party in this country, with slight variations on the fringes, and it runs on the 'keep the folks in steerage arguing' platform. 

 

Back to Trump.  It's obvious by now that I concur with the assessment as laid out by All Pro, but I would be among the first to acknowledge there may be facts I am unaware of.  Personally, I would discount virtually any slightly controversial fact as alleged by the impeachment tribunal much like I would have cautioned my daughter to avoid believing rumors from cross-town rivals in the local cheerleading competition.   I would assume folks on the left would do the same, mostly because they have over the past 4 years.  For my efforts at being open-minded on this issue many claim is slam dunk, btw, I've been labelled by a sometimes rational poster as head of the local My Pillow Guy Fan club and a supporter of the abhorrent assault on the Capitol.  

 

If there is solid, conclusive evidence, the logical place to vet the accusations is in the court of law, not some hopped up kangaroo court.  The players simply cannot be trusted, we all know it, and they all stand far too much to gain or lose to be considered credible or ethical.  

 

I support the oldman/deek ticket, and allpro for AG.  Let me know where to send the check. 

You aren’t open minded about this evidence.  You’re obstinate.  That’s where we part ways.

“Smoking guns” don’t exist with respect to intent.  They just don’t.  It’s not how crime works.  You’re applying an utterly unreasonable standard and ignoring the point that circumstantial evidence of intent is perfectly acceptable.  It’s a MyPillow-ish position.  Just like literally everyone with a functioning brain—including the jurors in this case—knows the election wasn’t stolen, a similar critical mass recognizes that requiring “smoking gun” evidence on this intent issue is absurd.  

[Backintheday544]

22 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-political-logic-of-the-trump-trial-11612827029

 

CHARLES LIPSON: The Political Logic of the Trump Trial.

 

Democrats may end up paying a higher political price than they anticipate. The trial won’t only delay Mr. Biden’s program. It will tarnish his image as a “unifier” eager to work across party lines. That identity will be much harder to sustain after Democratic senators vote in lockstep to convict Mr. Trump and push through a mammoth Covid relief bill without any Republican votes.

 

With all or almost all Democrats supporting Mr. Trump’s conviction, the president will be pressed to declare his position. Whether Mr. Biden speaks out or not, he signaled his position when he refused to dissuade Mrs. Pelosi from transmitting the House’s article of impeachment to the Senate. The speaker wouldn’t have done so over the new president’s opposition.

 

As the trial unfolds, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris (who has begged off from presiding over the trial) will try to keep a low profile while avoiding any criticism of this party-line effort to denounce and convict Mr. Trump. That tacit approval will be universally applauded by Democrats and their media allies. But it leaves Mr. Biden facing backward, avenging grievances from the Trump years, not forward, advancing his own program. Partisan revenge is hard to reconcile with bipartisan restoration.

 

 

Presuming Democrats were ever interested in such a thing, of course.

The main issues:

1) he ignores separation of powers. He shouldn’t have tried to dissuade the house from transmitting. They’re their own body and can do as they please. He should take a position that this is a matter for Congress about the previous admin and leave it at that.

 

2. He ends the post with how this is partisan. Yet this is the most bi-partisan impeachment ever. The number 3 Republican in the house even voted to impeach.

[Tiberius]

11 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

That might be the downfall.  The one place where everyone despises that loser.  The democrats detest him, and the republicans owe him a little payback for blowing the senate and messing with party regulars. And 

It is interesting, now the Trump voters will HATE the Republicans in that state, but what can they do? The Dems are screaming that Trump literally tried to take  democracy away. Can't just look away from that 

Biden is suppose to "Unify" with the people that don't even believe in democracy? I'm sure we will give him a pass if he can't pull that off. Just win. Unify if you can, but fight for democracy 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

You aren’t open minded about this evidence.  You’re obstinate.  That’s where we part ways.

“Smoking guns” don’t exist with respect to intent.  They just don’t.  It’s not how crime works.  You’re applying an utterly unreasonable standard and ignoring the point that circumstantial evidence of intent is perfectly acceptable.  It’s a MyPillow-ish position.  Just like literally everyone with a functioning brain—including the jurors in this case—knows the election wasn’t stolen, a similar critical mass recognizes that requiring “smoking gun” evidence on this intent issue is absurd.  

Every zealot and true believer follows your calculated approached to inter-personal interaction.  It reveals your personal limitation on thought and reason, which is your problem, not mine.  As you fumble about for examples to buttress your argument, like a pimply faced adolescent working to solve the mystery of the front latching bra in 1982, you move farther to the fringe while demanding others see the world through your own pair of rose colored glasses. 

 

I decline, and agree that no further discussion is warranted.  

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

14 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

It is interesting, now the Trump voters will HATE the Republicans in that state, but what can they do? The Dems are screaming that Trump literally tried to take  democracy away. Can't just look away from that 

Biden is suppose to "Unify" with the people that don't even believe in democracy? I'm sure we will give him a pass if he can't pull that off. Just win. Unify if you can, but fight for democracy 

Unfortunately the left's definition of "Democracy" is the majority's right to impose their views and agenda on the minority without legal or moral limits.  The fact others don't share their vision does not equate to them being against Democracy.  The primary concern of many is freedom.  And I've come to the conclusion the liberal mind does not comprehend the concept of freedom.   Their false belief in their moral and intellectual superiority that it gives them the "right" to impose their views on anyone that disagrees inhibits their ability to think critically and logically.  Their behavior is equivalent to a spoiled and petulant child and ultimately they need to be dealt with in the same manner. 

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Unfortunately the left's definition of "Democracy" is the majority's right to impose their views and agenda on the minority without legal or moral limits.  The fact others don't share their vision does not equate to them being against Democracy.  The primary concern of many is freedom.  And I've come to the conclusion the liberal mind does not comprehend the concept of freedom.   Their false belief in their moral and intellectual superiority that it gives them the "right" to impose their views on anyone that disagrees inhibits their ability to think critically and logically.  Their behavior is equivalent to a spoiled and petulant child and ultimately they need to be dealt with in the same manner. 

What legal or moral limits are Democrats violating? 

 

You are basically arguing against democracy. You favor what? A Republic that doesn't allow Democrats the right to rule if they have a majority? 

 

 

[Scraps]

7 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Unfortunately the left's definition of "Democracy" is the majority's right to impose their views and agenda on the minority without legal or moral limits.  The fact others don't share their vision does not equate to them being against Democracy.  The primary concern of many is freedom.  And I've come to the conclusion the liberal mind does not comprehend the concept of freedom.   Their false belief in their moral and intellectual superiority that it gives them the "right" to impose their views on anyone that disagrees inhibits their ability to think critically and logically.  Their behavior is equivalent to a spoiled and petulant child and ultimately they need to be dealt with in the same manner. 

People on the "left" could make the same charge against many on the "right".

[snafu]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

Bingo:

 

 

 

Uh, his jury ALSO includes his alleged victims.  If they don't feel so victimized to say that Trump incited the riot in their place of work, then that's just as valid.  They're the jurors. They get to decide.

 

This tweet is typical divisive vapid B.S. from Hillary Clinton.  Typical attempt to smear and criminalize one entire party for the acts of few -- because with her and many in her party like her, it's party over anything else and any other party or voice should and must be snuffed out.  You saying "bingo" lets everyone here know that you agree with this completely unjustified, unverified slander -- and it makes you out to be, like Hillary Clinton, a conspiracy nutjob.

 

Thank God she's a worse candidate than Trump, and thank you for again showing everyone here what you are.  

 

 

[SectionC3]

24 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Uh, his jury ALSO includes his alleged victims.  If they don't feel so victimized to say that Trump incited the riot in their place of work, then that's just as valid.  They're the jurors. They get to decide.

 

This tweet is typical divisive vapid B.S. from Hillary Clinton.  Typical attempt to smear and criminalize one entire party for the acts of few -- because with her and many in her party like her, it's party over anything else and any other party or voice should and must be snuffed out.  You saying "bingo" lets everyone here know that you agree with this completely unjustified, unverified slander -- and it makes you out to be, like Hillary Clinton, a conspiracy nutjob.

 

Thank God she's a worse candidate than Trump, and thank you for again showing everyone here what you are.  

 

 

Degree of victimization has nothing to with incitement.  I wasn’t directly victimized, but that doesn’t mean that Trump didn’t incite the insurrectionists and traitors.  

[716er]

 

There is video evidence from 1/6 of insurrectionists reading Donald's tweets out load and using them to justify the attack.

 

Donald's allies and staff begged him on Twitter and in person to call off the insurrection, but instead he egged the insurrectionists on.

 

Tough to dismiss those points even if you somehow find him innocent. 

 

 

[SectionC3]

7 minutes ago, 716er said:

 

There is video evidence from 1/6 of insurrectionists reading Donald's tweets out load and using them to justify the attack.

 

Donald's allies and staff begged him on Twitter and in person to call off the insurrection, but instead he egged the insurrectionists on.

 

Tough to dismiss those points even if you somehow find him innocent. 

 

 

 

Maybe you could be like that Lynrd Skynyrd guy and complain that this isn’t smoking gun evidence.  

 

I agree with you.  I’m sensitive to free speech considerations, but the circumstantial evidence is just too much here.  

 

Everyone with a brain knows that the election theft hoax is a (the) Big Lie.  Literally everyone.  Even Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley (both of whom are very smart, unlike, for example, Mo Brooks).  Yet Trump raised money on the issue, repeatedly repeated the lie, egged on his supporters, brought thousands of them to within sight of the Capitol at the time the EC vote was to be certified, let Rudy talk about trial by combat, told his supporters not to be weak and to fight, and then turned them loose on the Capitol.  Today we’ll learn that he didn’t give an eff that the Capitol had been breached and refused to immediately ask his supporters to stop the violence.  This isn’t a Trump issue for me.  It’s an American issue and a common sense question.  I can’t imagine better circumstantial evidence that this fool catalyzed the violence. 

[snafu]

19 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Degree of victimization has nothing to with incitement.  I wasn’t directly victimized, but that doesn’t mean that Trump didn’t incite the insurrectionists and traitors.  

 

Do you agree with Clinton that the Republicans in the Senate who vote to acquit are co-conspirators?

That's absolute nonsense.

 

[716er]

8 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Maybe you could be like that Lynrd Skynyrd guy and complain that this isn’t smoking gun evidence.  

 

I agree with you.  I’m sensitive to free speech considerations, but the circumstantial evidence is just too much here.  

 

Everyone with a brain knows that the election theft hoax is a (the) Big Lie.  Literally everyone.  Even Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley (both of whom are very smart, unlike, for example, Mo Brooks).  Yet Trump raised money on the issue, repeatedly repeated the lie, egged on his supporters, brought thousands of them to within sight of the Capitol at the time the EC vote was to be certified, let Rudy talk about trial by combat, told his supporters not to be weak and to fight, and then turned them loose on the Capitol.  Today we’ll learn that he didn’t give an eff that the Capitol had been breached and refused to immediately ask his supporters to stop the violence.  This isn’t a Trump issue for me.  It’s an American issue and a common sense question.  I can’t imagine better circumstantial evidence that this fool catalyzed the violence. 

 

They have not made a big point of it that I have seen, but Trump (obviously lying) telling the protestors he is going to march to the capitol with them is also a catalyst for the chaos.

[snafu]

20 minutes ago, 716er said:

 

There is video evidence from 1/6 of insurrectionists reading Donald's tweets out load and using them to justify the attack.

 

Donald's allies and staff begged him on Twitter and in person to call off the insurrection, but instead he egged the insurrectionists on.

 

Tough to dismiss those points even if you somehow find him innocent. 

 

 

 

Trump's actions and statements while the riot was ongoing are shameful.

But are those statements evidence of incitement once the Capitol was already breached?

Honest questions, I don't know the timing of these things.

 

 

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Trump's actions and statements while the riot was ongoing are shameful.

But are those statements evidence of incitement once the Capitol was already breached?

Honest questions, I don't know the timing of these things.

 

 

 

I get where you’re going with this, and in isolation it might be a fair point.  The isolation, of course, would speak to the protestors.  If they didn’t have a means of communicating with Trump after the breach (that is, if they were isolated from Trump), then I might agree with you.  But in the iPhone world, I don’t see how we have such isolation, and the inflammatory words still “count” after the breach occurred.  

8 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Do you agree with Clinton that the Republicans in the Senate who vote to acquit are co-conspirators?

That's absolute nonsense.

 

 

Diction matters.  You/HRC said “the Republicans” are co-conspirators.  I do not agree with that, because there may be some who rely on what I believe to be the stupid and politically convenient position that the rejected jurisdictional bar prevents a determination on the merits.  

 

If you said “Republicans” who so vote are co-conspirators, then I would agree, because the reference wouldn’t be to ALL such Republicans (it would apply to SOME Republicans) who vote to acquit.  Hawley and Cruz are going vote to acquit, and those two scumbags are complicit.  

31 minutes ago, 716er said:

 

There is video evidence from 1/6 of insurrectionists reading Donald's tweets out load and using them to justify the attack.

 

Donald's allies and staff begged him on Twitter and in person to call off the insurrection, but instead he egged the insurrectionists on.

 

Tough to dismiss those points even if you somehow find him innocent. 

 

 

Ding ding we have a winner.  Refusal to quell despite the obvious power to do so is circumstantial evidence of intent.

 

Also, I’ll add, there is a big difference between “innocent” and “not guilty.”

[B-Man]

32 minutes ago, 716er said:

 

There is video evidence from 1/6 of insurrectionists reading Donald's tweets out load and using them to justify the attack.

 

Donald's allies and staff begged him on Twitter and in person to call off the insurrection, but instead he egged the insurrectionists on.

 

Tough to dismiss those points even if you somehow find him innocent. 

 

 

 

 

Should be easy to provide an actual link to those claims............

 

 

[716er]

15 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Should be easy to provide an actual link to those claims............

 

 

 

 

Watch the proceedings.