Jump to content

Trump Impeachment 2.0


Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by WideNine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"]

 

  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Backintheday544
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Doc Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by All_Pro_Bills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  :flirt:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...