Impeachment part deux

[hodad]

There's a difference between saying "fight" when you're exhorting your supporters to vote, versus when you have supporters who have already committed violence in your name.

It's also important to remember that this isn't about going to jail--it was simply an attempt to forbid Trump from running for office again.  There are different standards than in a courtroom (something Trump's lawyers seemed incapable of understanding).  Having a tiny shred of plausible deniability is not good enough.

This is also not just about Trump, but also  about what is considered acceptable for future leaders.  Is it okay to engage in bad behavior in you last 2 weeks in office simply because the impeachment trial won't arrive fast enough?  Is it okay to set the stage for a siege on the Capitol as long as you don't actually say, "Attack!"?  Apparently, 43 Republican Senators think all that's cool.  Maybe next time they won't actually survive, & will be spared the ignominy of voting to acquit the a-hole who sent a horde of raging cult-zombies to attack them.

 

[pucho812]

Oh, yes, every one of them that incited an insurrection.  And that would be.........exactly zero.  That excuse was weak when Trump's impeachment lawyers repeated it ad infinitum, and it's still just as weak.

Ok so by your standards all those in the video below should be in the cue for impeachment.


https://fb.watch/3EdrQYl19F/ 

 

[Recording Engineer]

Clearly, there are many hiding loudly behind lawyer-game-twists of politics, essentially giving themselves an out under any circumstance. However, it’s not as if Trump is innocent of what’s been accused. That is nothing more than turning a blind-eye to continue practicing party-before-country politics. To me, that behavior is much much worse than the game we hate politicians have to play every day; that we complain about every day. Honestly, that’s much much worse than Trump’s crimes themselves; to allow him to get away with it all is worse than the crimes themselves. It invites worse crimes from him and others. I keep asking where the line is. We’re still not there.

 

[hodad]

Ok so by your standards all those in the video below should be in the cue for impeachment.


https://fb.watch/3EdrQYl19F/ 

"queue."  If you're going to use it twice in one day, please learn to spell it.

EDIT:  It would have been nice if you'd actually responded to my comment rather than veering into whataboutism & JAQ-ing off.  But that's par for the course. 

 

[Matador]

Aside from the fact it was pretty much unconstitutional,

100% untrue.

 

[shabtek]

how 'bout that vander-whatever attorney ? high $ thespian -- great voice talent

 

[pucho812]

100% untrue.

Oh explain? I assume you are referring to the fact that the events took place in his final days and it doesn’t  proceedings took place after he left.
There has been much back abs forth even with those facts. But no matter, acquittal. Case closed.

 

[boji]

On Trump's 2nd impeachment all I have to say is...

After Karate Kid landed a flying crane kick to Johnny's face, Daniel and Mr. Miyagi celebrated, and should've started a dojo of their own if they had any sense-i.

What they didn't do was run back to their dojo so to figure out how to keep Cobra Kai from entering Johnny into the All-valley competition next year. That would have been a Kreese type move.

 

[pucho812]

On Trump's 2nd impeachment all I have to say is...

After Karate Kid landed a flying crane kick to Johnny's face, Daniel and Mr. Miyagi celebrated, and should've started a dojo of their own if they had any sense-i.

What they didn't do was run back to their dojo so to figure out how to keep Cobra Kai from entering Johnny into the All-valley competition next year. That would have been a Kreese type move.

There is the belief the kick to the face to Johnny was illegal

 

[Matador]

Oh explain? I assume you are referring to the fact that the events took place in his final days and it doesn’t  proceedings took place after he left.

Nope. There are many instances of impeachment being applied after a person has left service, going all the way back to the late 1700's.  The precedence is clear and isn't up for debate, except by those arguing in bad faith.  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that bars it either.

It is also patently ridiculous on its face: anyone would be free to commit impeachable offenses in their final days in office and would always be free from consequences.  Or they could do it and resign, and also run away and just re-run. 

It's so ludicrous that I'm shocked it has to be said.

 

[hodad]

It's so ludicrous that I'm shocked it has to be said.

It was the least offensive defense of Trump that Republicans had, ludicrous or not.  So they took cowardly cover under ridiculous garbage to avoid holding Trump responsible for the reprehensible things he did.  R's want to have it both ways (at least the ones in DC do):  condemn Trump in speeches and statements, acquit him when it really counts.  Craven and hypocritical. 

 

[Matador]

It was the least offensive defense of Trump that Republicans had, ludicrous or not.

Indeed.  They could have said, "We must acquit because the earth is a flat disk and the sky is actually a deep purple" and it would have made exactly the same logical sense.

Let us not forget that many of his faithful disciples in the Senate argued strenuously that Trump couldn't be criminally liable or prosecuted while in office, have now switched to saying that someone out of office cannot be impeached.  It must be nice to be able to wear cognitive dissonance as a comfortably as a nice pair of pajamas.

 

[boji]

There are many instances of impeachment being applied after a person has left service

Makes complete sense. But surely few if any instances applied twice, under such pretenses. I mean what's also shocking and a bit ludicrous is we're all cool with presidents getting shadow banned by the corporate oligarchy before conviction. Because salty chyrons. Because go team blue.

Edit: Heard a historian's point of view recently, where back in the day voting used to be the last resort of the governed, not the first, used sparingly to break hard ties in town halls.  Anyway, the point being calling votes in the past were known to not be a good thing, because it forced conditions where a large minority of townsfolk were guaranteed to not get what they want-- and yet we've become so comfortable with this way of fighting for our interests! Depending on one's party cycle to guarantee short term gains might be a system that only works prior to technological revolution.

 

[iturnknobs]

I never saw a reason to find him guilty. Aside from the fact it was pretty much unconstitutional...

The Senate decided it was. 56-44. That's how our country works. Law and order... or break sh*t because you lost a contest decided by your peers...law and order.. OR NO.

edit: Wow. Just f*cking WOW. Not even rules decided by the people we elect hold power in your eyes unless you win. You can't make this sh*t up.

edit again: 96% of Breitbart readers proudly answered a poll declaring they did not watch the impeachment hearings... just like the Republican senators who voted on the subject after being absent in the informational hearings. Unprofessional doesn't even begin to describe these behaviours.

 

[hodad]

edit again: 96% of Breitbart readers proudly answered a poll declaring they did not watch the impeachment hearings...

Of course they didn't.  They might start to question their belief in their furious leader if they actually allowed themselves to weigh the evidence impartially--if they dared to look at what really happened, or at what an impeachment actually signifies. 

Some of the Senators were no different--Hawley, Cruz, Graham, Paul, a few others.  Many others actually listened, but they're cowards. 

 

[boji]

Unprofessional doesn't even begin to describe these behaviours

They might start to question their belief

I'd describe their behavior as a strong distaste for information that goes against their bias and intuition pumps. Which is to say the source of their behavior is, more or less, an inverted expression of how their opponents came by their points of view, scaled up to tribe, driven by media consumption.

Is tribal affiliation arbitrary?  If we're to believe the algos are as powerful as they say they are, then perhaps so. But we would've had a larger impeachment turnout if everyone stopped looking for ways to signal tribal affiliation through conflict and posture.

 

[living sounds]

One thing is for certain: You always know where Mitch McConnell stands. Rely on him to steadfastly carry the torch for hypocracy and opportunism. It's hard to be the politician that gieves politicians a bad name, but Mitch manages to carry the day - every day.

 

[hodad]

It's worth checking out Joe Neguse's closing speech (he was second to last before Raskin finished things up.)  Thoughtful, passionate, patriotic. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWZDYdW_kRk

 

[madswitcher]

A view from the outside: 

I think that the elephant in the room for the American future is that it would be folly to think that Trump will not profit from the mistakes he made on the 6th – he will learn by them, be back in greater force in 4 years  time and will be building up his support and arsenal all the way to then.  I doubt if the Republican party will be able to control him and at that point it will be ‘God save us all’.

Mike

 

[Gold]

Nope. There are many instances of impeachment being applied after a person has left service, going all the way back to the late 1700's.  The precedence is clear and isn't up for debate, except by those arguing in bad faith.  There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that bars it either.

He was impeached before he left office. The Senate trial wasn't scheduled until after he left office. It could have been scheduled for before he left office but it wasn't.