• 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

Dave Rogers said:
Good point. There are a few single-celled organisms at the bottom of the Mariana Trench that may not know all they need to about the facts of the case. Until they've completed their investigation it would be premature to act.

Dave
Click to expand...

How do you know what all the necessary facts would even be?
 
BobTheCoward said:
I guess we are going to skip the evidence gathering step?
Click to expand...

What's there to gather? There are recordings of Trump's speeches. There are his tweets. If one is somewhat informed there is plenty of evidence available. I'm sure we can trust the House to present it in a coherent and convincing fashion.
 
acbytesla said:
What's there to gather? There are recordings of Trump's speeches. There are his tweets. If one is somewhat informed there is plenty of evidence available. I'm sure we can trust the House to present it in a coherent and convincing fashion.
Click to expand...

The implication is his words contributed to the attack. Where is the evidence that actually supports that conclusion? How does one demonstrate that?

I have no doubt that your gut and common knowledge tells you that is true. But how would we know are guts are correct?


I don't know what separates your conclusion at this stage from any other unsubstantiated conclusion of causation in the paranormal sub forum.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
The implication is his words contributed to the attack. Where is the evidence that actually supports that conclusion? How does one demonstrate that?

I have no doubt that your gut and common knowledge tells you that is true. But how would we know are guts are correct?


I don't know what separates your conclusion at this stage from any other unsubstantiated conclusion of causation in the paranormal sub forum.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to address your post. I find it absurd. There is overwhelming evidence that Trump invited the protesters to come to Washington DC on January 6th and that he incited that mob.

If you don't know this by now, you are ignorant. Or you're just being the Mad Hatter trying to get others to follow you down another one of your ridiculous rabbit holes.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The implication is his words contributed to the attack. Where is the evidence that actually supports that conclusion? How does one demonstrate that?

I have no doubt that your gut and common knowledge tells you that is true. But how would we know are guts are correct?


I don't know what separates your conclusion at this stage from any other unsubstantiated conclusion of causation in the paranormal sub forum.
Click to expand...

:D

Good one.
 
turingtest said:
If they drop it, that's a win for Trump and his faithful base- "you didn't even have enough of the courage of your conviction that he deserved impeachment to pursue it!" To them, he's a victim either way, just that not pursuing it makes him a victim of people who couldn't follow through. You have to take into account the mindless tenacity of that base- I remember thinking at the time that the "Access Hollywood" tape would surely be enough to finish him as a candidate, and we know how that turned out- if anything, it made him a stronger one with the proud deplorables. These people aren't going away because you let Trump off.

I have kind of gone back and forth on this in my mind, thinking that it might not be such a good idea from the "practical politics" standpoint, pretty much for the reasons you point out. But in the end- well, Kaylee used the word "duty" above; practical politics is fine up until the point that you need to make a decision on something that it doesn't cover, the actual principles that politics is supposed to cover somewhere, or it really is just all a game.

And then, of course, there's still even a practical reason for pursuing it- if you clear that 2/3 Senate majority bar for conviction (a big "if," I admit), then you have only a lesser simple majority bar to get over to prevent Trump from running again, and us having to do this all over again, in four years. Admitted that that won't stop a Trump wannabe from taking his place in the hearts and votes of the deplorables- but that's no reason to make it easier for them by never even requiring them to find one. It's too dangerous a game to play to assume that, with them behind him, Trump can't reach the prize again unless you act to put it out of his reach.

Short version- you can have principled politics in action through practical politics, and the only reason not to try for both is fearful politics.
Click to expand...

And this is why you are one of the most intelligent posters on ISF.:thumbsup:
 
Meadmaker said:
A thought occurred to me about something better than impeachment.

Democrats should introduce a constitutional amendment shortening the lame duck period. Move inauguration day to December 15, or thereabouts, and the newly elected Congress up until the day before. It would have no practical effect on Trump, because it couldn't be passed in time, but it would be a serious, public, rebuke, and it's a good idea anyway.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. A president committing seditious acts and who has other goverment leaders concerned that he might start a war at anytime just because he is peeved that he lost the election needs to be removed from office, ASAP. He should also be charged with criminal acts to make it less likely that another president will try to do the same in the future and perhaps have better luck because right now the only thing Americans have going for us is that Trump is incompetent.

I have no firsthand experience of course, but I have to assume that the learning curve and settling in process for an incoming president, even one with years of experience in Congress and as a vice president is steep. ~8 weeks seems like a decent amount of time to give the new administration time to settle in and get briefed by the various federal govt agencies. Trump has done more than enough damage - to decide to make the transition process more difficult for future administrations because of him .... I'm not in favor of that.
 
you know a lot of people are going to be pissed if they do nothing also. may as well side with who’s right.
 
slyjoe said:
Exactly.

Impeach him - the senate won't even take it up until right around the inauguration. In the meantime, the crazies are planning crap for the week of the inauguration. Let the senate put him on trial after he's out of office. Whether they convict or not (2/3 of senate would have to vote to convict), it only takes a majority to prevent him from holding federal office.
Click to expand...

I don't think the highlighted is correct. According to Wikipedia:
Conviction immediately removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring him or her from holding future federal office, elected or appointed.
Click to expand...
Their source for that is this Sept 2109 Politico article by Edward Foley, who "directs the Election Law program at the Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, where he also holds the Ebersold Chair in constitutional law." He says:
Both the Constitution and the Senate’s procedures treat removal and disqualification from holding future office as separate punishments upon a conviction of impeachment. Article I, section 3, clause 7 of the Constitution states: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”
Click to expand...
So it seems that disqualification must follow conviction, it can't be independent of it. (And I'll just re-iterate my point that that disqualification would be, to me, the best reason for pursuing it)
 
Interesting thought: Some observers say the House could impeach Trump, but not refer it to the Senate immediately. That would allow the Democratic-controlled Senate to deal with Biden's highest priority legislation and appointments, and would also allow time for Repubs to get some distance from Dear Leader. Then down the road the Senate could convict him to cancel his pension and allowances and to prohibit him from running again.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
The implication is his words contributed to the attack. Where is the evidence that actually supports that conclusion? How does one demonstrate that?
...
Click to expand...

He and others told his mob on the Ellipse, essentially, "Go to the Capitol and fight!" Gee, what do you think he meant?
 
BobTheCoward said:
The implication is his words contributed to the attack. Where is the evidence that actually supports that conclusion? How does one demonstrate that?
Click to expand...
Even if someone is foolish enough to think that his actions didn't contribute to the terrorist action (or that they would have happened otherwise)...

The fact that he acted at all (and that he supported others who were calling for violence) should be enough for impeachment, because it indicates he had the intent to overturn a legal election.

Its the same with the phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State... the SoS rejected Trump's request to overturn the election results, but the fact that Trump wanted him to (even threatening him) would be enough to warrant impeachment.
 
There's also his surrogate, Rudy, talking about a "trial by combat."

What did Trump say? Do it strong? Do it strongly? We won't win by weakness? I'll be marching with you?

Don't know if that's enough, but hell, Charles Manson didn't kill anyone at Sharon Tate's house, but he was still convicted.
 
Trump just announced if he is impeached a second time, Rudy Giuliane will be his attonrey.
Now I really hope it happens just for the entertainment value.
 
Bob001 said:
Interesting thought: Some observers say the House could impeach Trump, but not refer it to the Senate immediately. That would allow the Democratic-controlled Senate to deal with Biden's highest priority legislation and appointments, and would also allow time for Repubs to get some distance from Dear Leader. Then down the road the Senate could convict him to cancel his pension and allowances and to prohibit him from running again.
Click to expand...

No. Absolutely not.

That was the problem last time, the Democrats tried to sell the Impeachment both as some sort of moral imperative, "We are bound by our office to do this, he's left us no choice" action AND some sly political Moneyball poker hand at the same time.

Hammer it through. Do not play games with it. Treat it like the response to the crisis that it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom