Trump Impeachment 2.0

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Well for one, the inept Capitol Police Department, but ultimately the person who killed another person. 

When BLM approached the sitting President wouldn't allow them near the Capital. What changed? 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

When BLM approached the sitting President wouldn't allow them near the Capital. What changed? 

You tell me? I thought BLM were in front of the White House. You are aware they’re not the same place, right?

[Buffalo_Stampede]

5 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

Today will be seen in history as the day the republican party died and the rise of the republican/qanon party began. The largest change in US political history since the Civil Rights Act. 

Politicians voting out of fear for their job which is only suppose to be temporary. 

Where is the bravery of Davey Crockett, Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Harry Truman, Abe Lincoln.

Hope it all works out. 

I don't know. I think what happened at the Capitol is going to prevent that from happening. It's going to be hard to overcome that.  

[Doc Brown]

Hopefully enough Senate votes to make sure no lame duck president ever attempts this bs again.  Most votes to convict a president ever I believe.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

14 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

No. 0-2 because Democrats are weak. Trump got them worked up. Trump wanted them to enter the Capitol. What he didn't expect was people getting killed. 

People died in the Capitol. Who's responsible? 

Perspective is a strange thing.  Trump, a guy folks have criticized as bombastic, ignorant, shoot from the hip and a say anything guy, complains loudly and bitterly about a stolen election.  The Dems in power— the leaders of the liberal crowd complained loudly and  bitterly of an illegitimate presidency set up by the Rooskies in 2016, using at time far harsher rhetoric to inspire their supporters.  The Dems lost both times they impeached, and the one time they set the power of the govt out to crush some ties. 

As so often happens with Trump, the argument seems to be that suddenly Trump is so keenly brilliant and cunning, that he conspires with fringe elements to storm the freaking Capitol, using code words like “peaceful” and leaving no apparent direct evidence of his involvement.   
 

Then, in a move you really could only write in a Hollywood script, he’s taken to task not in a court of law for the OBVIOUS call to storm the Capitol (as claimed by Dems), they decide to press the issue in a largely symbolic gesture that ultimately means..nothing.  The story now seems to be that politics only came in to okay during the vote, and that the senators who voted to acquit are co-conspirators a d also wanted the Capitol breached.  It’s preposterous. 
 

History will show that in two clearly partisan attempts to suppress the votes of millions of non-dem voters, with virtually all the cards in their hand, they failed.  History will show that I the multi-year Mueller inv, with incredible power, and unlimited power and very few restrictions, they failed. 
 

I know you consider yourself an independent distrust of both parties, and I respect that.  I can understand hated of Trump but allowing the party in power to destroy by innuendo is not the answer and assures only more of the same. I can understand wanting Trump out.  
 

I’ll say again what I said to some of my frenemies here— if there is evidence of Trump conspiring, aiding or abetting the terrorists who stormed the Capitol, handle it in the court of law away from cameras, politicians then hallowed halls of Congress where back room deals and screwing the public is the soup du jour.  Prosecution.  Defense. Witnesses.  Juries.  
 

This was an explosion in the freak show at a circus, for the second time. 

[B-Man]

 

 

Back to the REAL subject..............

 

TRUMP 2, IMPEACHMENT 0.

 

The Democrats have converted impeachment from a measure of “high crimes and misdemeanors” to simply an indicator that the House of Representatives is controlled by the opposition party.

 

Once again, people claiming to stand up in favor of institutions and traditions against Donald Trump have actually wrecked those institutions and traditions out of pique. This has done lasting damage to the Republic, and they don’t care. They never care.

 

 

 

As I told my twentysomething Con Law students, they have now lived through 75% of America’s presidential impeachments. Of course, if they were one year old, they would still have lived through 50%.

 

That’s not normal, and the source of the abnormality isn’t Trump.

 

by Glenn Reynolds

[WideNine]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You tell me? I thought BLM were in front of the White House. You are aware they’re not the same place, right?

 

Nice retort.

 

As much as I think there are policing issues and changes needed in this nation (there are).

 

I also believe those changes go beyond the artificially narrow scope of politicized racism.

 

...and not every topic or political discussion needs to be drawn into that gravity well to stand on its own pros and cons merits.

 

Not saying it is not worthy of discussion, just that some try too hard to shoe-horn it into every thread.

 

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You tell me? I thought BLM were in front of the White House. You are aware they’re not the same place, right?

Come on. Don't play that game. You know what the President said and did when BLM was protesting. One could argue he incited them as well with his divisive bully talk. Terrible President. 

[Unforgiven]

19 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

Fixed.

 

Aquited by our Senate does not mean not guilty of everything he did to lie about an election he lost and then used as a pretext to foment a violent insurrection that killed people.

 

Maybe folks should visit that DC cop's family and see how they feel about your orange conman getting off the hook.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe someone should go and visit all the burned out businesses and the families of all the people murdered and hurt by blm rioting.

Edited February 13, 2021 by Unforgiven

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Come on. Don't play that game. You know what the President said and did when BLM was protesting. One could argue he incited them as well with his divisive bully talk. Terrible President. 

Give it up. Some of you need both a civics and geography lesson. I’ll try it again...you are aware that the President doesn’t work at the Capitol, correct? They aren’t the same place. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Give it up. Some of you need both a civics and geography lesson. I’ll try it again...you are aware that the President doesn’t work at the Capitol, correct? They aren’t the same place. 

I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make. 

[WideNine]

8 minutes ago, Unforgiven said:

Maybe someone should go and visit all the burned out businesses and the families of all the people murdered and hurt by blm rioting.

 

Thanks for not being predictable.

 

 

[Unforgiven]

Just now, WideNine said:

 

Thanks for not being predictable.

 

 

facts and truth. so hurtful ain't they

[Buffarukus]

29 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

When BLM approached the sitting President wouldn't allow them near the Capital. What changed? 

 

i love the argument that this government is taken by surprise by anyone. if you believe snowden and anything in the patriot act then they can tap into any phone text or website. yet.. "what is this parlar app?" "is this where the PLANS were made?" " we must BEGIN to watch for this for a protest organized by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

 

so either they fully knew about EVERY riot, every plan and every participant and allowed it..again or the fbi/cia was caught off guard and has been proven to be the most inept organizations when it comes to domestic security on the planet.  

Edited February 13, 2021 by Buffarukus

[oldmanfan]

Reporters should ask everyone who voted no if their vote would have changed if the trial took place before Jan 20.

[WideNine]

Just now, Unforgiven said:

facts and truth. so hurtful ain't they

 

The fact that every time you point out the DC insurrection the blindly obedient Trump cult says, "....but, but what about the riots?"

 

As if me, or anyone else, support rioters getting off the legal hook.

 

He was the President, he should have acted like one instead of a spoiled rich boy who has never been told, "You lost, suck it up and get over it".

 

Yes your predictably blind excuse-making for that glorified criminal carnival barker is painfully pathetic.

 

 

 

 

 

[Backintheday544]

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

Perspective is a strange thing.  Trump, a guy folks have criticized as bombastic, ignorant, shoot from the hip and a say anything guy, complains loudly and bitterly about a stolen election.  The Dems in power— the leaders of the liberal crowd complained loudly and  bitterly of an illegitimate presidency set up by the Rooskies in 2016, using at time far harsher rhetoric to inspire their supporters.  The Dems lost both times they impeached, and the one time they set the power of the govt out to crush some ties. 

As so often happens with Trump, the argument seems to be that suddenly Trump is so keenly brilliant and cunning, that he conspires with fringe elements to storm the freaking Capitol, using code words like “peaceful” and leaving no apparent direct evidence of his involvement.   
 

Then, in a move you really could only write in a Hollywood script, he’s taken to task not in a court of law for the OBVIOUS call to storm the Capitol (as claimed by Dems), they decide to press the issue in a largely symbolic gesture that ultimately means..nothing.  The story now seems to be that politics only came in to okay during the vote, and that the senators who voted to acquit are co-conspirators a d also wanted the Capitol breached.  It’s preposterous. 
 

History will show that in two clearly partisan attempts to suppress the votes of millions of non-dem voters, with virtually all the cards in their hand, they failed.  History will show that I the multi-year Mueller inv, with incredible power, and unlimited power and very few restrictions, they failed. 
 

I know you consider yourself an independent distrust of both parties, and I respect that.  I can understand hated of Trump but allowing the party in power to destroy by innuendo is not the answer and assures only more of the same. I can understand wanting Trump out.  
 

I’ll say again what I said to some of my frenemies here— if there is evidence of Trump conspiring, aiding or abetting the terrorists who stormed the Capitol, handle it in the court of law away from cameras, politicians then hallowed halls of Congress where back room deals and screwing the public is the soup du jour.  Prosecution.  Defense. Witnesses.  Juries.  
 

This was an explosion in the freak show at a circus, for the second time. 

You do understand that this has been the most partisan impeachment in the history of the country right?

[Beast]

There will be more impeachment attempts on President Trump when he takes the Oval Office back in January of 2025.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

You do understand that this has been the most partisan impeachment in the history of the country right?

Yes, most partisan impeachment(s) in the history of the country, and both failed in/at the senate because of it.  Are we arguing? 

[Backintheday544]

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

Yes, most partisan impeachment(s) in the history of the country, and both failed in/at the senate because of it.  Are we arguing? 

l don’t think you understand what partisan and bi-partisan means.

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

l don’t think you understand what partisan and bi-partisan means.

 

Ah, well, in that case, thank you for your service. 

[WideNine]

7 minutes ago, Wacka said:

No. Andrew Johnson was found not guilty by one vote.

 

...and for the high crimes of firing someone in his own cabinet I believe.

 

Standards then, and limits on Presidential authority were vastly different than today.

 

 

[Motorin']

7 minutes ago, Wacka said:

No. Andrew Johnson was found not guilty by one vote.

Got a nice remedy for all the lefties going bat-s crazy today.  Get a pistol and suck on the end of the barrel.😀

 

You're sick. 

[Beast]

[WideNine]

12 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

You're sick. 

 

Yeah, that was more than a bit out of line.

 

If that's the best ignorant folks can do when they disagree is advocate something like that they need their meds, better education, and counseling on how to manage conflicts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 13, 2021 by WideNine

[Big Blitz]

So now that we have the Fake Insurrection of 1/6/21 behind us can we get someone to ask Biden when my buddy can open his barbershop at full capacity and get his livelihood back and end this current actual Insurrection?

 

An actual exit strategy?

 

Those used to matter to libs.  

 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

7 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

So now that we have the Fake Insurrection of 1/6/21 behind us can we get someone to ask Biden when my buddy can open his barbershop at full capacity and get his livelihood back and end this current actual Insurrection?

 

An actual exit strategy?

 

Those used to matter to libs.  

 

Actually that was likely only the beginning. 

 

And probably around April or May. 

[WideNine]

47 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

So now that we have the Fake Insurrection of 1/6/21 behind us can we get someone to ask Biden when my buddy can open his barbershop at full capacity and get his livelihood back and end this current actual Insurrection?

 

An actual exit strategy?

 

Those used to matter to libs.  

 

 

Fake?

 

Not sure you know or understand the legal definition of insurrection.

Insurrection n

 

: the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government
;also

 

: the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt [whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or against the authority of the United States…shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years "U.S. Code"]

 

[njbuff]

Nancy Pelosi making her unhinged statement today.......

 

[Backintheday544]

Interesting words from McConnell:

 

“There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day,” said McConnell, who along with the rest of the Congress and former Vice President Mike Pence fled the mob that descended on the Capitol on Jan. 6.

“The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president,” McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor.

 

“President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen,” McConnell said. “He didn’t get away with anything. Yet.”

 

Portman too:

“The question I must answer is not whether President Trump said and did things that were reckless and encouraged the mob. I believe that happened,” Senator Rob Portman in a statement.

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

Ah, well, in that case, thank you for your service. 

Your welcome! See when people from both parties support something, that makes it bipartisan.

 

You can tell it needs two parties from the prefix bi. The English prefixes bi-, derived from Latin, and its Greek variant di- both mean “two.
 

When the issue was in the House, there were votes from both parties. Both is kind of like synonym for two. We can bring that back to the prefix bi. Since we have votes from both parties, that makes it bipartisan.

 

Then it went to the Senate. The vote of guilty had votes from both parties. We can bring this back around to that discussion of what the prefix bi means and conclude yet again it was bipartisan in the Senate.

 

The only partisan act was the vote not to impeach and the vote to convict. Why is that? Well only one party voted for that. Remember how we defined the prefix bi? It needs two. Since those votes had one party it cannot use the prefix bi, and thus partisan would be an apt description of those votes.

[Niagara Bill]

3 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

I don't know. I think what happened at the Capitol is going to prevent that from happening. It's going to be hard to overcome that.  

Hope you are correct 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

Interesting words from McConnell:

 

“There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day,” said McConnell, who along with the rest of the Congress and former Vice President Mike Pence fled the mob that descended on the Capitol on Jan. 6.

“The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president,” McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor.

 

“President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen,” McConnell said. “He didn’t get away with anything. Yet.”

 

Portman too:

“The question I must answer is not whether President Trump said and did things that were reckless and encouraged the mob. I believe that happened,” Senator Rob Portman in a statement.

 

Then let’s get to the courts where this can be addressed, witnesses and be called, timelines established, and the actions of all players considered. We can agree on this, yes? 

1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

Your welcome! See when people from both parties support something, that makes it bipartisan.

 

You can tell it needs two parties from the prefix bi. The English prefixes bi-, derived from Latin, and its Greek variant di- both mean “two.
 

When the issue was in the House, there were votes from both parties. Both is kind of like synonym for two. We can bring that back to the prefix bi. Since we have votes from both parties, that makes it bipartisan.

 

Then it went to the Senate. The vote of guilty had votes from both parties. We can bring this back around to that discussion of what the prefix bi means and conclude yet again it was bipartisan in the Senate.

 

The only partisan act was the vote not to impeach and the vote to convict. Why is that? Well only one party voted for that. Remember how we defined the prefix bi? It needs two. Since those votes had one party it cannot use the prefix bi, and thus partisan would be an apt description of those votes.

This sort of deep dive into the mundane is what would make you such a formidable foe on Jeopardy. 
 

Of course, you would want to clean up your understanding of “your” and “you’re” in case one of the categories is “Confounding Contractions Covered in 3rd Grade”.  It may help to remember this old saying, also from the Latin:

 

Sine scientia ars nihil est.  Loosely translated, I’m told it means “Without knowledge, skill is nothing.” 

 

Stay humble. 

[Backintheday544]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

Then let’s get to the courts where this can be addressed, witnesses and be called, timelines established, and the actions of all players considered. We can agree on this, yes? 

This sort of deep dive into the mundane is what would make you such a formidable foe on Jeopardy. 
 

Of course, you would want to clean up your understanding of “your” and “you’re” in case one of the categories is “Confounding Contractions Covered in 3rd Grade”.  It may help to remember this old saying, also from the Latin:

 

Sine scientia ars nihil est.  Loosely translated, I’m told it means “Without knowledge, skill is nothing.” 

 

Stay humble. 

sorry, my phone went with the wrong your/you’re. While mine was more of a technological error, I’m glad I was able to enlighten you on the prefix Bi and you can now see this was bipartisan.

 

In the words of true patriots, Knowing is half the battle.

Edited February 14, 2021 by Backintheday544

[Doc Brown]

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

Yes, most partisan impeachment(s) in the history of the country, and both failed in/at the senate because of it.  Are we arguing? 

The second most "bipartisan" impeachment in our country's history I believe behind Andrew Johnson.  The technical reason of he's no longer a president had to be used by McConnell as a yes vote on acquittal for crying out loud.  The usual political witch hunt argument couldn't even be used like it was in his first impeachment and Clinton's impeachment.

 

Trump did manage to be the first president in four years to lose reelection and go from having the majority in the two houses to the minority since Hoover in '32.  So Dems can thank him for that.

Edited February 14, 2021 by Doc Brown

[snafu]

14 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

You do understand that this has been the most partisan impeachment in the history of the country right?

 

13 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

l don’t think you understand what partisan and bi-partisan means.

 

 

I’m not sure you proofread your initial post. 

Then you wasted a lot of effort explaining bi-partisan.  A word you didn’t use. 

 

 

[Wacka]

Time for Congress to get to work  instead of chasing the orange Boogieman  and going on vacation. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

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

 

Then let’s get to the courts where this can be addressed, witnesses and be called, timelines established, and the actions of all players considered. We can agree on this, yes? 

This sort of deep dive into the mundane is what would make you such a formidable foe on Jeopardy. 
 

Of course, you would want to clean up your understanding of “your” and “you’re” in case one of the categories is “Confounding Contractions Covered in 3rd Grade”.  It may help to remember this old saying, also from the Latin:

 

Sine scientia ars nihil est.  Loosely translated, I’m told it means “Without knowledge, skill is nothing.” 

 

Stay humble. 

I also had advocated for holding this trial in Federal Court.  And while I think that holding the trial of a former President in the Senate is unconstitutional my main reason is that would have been as fair and impartial a venue as could be possible under the circumstances.   The judicial has long been the arbiter between Congress and the executive branch and as a former President a trial here would have benefited a goal of seeking the truth.  Its just impossible to remove the political motivations from the legal charges in this case.  And a neutral venue following standards of evidence, actual testimony from actual witnesses and actors of Jan 6th, prosecution, defense, and a jury would have served us all better.  Its seems the need to rush things along as fast as possible took priority.  In the end it was just a back and forth of subjective interpretations of communications and words between speaker and the audience and the ambiguity of language under specific circumstances sprinkled in with some suggestions of legal intent (or instructions to riot in this case) without the benefit of any witnesses or testimony.  More like something that would pass as a psychology experiment than the justification for a trial.  The law is supposed to be about objectivity and facts.  From what I heard objectivity and facts from both sides were few and far between through it all.  

 

Which brings me to my final point on this entire topic.  I think from the start everyone paying attention to any of this, whether pro or anti Trump or just indifferent to the whole thing, knew with close to 100% certainty that the "Yes" vote would never reach the 67 needed for a conviction.  The result was pre-determined.  There was no mystery or suspense about the outcome.  And given the Democratic leadership must have known that too the lingering question is what was their real angle here?  I guess we'll find out soon enough.    

Edited February 14, 2021 by All_Pro_Bills

[daz28]

Mitch McConnell basically said that he was guilty as hell, but we had to let him go, because the arresting officer didn't read him his rights.  To the Republican nutbars that's the equivalent of complete and total vindication.  Wayy too many people live in an alternate reality. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

sorry, my phone went with the wrong your/you’re. While mine was more of a technological error, I’m glad I was able to enlighten you on the prefix Bi and you can now see this was bipartisan.

 

In the words of true patriots, Knowing is half the battle.

No apology necessary. I appreciated your candor, sincerity and willingness to attempt to educate me on the subject.  My feedback was sent in the spirit of mutual enlightenment.  My phone doesn’t have an auto-incorrect feature, but technology can be a fickle mistress indeed. Perhaps there is an app for that. 

I believe we can move on. 

 

50 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

 

I’m not sure you proofread your initial post. 

Then you wasted a lot of effort explaining bi-partisan.  A word you didn’t use. 

 

 

There was that, but I was playing the long game.  

 

[ALF]

Read McConnell's remarks on the Senate floor following Trump's acquittal

 and reiterate something I said weeks ago: There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.

"The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their President.
"And their 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.

 

"The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.

 

"Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were "still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mcconnell-remarks-trump-acquittal/index.html

 

A long and a very good explanation,  I accept it