• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread A second impeachment

While thanking GOP allies, Trump – who is considering another presidential run – attacked Democrats by saying "it is a sad commentary on our times that one political party in America is given a free pass to denigrate the rule of law."

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...trump-thanks-senate-gop-acquittal/4476249001/

And I'll say it again - if Toupee Fiasco had been born to a father that wasn't wealthy, and wasn't useful for laundering money, he'd have been butchered and deposited in several dumpsters by some crime family back in the 1970s.

Or possibly several trash bags at the bottom of a river. Foundation of a building - you get the idea.

I haven't watched live, so I assume the news is a mix of outrage, scoffing at Moscow Mitch, and Chuck Todd saying stupid things. And the right wing outrage channels are celebrating, if they haven't returned to their anger at people who aren't white yet.

Long term, I'm waiting to see Schumer show some spine, and hopefully for the so-called moderate dems to possibly wake up and realize "Oh, wait, we really can't compromise with these lunatics".

So...those of y'all who keep talking about your family and friends who voted for the obvious criminal white supremacist who did everything wrong in response to a global pandemic - I'm still wondering what you're planning to do about these creeps. Just something for you to consider, it's not really the subject at hand.

Oh, and a golf clap for the seven senate republicans who managed to walk over a buried gas line without blowing up five houses in the process.
 
McConnell is trying to save the GOP all the while trying to bury Trump. He knew he didn't have the votes to convict. But he also desperately wants to eliminate the influence of Trump.
I don't believe he knew that. I believe he could have persuaded enough Senators to reach that magic number of 17.

My money is on McConnell believing it would have been bad for him to move to split the party at the moment. And he needs all those Senators to keep their jobs in order to enable McConnell.
 
About Mitch McConnell saying Trump can be criminally prosecuted..

I can't help but think...

Is that what he wants?

I mean, the evidence that he's guilty is overwhelming.

And from the looks of things, the DAs moving to try him in court are overrepresented by people who aren't white men. So they get the rape and death threats, and Moscow Mitch will continue his important work of quietly advancing the desires of wealthy sociopaths and harming black and LGBT people in particular, but everyone else in general.
 
I wouldn't.
The police and prosecution in OJ made the mistake of thinking it was just like every other case, and that the evidence against him was so overwhelming that it could just be business as usual--sloppy handling of evidence, shoddy investigation etc. It didn't occur to them that a top notch defense could play to all the jury biases, and they made ridiculously stupid mistakes (like the glove fiasco) Any reasonable person would have looked past all the smoke and mirrors and seen it for the reasonably clear case that it was. The defense's case in OJ pretty much amounted to the videos that supposedly showed voter fraud in this election--easy to believe if you are so inclined and no one debunks it for you.

I think OJ is guilty. I also think that the person who took the physical evidence home with him before it was officially logged saying on tape that he manufactured physical evidence against innocent black people because he wanted them to go to prison makes all of that physical evidence unreliable. And without the physical evidence there's a reasonable doubt.
 
Donald Trump thanked Senate Republicans – most of them – for his impeachment acquittal on Saturday, and proclaimed that the political movement he began with his 2016 election has "only just begun."

"We have so much work ahead of us, and soon we will emerge with a vision for a bright, radiant, and limitless American future," Trump said in a written statement issued shortly after the Senate impeachment verdict.

While thanking GOP allies, Trump – who is considering another presidential run – attacked Democrats by saying "it is a sad commentary on our times that one political party in America is given a free pass to denigrate the rule of law."

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...trump-thanks-senate-gop-acquittal/4476249001/

Well, as everyone knows Conservatives are the victims in all of this don't you know.

I mean come on, forcing them to treat Blacks as equals who have the same rights as them, can eat in the same restaurants, go to the same schools, swim in the same pools, and get equal treatment under the law is being racist against whites!

Refusing to allow them to use the state to force their version of religion onto everyone else is a violation of their 1st Amendment Rights and Religious Freedom.

Allowing transgendered people to use the bathroom of their aligned gender so that it is safer for them and so that anyone can just walk into the other genders' bathrooms and wander about naked, peering over the stalls, and generally attacking women and children.

Letting Gays and Lesbians out of the closet allowing them to spread their agenda and turn innocent children and Republicans gay.

Allowing same-sex marriage so as to denigrate and make all other forms of marriage worthless, meaning that heterosexuals will no longer have the sanctity of marriage all to themselves.

Allowing a doctor and a woman to determine if pregnancy may be hazardous to her physical, or mental health, in the same way as any other medical decision, which is totally a form of murder most foul and the akin and shooting newborns (which of cause also happens, probably so the Democrats can eat them.)

By saying that people who show that they are a danger to society should not have access to weaponry, and noting that no one actually needs a 100 round magazine filled with Steel-Jacketed 5.56×45mm and a military-styled AE-15 rifle for home defence in an apartment complex in the middle of Wichita is an attack on their 2nd Amendment Rights which is wanting to take all their guns away.

By the not allowing them to instigate Voter IDs which allows only IDs that whites predominantly hold, all while disallowing any ID that blacks predominantly hold. Thus allowing some claimed massive voter fraud by illegals, which they have never been able to show, but never-the-less is totally disenfranchising them and their voting rights.

By allowing refugees into the country to escape the violence and horrors of their home countries (often such horrors and violence that were caused by US policies in the first place) is totally an attack on them personally and the flooding of their country with dangerous people that might move in next door and lower their house prices by their mere presence.

By trying to stop the Earth's climate from warming to the point where some parts of the world will become uninhabitable deserts, are washed away under the encroaching oceans, or where current food bowl will become desolate dust bowls because it is all a hoax designed to take away all their jobs and to destroy their businesses and reduce them to a third world standard of living.

By forcing them to wear a mask during a pandemic to prevent a fake virus (aren't all viruses fake, I'm sure I saw that in YouTube, or perhaps OAN) in an attempt to harm them by reducing their Oxygen levels and increasing their Carbon Dioxide levels all in an attempt to stop them from being able to talk and take away their freedoms.

And most of all, by cancelling them but having private companies ban them and thus violate their First Amendment Right to spout off all the above stuff in the most hateful way possible, all while violating the platform's terms of service. I mean, they are white Conservatives, that means that they are above simply things that other lesser mortals have to do, like following the law and the ToS of internet platforms.

I tell you, it's the war on Christmas, trying to cancel all Conservatives and it's treating them worse than the Nazi's did to the Jews.

The only way to stop having their privileges been stripped and being forced to live with the same level of Rights as all of those inferior minorities, is to fight like hell and storm the Capital building while shouting about how it's a revolution and that they have come to hang the vice-president and anyone else that opposes the President's attempted coup.

Because you know, they are the victims in all of this.
 
I don't believe he knew that. I believe he could have persuaded enough Senators to reach that magic number of 17.

My money is on McConnell believing it would have been bad for him to move to split the party at the moment. And he needs all those Senators to keep their jobs in order to enable McConnell.
I entirely agree. If Mitch had had the guts to do the right thing and to explain himself (not that the explanation would be any different, really from what the Democrats came up with), and to say it's for the long term good of the party, I think plenty of Senators would have been emboldened and gone along with it. He should be ashamed, but I don't expect he will.
 
About Mitch McConnell saying Trump can be criminally prosecuted..

I can't help but think...

Is that what he wants?

I mean, the evidence that he's guilty is overwhelming.

And in some ways, I agree that this wasn't constitutional. Impeachment is about removal from office.

The problem is that the Americans have made their presidents immune from prosecution, a power only reserved, and only in theory, to monarchs in Europe. If a politician breaks the law in Europe, and there are many examples of that, it's a legal and judicial matter, not a political one.

So... Is an aquittal here actually for the best? If Trump had been found guilty, could it have been said that he had been punished enough? And now, found not guilty by the legislative branch, is it time to give the judicial branch a go?

I think McConell would love to see Trump destroyed, but does not want to be the one to do it.
 
Last edited:
And in some ways, I agree that this wasn't constitutional. Impeachment is about removal from office.

This just simply isn't true, and the House managers did a really good job in explaining why.

Impeachment is based on English Common law, and under that, it could only occur after a person had left office. The Founders knew that and so added the ability to remove a person from office to the Constitution.

Impeachment is primarily about protecting the systems of Government from someone that is apt to abuse them by stopping them from having the ability to hold future office. This is why the level to find guilt is 2/3, but the ability to ban from office after that is just a simple majority.

It has been used before on both the Federal and State levels where people have been Impeached after having either resigned or having been kicked out of their position. In fact, in those cases, one had both Impeachment and the Senate Trial after the person left office and in another, the Impeachment happened, and then the person was actually removed before the Senate Trial even occurred.

As such, there was and is nothing Unconstitutional about either Impeaching or having the Senate Trial after a person has left office.
 
Last edited:
McConnell is trying to save the GOP all the while trying to bury Trump. He knew he didn't have the votes to convict. But he also desperately wants to eliminate the influence of Trump.

Exaclty, He is trying to get rid of Trump while not offending the Trump base. Good luck with that.
 
Yes, I know there is precedence. It still doesn't make any sense.

We're only in this position because the Americans decided their head of the executive branch needs the powers and protections of the kings of Europe of old.

Americans need to sit down and study the theory of seperation of power, and not elevate their president to godhood. They should be civillians like the rest of us, and if they break the law, they should be prosecuted just like any other citizen.

There are plenty of examples of heads of state and heads of the executive branch in Europe being put behind bars. And they have been indicted and prosecuted by a neutral judicial branch.

If the Americans had done the same, instead of giving their president such great powers and immunity to the law, we wouldn't be in this farce.

ETA: To me it would be completely unthinkable and unimaginable if Parliament were the ones to decide if a Prime Minister had broken the law or now. That would just be insane!

Remember Trump was Impeached before he left office. The trial occurred after he left office. (One of the reason's for it being Republican obstruction.) The simple fact someone is no longer in office doesn't change that at all. It would be weird if the trial didn't go ahead simply because X was no longer in office.

And of course it is easy to find cases of individuals being Impeached and then tried after they have left office. So frankly there is no problem with it and certainly no Court in the USA has ever ruled that Impeachment and Trial after leaving office is unconstitutional. Frankly I just don't see the it being much of an issue.

And you do realize that Impeachment originated in England, in the Parliamentary system. In fact the first Impeachments were done by the so-called "Good" Parliament of 1376 in my understanding.

So yeah I suspect a British Prime Minister could be Impeached.
 
McConnell wants it both ways: Trump's guilty but he's not. What the hell?
The Turtle's speech was to Trump, not the public.

He basically said "I got your sorrow son-of-a-bitch POS ass off the hook on a technicality when we all know you are guilty as ****. So your sorrow son-of-a-bitch POS ass now belongs to ME! So shut the **** up, find another ******* career, never run for politics again, and get back in your ******* hole where you belong. Or there will be criminal prosecutions which I can't stop."

But politely, in a Southern accent.
 
Last edited:
This just simply isn't true, and the House managers did a really good job in explaining why.

Impeachment is based on English Common law, and under that, it could only occur after a person had left office. The Founders knew that and so added the ability to remove a person from office to the Constitution.

Impeachment is primarily about protecting the systems of Government from someone that is apt to abuse them by stopping them from having the ability to hold future office. This is why the level to find guilt is 2/3, but the ability to ban from office after that is just a simple majority.

It has been used before on both the Federal and State levels where people have been Impeached after having either resigned or having been kicked out of their position. In fact, in those cases, one had both Impeachment and the Senate Trial after the person left office and in another, the Impeachment happened, and then the person was actually removed before the Senate Trial even occurred.

As such, there was and is nothing Unconstitutional about either Impeaching or having the Senate Trial after a person has left office.

Impeachment is NOT a criminal proceeding. I think at least two of the Presendential Impeahcments have been for offenses that would not have been punishble under Criminal law but still might have been an abuse of power.
 
The Turtle's speech was to Trump, not the public.

He basically said "I got your sorrow son-of-a-bitch POS ass off the hook on a technicality when we all know you are guilty as ****. So your sorrow son-of-a-bitch POS ass now belongs to ME! So shut the **** up, find another ******* career, never run for politics again, and get back in your ******* hole where you belong. Or there will be criminal prosecutions which I can't stop."

But politely, in a Southern accent.

That wasn't a speech to Trump. That was a speech excusing his own sorry ass for what he knew was a wrong vote.

He wants to be able to sleep with himself.
 
Remember Trump was Impeached before he left office. The trial occurred after he left office. (One of the reason's for it being Republican obstruction.) The simple fact someone is no longer in office doesn't change that at all. It would be weird if the trial didn't go ahead simply because X was no longer in office.

And of course it is easy to find cases of individuals being Impeached and then tried after they have left office. So frankly there is no problem with it and certainly no Court in the USA has ever ruled that Impeachment and Trial after leaving office is unconstitutional. Frankly I just don't see the it being much of an issue.

And you do realize that Impeachment originated in England, in the Parliamentary system. In fact the first Impeachments were done by the so-called "Good" Parliament of 1376 in my understanding.

So yeah I suspect a British Prime Minister could be Impeached.

Thing is there are other ways for a PM in the UK to re removed from office. A vote of No COnfidence by his own party members for instance.
We have nothing like that in the US , Impeachment is the noly way to forcibly remove a President from office. And as I previously stated, a President can be impeached for anoffence which not a violation of Criminal law. Inj fact, i think that the second Trump Impeachment is the only one that went to trial where the offense was one that was clearly also a violation of criminal law.
 
So yeah I suspect a British Prime Minister could be Impeached.

Of course a British Prime Minister can be impeached. As can a Norwegian one, and every other elected politician in Norway.

But they can also be arrested by the police, charged with crimes and prosecuted.

My point is, so what if Trump had been impeached? What consequences would it have? A black mark in his book? He couldn't run for president again? Oh no, how terrible.

You Americans have a seriously terrible sense of justice, if that is the fate you want on someone who did what Trump did.

In any civilized country, with proper seperation of power and an independent judicial branch, he would have been behind bars. European heads of the executive branch have gone to prison for far less than what Trump did.
 
Last edited:
That wasn't a speech to Trump. That was a speech excusing his own sorry ass for what he knew was a wrong vote.

He wants to be able to sleep with himself.
And that means owning Trump's pasty orange ass so Trump does no more damage to Turtle's political and financial ambitions. Turtle wants to retire as stinking rich as he can. He's already made a couple of hundred millions while being in the senate. And he doesn't want any mobster huckster like Trump ruining his game of fortune-hunting. So this is Turtle telling Trump his time is done and to GTFO or he will release the DOJ on him. Does that make Turtle a "good guy" after all? Nope, it's just a power-play between rival gangsters.

People here wonder where McConnell's sense of shame went in all this. Prior history shows he has absolutely no shame whatever. Not an iota, not a skerrick. He is as grifting and self-obsessed with his own advancement as Trump is, just MUCH better at it.
 
Of course a British Prime Minister can be impeached. As can a Norwegian one, and every other elected politician in Norway.

But they can also be arrested by the police, charged with crimes and prosecuted.

My point is, so what if Trump had been impeached? What consequences would it have? A black mark in his book? He couldn't run for president again? Oh no, how terrible.

You Americans have a seriously terrible sense of justice, if that is the fate you want on someone who did what Trump did.

In any civilized country, with proper seperation of power and an independent judicial branch, he would have been behind bars. European heads of the executive branch have gone to prison for far less than what Trump did.

No-one has ever determined if the President can be arrested and charged. The closest is that there was a memo that expressed the opinion that a sitting president could not be charged. Nothing says that an ex-president can't be held criminally liable for what he did while in office.
 
Yes, I know there is precedence. It still doesn't make any sense.
Nope and it was clearly explained why.

We're only in this position because the Americans decided their head of the executive branch needs the powers and protections of the kings of Europe of old.
Nope. It was because they thought the checks and balances would hold and maybe they still will. We'll have to see come 2022.

Americans need to sit down and study the theory of seperation of power, and not elevate their president to godhood. They should be civillians like the rest of us, and if they break the law, they should be prosecuted just like any other citizen.

There are plenty of examples of heads of state and heads of the executive branch in Europe being put behind bars. And they have been indicted and prosecuted by a neutral judicial branch.

If the Americans had done the same, instead of giving their president such great powers and immunity to the law, we wouldn't be in this farce.
I think you are failing to notice the role social media played in enabling a mentally ill POTUS to get elected and to pull that stunt on his way out.

But guess what, cult following or not, he was voted out of office by millions of votes despite that.

ETA: To me it would be completely unthinkable and unimaginable if Parliament were the ones to decide if a Prime Minister had broken the law or now. That would just be insane!
You don't seem to grasp that this was the political part. A criminal trial comes next, hopefully. And it is there where we will see how many more of these GOP coconspirators will tone their crap down.


There are two things going forward, one, we need to get rid of gerrymandering and the EC if we want to keep our democracy. That is what allowed this situation to develop much more so than Presidential powers.

And two, we absolutely need to address the social media rabbit holes. I'm pretty sure all those parliamentary systems of government are not a guaranteed match against the cult following social media allowed to develop.

It was almost a perfect storm: A cult leader, social media, and the press that failed to do their job (the same way they failed when they let Bush sell his war) to keep that nonsense in check. In fact, the press fueled the frenzy because it was good for business.

I don't think for a minute the framework of our government was the biggest player here. If Trump hadn't had so many followers among the legislators in Congress this would not have happened. Trump would have been impeached the first time. And, maybe we need a close look at the POTUS owning the DoJ. That is a serious problem because Presidents are too tempted to use the DoJ as their personal enforcement department.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom