Trump Impeachment 2.0

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

That is the whole point to this. Get Republican Senators to stand up and vote not to convict Trump.  They already got the Republican Representatives to stand up and vote against impeachment.  Now they can use this in campaign attack ads against them in 2022. 

 

Trump is the greatest money raising tool for Democrats since Nest Gingrich.

Bingo.  Most GOP senators would convict if there weren't personal political consequences if they did.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Doc Brown

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

I'll give you an example.  Hitler killing 6 million jews is worse than an American soldier killing a POW after they killed his buddy.  There's clearly a difference there, right?

There is clearly a difference in the two scenarios offered, though the paucity of facts offered on the hypothetical POW scenario concern leave me uncertain as to how I feel about the soldiers actions.  Perhaps he’s the hero, perhaps a co-conspirator in some sinister plot involving drugs or human trafficking and suffering.  
 

Be that as it may, given the limitations of the two choices you have offered, what say you about gang bangers/rioters who kill the security guard/shop owner or police officer in the street.    Would you characterize the perpetrators as the American soldier or Adolph Hitler?  
 

Here’s a story about a man murdered during riots/protests from over the summer:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/us/david-dorn-st-louis-police-shot-trnd/index.html

 

 

[Unforgiven]

30 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Bingo.  Most GOP senators would convict if there weren't personal political consequences if they did.

riiiight...more like they just don't want the real violent rioting dregs of society blm

outside their door screaming  like banshees threatening to burn their houses 

down. So much delusion and half wits on this board, you've deluded yourselves into thinking

all republicans secretly want to be sick demented democrats. LOL.

 

[Doc Brown]

3 minutes ago, Unforgiven said:

riiiight...more like they just don't want the real violent rioting dregs of society blm

outside their door screaming  like banshees threatening to burn their houses 

down. So much delusion and half wits on this board, you've deluded yourselves into thinking

all republicans secretly want to be sick demented democrats. LOL.

 

It’s more they want Trump out of their hair for good but go on with your incoherent rant.

[SectionC3]

6 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Ah.  Newsmax. Fox. MyPillow.  

 

All in response to a polite inquiry and discourse about evidence beyond what you have decided in circumstantial evidence, in a political venue, where a significant portion of the participants have expressed concerns about the proceedings.  

 

 

 

 

So are you going on MyPillow TV to defend the insurrectionists and their leader or not? 

[Buftex]

1 hour ago, Unforgiven said:

riiiight...more like they just don't want the real violent rioting dregs of society blm

outside their door screaming  like banshees threatening to burn their houses 

down. So much delusion and half wits on this board, you've deluded yourselves into thinking

all republicans secretly want to be sick demented democrats. LOL.

 

I guess the "LOL" is supposed to indicate that you aren't the POS you present yourself to be? Clever.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Buftex

[oldmanfan]

If the Republicans vote to not convict, then I hope federal and/or DC officials do what guys like Rubio want:  arrest Trump for what he did.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

If the Republicans vote to not convict, then I hope federal and/or DC officials do what guys like Rubio want:  arrest Trump for what he did.

  

If the evidence is there, he should be charged with specific crimes, the case prosecuted and the outcome left to a jury.  I’d support that, assuming the evidence supported the charges.  
 

Given the significance of the assault on the Capitol, and the seriousness of the allegations, why do you suppose that hasn’t happened?   It certainly would be very early in the investigation, unlike political impeachment where they can convict, allege, investigate and set up the gallows in less than 10 days, but there doesn’t even seem to be any appetite for pursuing this very logical process.  

 

 Instead, this seems a glorified campaign event where the prosecutor and head tribunalist come from the political party able to manipulate virtually  all the levers, with an incredible amount of upside in the event of victory.  If the evidence is clear and convincing as many of the weekend lawyers here have been told, given the leverage and power the dems have, it seems it should be a slam dunk conviction with no defectors. 
 

  
 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

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

  

If the evidence is there, he should be charged with specific crimes, the case prosecuted and the outcome left to a jury.  I’d support that, assuming the evidence supported the charges.  
 

Given the significance of the assault on the Capitol, and the seriousness of the allegations, why do you suppose that hasn’t happened?   It certainly would be very early in the investigation, unlike political impeachment where they can convict, allege, investigate and set up the gallows in less than 10 days, but there doesn’t even seem to be any appetite for pursuing this very logical process.  

 

 Instead, this seems a glorified campaign event where the prosecutor and head tribunalist come from the political party able to manipulate virtually  all the levers, with an incredible amount of upside in the event of victory.  If the evidence is clear and convincing as many of the weekend lawyers here have been told, given the leverage and power the dems have, it seems it should be a slam dunk conviction with no defectors. 
 

  
 

 

 

Impeachment is a political process.  I always think of things this way:  if the parties being charged were switched, I.e. if it were a Democratic president, would your vote change?  If so, you’re a hypocrite and a blight on the Senate, and you should be voted out of office.  And we have a majority sitting in the chamber right now from both parties who would be guilty of this.

 

There should be a lot more people charged with some serious crimes based on the events of Jan 6th.  And I would include the former president.  But it is only about a month out and these things take time, I suppose.

[SoCal Deek]

6 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Impeachment is a political process.  I always think of things this way:  if the parties being charged were switched, I.e. if it were a Democratic president, would your vote change?  If so, you’re a hypocrite and a blight on the Senate, and you should be voted out of office.  And we have a majority sitting in the chamber right now from both parties who would be guilty of this.

 

There should be a lot more people charged with some serious crimes based on the events of Jan 6th.  And I would include the former president.  But it is only about a month out and these things take time, I suppose.

You could’ve stopped at the first sentence. That’s it in a nutshell. 

[Tiberius]

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

Quote

 

The Post reports: “In a letter Wednesday to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and other state officials, Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis did not mention Trump by name but stated that her office is examining a raft of potential criminal charges related to ‘attempts to influence’ the administration of the 2020 election in the state.” Specifically, the inquiry will determine “whether anyone illegally solicited election fraud, made false statements to state and local government officials, made threats or participated in a criminal conspiracy.”

Underscoring the seriousness of the charges and the urgency of action to hold accountable anyone who has attempted to subvert our elections, Willis directed the preservation of “all records” and said the case “will go before a grand jury as soon as March.”

 

 

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

[oldmanfan]

25 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You could’ve stopped at the first sentence. That’s it in a nutshell. 

Yep.  There are very few people in Congress that care about the country anymore.

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Yep.  There are very few people in Congress that care about the country anymore.

The system doesn’t benefit that motivation. Congress has learned (or we’ve taught them) that it’s better not to solve anything. It allows them to run on something next time around. It’s one of the reasons why you see so many executive orders. They’ve pushed the President (no matter of party) to go it alone. Congress has evolved into an infighting gaggle of Monday morning quarterbacks. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by SoCal Deek

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

The system doesn’t benefit that motivation. Congress has learned (or we’ve taught them) that it’s better not to solve anything. It allows them to run on something next time around. It’s one of the reasons why you see so many executive orders. They’ve pushed the President (no matter of party) to go it alone. Congress has evolved into an infighting gaggle of Monday morning quarterbacks. 

I still think we should run for President/VP.

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

I still think we should run for President/VP.

From the looks of the last election we’re STILL not old enough! 😂😂😂

[All_Pro_Bills]

33 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Impeachment is a political process.  I always think of things this way:  if the parties being charged were switched, I.e. if it were a Democratic president, would your vote change?  If so, you’re a hypocrite and a blight on the Senate, and you should be voted out of office.  And we have a majority sitting in the chamber right now from both parties who would be guilty of this.

 

There should be a lot more people charged with some serious crimes based on the events of Jan 6th.  And I would include the former president.  But it is only about a month out and these things take time, I suppose.

Agree with your insights.  I view myself as a objective and impartial observer of politics as I don't have any affinity for either political party.  So I think I can represent that impartial view you express regarding the defendant's political affiliation.  In fact, I view the political parties as a single entity of one party rule.  Maybe some things differ between administrations of one party or the other but for me it follows the 80/20 rule where 80% is the same no matter who's in charge.  You can call me a cynic.

 

If I was a Senator and had to vote on the charge of "inciting insurrection" or whatever the formal definition of it is I would vote not guilty.  I interpret absolutely nothing said or written by Trump explicitly or implicit directed anyone to commit the acts of violence that occurred on January 6th.  The House managers are citing terms like "fight like Hell" as evidence of some connection or cause and effect.  Words some of them have used in the past.  The record also shows many House and Senate members have used more incendiary terms than Trump did in their political speeches and statements.  But in none of these cases do I conclude they were advocating violence or criminal conduct.  No matter my personal view of Trump I would need to apply the same standards to his statements.  And just because some extremists took to violence on the 6th does not imply anyone, specifically Trump in this case, is responsible for the actions other than the actors themselves.  Unless we want to go in the direction of some sort of conspiracy theory or some elaborate and nefarious organization behind it all.  But as none of the charges suggest this we can dismiss this idea altogether.  

To me the core issue boils down to a discussion about criminalizing political speech and rhetoric.  And I would vote "no" to that.       

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

18 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Agree with your insights.  I view myself as a objective and impartial observer of politics as I don't have any affinity for either political party.  So I think I can represent that impartial view you express regarding the defendant's political affiliation.  In fact, I view the political parties as a single entity of one party rule.  Maybe some things differ between administrations of one party or the other but for me it follows the 80/20 rule where 80% is the same no matter who's in charge.  You can call me a cynic.

 

If I was a Senator and had to vote on the charge of "inciting insurrection" or whatever the formal definition of it is I would vote not guilty.  I interpret absolutely nothing said or written by Trump explicitly or implicit directed anyone to commit the acts of violence that occurred on January 6th.  The House managers are citing terms like "fight like Hell" as evidence of some connection or cause and effect.  Words some of them have used in the past.  The record also shows many House and Senate members have used more incendiary terms than Trump did in their political speeches and statements.  But in none of these cases do I conclude they were advocating violence or criminal conduct.  No matter my personal view of Trump I would need to apply the same standards to his statements.  And just because some extremists took to violence on the 6th does not imply anyone, specifically Trump in this case, is responsible for the actions other than the actors themselves.  Unless we want to go in the direction of some sort of conspiracy theory or some elaborate and nefarious organization behind it all.  But as none of the charges suggest this we can dismiss this idea altogether.  

To me the core issue boils down to a discussion about criminalizing political speech and rhetoric.  And I would vote "no" to that.       

 

 

 

 

 

Looking back at your well documented reporting here at PPP - you definitely lean a certain way.  

[BillStime]

Bingo:

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

23 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Looking back at your well documented reporting here at PPP - you definitely lean a certain way.  

Yes I do lean a certain way.  I'm against big government and the concentration of power in the central government.  I am against anything that gives the state more power and control over the lives and freedoms of its citizens.  I'm against using government threats of violence and imprisonment to force people to act, think, and speak against their own interests.  I'm against using our men and women in the armed forces as cannon fodder and muscle in pursuit of aggression and wars that serve private interests but no real security or national interest.  I'm against the growth of the surveillance state that tracks and accumulates all forms of communications and data on private citizens.  I think the Federal budget should be cut 75% to eliminate the funding that gives them so much power.  

And I cannot understand why anyone who values personal freedoms, rights, and responsibilities would vote to give the government more power and control over their lives and sell their soul to that "Devil" for what is consistent with "30 pieces of silver" and the illusion of safety.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

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.