Trump Impeachment 2.0

[soflabillsfan1]

1 hour ago, SoTier said:

 

                                Are you interested in purchasing a recently rehabbed bridge over Chautauqua Lake?  Anybody believing that Trump was ever motivated by anything except his own self interest would certainly jump at the chance to buy my bridge.

 

Trump went to Washington to feed his ego, and promote his "brand".  Trump has NEVER done anything for anybody unless it benefited himself.   It wasn't Washington that "isn't built for getting things done", it was Trump who was too stupid and too lazy to deal with the real problems the country faced.  Trump basked in the rabid support of his radical right zombies and bullied anyone who dared to stand up to him.  Trump's central purpose became remaining in power at any cost.  When he was voted out of office by the American people, the courts wouldn't overturn the election results for him, and he couldn't threaten state officials to change election results, he attempted to send his zombie army to stage a coup d'etat.  He's a traitor. 

 

Yikes.  I thought deranged people like this only existed on twitter.

[snafu]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

I thought the House managers made a pretty good case through past comments, past tweets, showing him encouraging people to march on the Capitol building to stop the steal right before the incident, and comments made during the attack about fighting for Trump that he could be directly blamed for the insurrection on the capital building.  All the senators knew it too.  The case against him was MUCH stronger than the quid pro quo impeachment case.  That's why you saw seven Republicans break rank which is unprecedented in modern times.  Zero from Clinton's party voted to convict and only one did (Romney) on one count in Trump's first impeachment trial.

 

I get that McConnell doesn't want to anger Trump's fervent base so him and other Senators used the convenient rationale (unconstitutional to convict a president who is out of office which is in itself a stretch considering he was in office when this happened).  That way they didn't have to defend Trump's conduct.

 

As far as Democrats not calling witnesses, they made the right move in not dragging this out another few months when it was clear Republican Senators weren't going to change their minds.  They have an agenda they need to get to and an aid package is needed to keep the economy afloat during this pandemic.  It will be more difficult now that the Republicans can scream deficit again.

 

 

 

The house managers connected a lot of dots, but not the important ones that actually addressed the Atricle of Impeachment.  They made a great case for whomever is in charge of security to have been negligent. They made a great case for dereliction of duty, but there was no article of impeachment which addressed that. Haste makes waste.  The House must have thought that the Constitutional jurisdiction question should have gone the other way because they were super hasty in banging out the one Article. This case would have been stronger if it wasn’t messed up in preparation. Haste makes waste.  

 

The Constitution gives the government powers and the Amendments chip away at those powers.  The defense was right in that the first amendment controlled. As far as witnesses, the one witness that both sides stipulated to was well known, yet the managers didn’t see fit to present her words during their 14 hours of their main case? Haste makes waste.  Trump could have been convicted in my eyes, but not following the charge and the applicable law.

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

I thought the House managers made a pretty good case through past comments, past tweets, showing him encouraging people to march on the Capitol building to stop the steal right before the incident, and comments made during the attack about fighting for Trump that he could be directly blamed for the insurrection on the capital building.  All the senators knew it too.  The case against him was MUCH stronger than the quid pro quo impeachment case.  That's why you saw seven Republicans break rank which is unprecedented in modern times.  Zero from Clinton's party voted to convict and only one did (Romney) on one count in Trump's first impeachment trial.

 

I get that McConnell doesn't want to anger Trump's fervent base so him and other Senators used the convenient rationale (unconstitutional to convict a president who is out of office which is in itself a stretch considering he was in office when this happened).  That way they didn't have to defend Trump's conduct.

 

As far as Democrats not calling witnesses, they made the right move in not dragging this out another few months when it was clear Republican Senators weren't going to change their minds.  They have an agenda they need to get to and an aid package is needed to keep the economy afloat during this pandemic.  It will be more difficult now that the Republicans can scream deficit again.

 

 

The “impeachment managers” were the political equivalent of the manager outside the ring in a long WWE match.  They were in a venue where they had the numbers, the power, the senior position, video of the horrific event at the Capitol and whole nut load of scared politicians willing to encourage violence when off in the heartland but not so cool when it comes to them.  Even with all the cards, it failed. 
 

Political rhetoric is what it is these days.  Everyone knows it.  The country raged, people died, businesses burned out, parts of cities occupied and lawless— all supported and encouraged by political leaders for the last 5 years.  
 

The liberals went a long way toward creating what happened at the Capitol.  When rioting, death and destruction goes mainstream for a noble cause, well, it’s the height of stupidity to assume other rioters and miscreants will model the same behavior.  
 

As for McConnell, he’s a career politician with one main goal— to stay in power.  In this case, he’s Tom Brady— fiery, cantankerous, competitive but in the end, his staying power is based on avoiding the big hits.
 

 Trump is disposable, and let’s not pretend he was a Trump supporter early on.  He got on board when it suited his agenda, got off when it made sense and feigned outrage when Pelosi and her crew attempted to unseat Trump for the first three years of his presidency. 

 

 

Trump was acquitted because it was a case based on emotion, appealing to folks drawn to emotion, and ended the way it always was going to.   Now, they can rage at the senators who voted their conscience, call them complicit in the insurrection etc etc.  

 

As to witnesses, we’re talking about the allegation of an attempt to overthrow our government.  There would be absolutely no reason not to calm witnesses in that setting with the fate of the free world in the balance.  They didn’t want witnesses because it would be impossible to defend the actions over the past 4 years when confronted with their words.  It would be exceptionally damaging to the dem case to hear from politicians and law enforcement about who knew what, who was briefed on intelligence and how the $&@8 they were caught off guard here. Witnesses were the death knell of a case built on “everyone knows what he meant”, and that’s only if you feel the trial was on life support when it stated. 

 

Finally, if you’re correct and “everyone knows it”, it should be decided in court, not is some fake court show trial. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[SoCal Deek]

Now we can get on with being a country again...or at least until the Left loses again and we deal with hysteria and cries of every possible victimization as are known to man... and woman. 

[Doc]

52 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Now we can get on with being a country again...or at least until the Left loses again and we deal with hysteria and cries of every possible victimization as are known to man... and woman. 

 

No need to wait, you'll see the media do what it's been doing for decades: sowing the seeds of division.  They'll also cover/not challenge Joe, leading to the perception that we're coming together again.

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

No need to wait, you'll see the media do what it's been doing for decades: sowing the seeds of division.  They'll also cover/not challenge Joe, leading to the perception that we're coming together again.

 

Just the way you like it.

 

(Always blaming the media for our division - love it)

[Doc]

1 minute ago, BillStime said:

Just the way you like it.

 

(Always blaming the media for our division - love it)

 

I call it like I see it.

[Big Blitz]

Correct Lindsey.  Everything is stupid.  

 

 

“And if you use this model, I don’t know how Kamala Harris doesn’t get impeached if the Republicans take over the House,” Graham said.

 

“Because she actually bailed out rioters and one of the rioters went back to the streets and broke somebody’s head open. So we’ve opened Pandora’s Box here and I’m sad for the country?”

 

Graham was referring to Harris’ support of the Minnesota Freedom Fund, before she became President Biden’s running mate, which helped protesters post bail.

 

Graham was referring to Harris’ support of the Minnesota Freedom Fund, before she became President Biden’s running mate, which helped protesters post bail.

 

But the fund, which opposed the concept of cash bail, was used to secure the relief of a number of convicted violent criminals as well as protesters over the summer who were rallying against the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers.

 

 

https://nypost.com/2021/02/14/sen-graham-says-kamala-harris-could-be-impeached-if-gop-takes-over-the-house/

 

 

Healing.  

 

Nope.

 

Impeachment forever!!!

 

 

It's kind of like how they call everything racist.  Sooner or later bc of that the word loses meaning.  

 

But they are the party of redefining norms.  

Edited February 15, 2021 by Big Blitz

[Motorin']

3 hours ago, snafu said:

 

The house managers connected a lot of dots, but not the important ones that actually addressed the Atricle of Impeachment.  They made a great case for whomever is in charge of security to have been negligent. They made a great case for dereliction of duty, but there was no article of impeachment which addressed that. Haste makes waste.  The House must have thought that the Constitutional jurisdiction question should have gone the other way because they were super hasty in banging out the one Article. This case would have been stronger if it wasn’t messed up in preparation. Haste makes waste.  

 

The Constitution gives the government powers and the Amendments chip away at those powers.  The defense was right in that the first amendment controlled. As far as witnesses, the one witness that both sides stipulated to was well known, yet the managers didn’t see fit to present her words during their 14 hours of their main case? Haste makes waste.  Trump could have been convicted in my eyes, but not following the charge and the applicable law.

 

 

 

 

In what world is it not a crime to attempt to lobby, or intimidate the VP into changing the results of the election during it's certification? The democrats are really stupid, they didn't have to prove that violence was directly incited. That only had to prove that an unlawful act was directly incited. 

 

The goal of Trump's rally and speech was to convince the VP and Congress overturn the lawful certification of the election.

 

If that is not a crime, then it wouldn't be a crime for Kamala Harris to change the election results in 4 years in the event that the states certify the election for the Republican candidate. 

 

But it would be a crime if Harris did that, just as it would be a crime if Pence did. And Trump sending that mob to Congress with the expressed purpose of convincing Pence to commit a crime is a crime in and of itself. 

 

A horrific precident has been set.

 

 

[Unforgiven]

47 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

In what world is it not a crime to attempt to lobby, or intimidate the VP into changing the results of the election during it's certification? The democrats are really stupid, they didn't have to prove that violence was directly incited. That only had to prove that an unlawful act was directly incited. 

 

The goal of Trump's rally and speech was to convince the VP and Congress overturn the lawful certification of the election.

 

If that is not a crime, then it wouldn't be a crime for Kamala Harris to change the election results in 4 years in the event that the states certify the election for the Republican candidate. 

 

But it would be a crime if Harris did that, just as it would be a crime if Pence did. And Trump sending that mob to Congress with the expressed purpose of convincing Pence to commit a crime is a crime in and of itself. 

 

A horrific precident has been set.

 

 

If you say all this BS out loud 100 times a day at an airport it might come true....

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The thing is we knew this before the House crafted the changes and voted the articles of impeachment.  So if the objective is to gain a conviction on the charges and you know you can't do that then why pursue the matter in the manner it was pursued unless you've got some other objectives?  It should have gone to the Federal Courts.  The wheels of justice turn slowly.  And taking the court route what's the rush?  If justice is served in 2 weeks or 2 months in the grand scheme of things it will not matter. 

 

Also citing Constitution objections to trying former President is not a convenient rationale but a matter of law.  It is based on credible and likely potentially correct interpretations of the Constitution Article I section 3.  Sure the specific event happened on Jan 6 and the articles were dated before the end of his term but the charges were sent to the Senate after the Biden inauguration.   Waiting until the term expired introduced this "convenient rationale" to the proceedings.  It could have been avoided by presenting the charges to the Senate before Trump's term expired.  But I suspect the House leadership waited until after his term expired because the new Senate gave them the majority. 

 

And it avoided another potential question.  What to do if the Senate trial starts before the term ends and runs through the inauguration.  Does the old Senate continue to only hear the trial they started but the new Senate handles all other matters of business?  Or does the new Senate take over where the old Senate stopped?  Clearly some issues without any known resolution that might drag things out further.  Going to the courts avoids both the path taken and the potential issues of the path's not taken.  Decisions on venue, how and when to proceed, and a lack of proper evidence killed any hope of conviction along with the political nature of the entire event. 

Yeah.  The whole messy ordeal makes me think maybe they should think about speeding up the transition time between the election date and inauguration.  They pry could speed up the process to the beginning of January.   I'm not sure if whether trying a former president for crimes committed in office is "constitutional" but I've heard convincing cases on both sides.  I personally don't think the framers believed that a public officer shouldn't be held accountable for any actions during their lame duck period.  Calling it being unconstitutional as a "likely potentially correct" interpretation is stretching it.

 

I'm sure Trump will be tried in either criminal or civil court as more information comes out.  McConnell basically invited those lawsuits yesterday.  Intent is difficult to prove but there might be enough evidence there.  I agree that the House managers waited to deliver the articles until the new Senate was convened to avoid having to deal with McConnell and maybe unwillingly gave Republicans who acquitted their needed "out" by doing so.

 

I still think that the whole impeachment trial was necessary though to prevent future behavior by politicians in similar positions.  Having seven defectors from your own party should be enough of a deterrent.  

[BillStime]

 

[SoCal Deek]

11 hours ago, Unforgiven said:

If you say all this BS out loud 100 times a day at an airport it might come true....

Too late...that job is already filled by CNN

[BillStime]

 

[B-Man]

19 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

 

Wrong thread.

 

 

 

 

That touches on one of the two main reasons that the Democratic machine wheeled out their impeachment wheeze yet again. They are terrified of the voters—all those embryonic “domestic terrorists” Joe Biden’s Stasi is tracking—who, ignoring the wisdom of their betters, might actually get together and vote someone else like Donald Trump—if not the Bad Orange Man himself—into office again. That mustn’t happen.

 

They do seem really scared.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NYT retracts the biggest lie from the 6th. So, for those keeping score -- the only person to die at the scene was the unarmed woman who was shot by the cop.

 

 

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

Wrong thread.

 

 

 

Is this billsfans.com?

 

[Unforgiven]

 

 

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, Unforgiven said:

 

 

 

You proud bro?

 

[B-Man]

3 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Is this billsfans.com?

 

 

 

Obviously not.

 

 

 

 

[njbuff]

How much money was wasted on this latest farce?