Split Thread A second impeachment

[Thermal]

Congress makes it official: “Hey, Executive Branch, it’s okay to raise up an army against us, kill us if you like, if you don’t get your way!

“Thumbs up! High 5!”



ETA: semi ninja’d by Thermal.

*Thermal glances up from stapling dead possum to baseball cap*

 

[turingtest]

That speech by McConnell makes me even angrier with him. He knows Trump was guilty and yet he votes to acquit on a flimsy and transparent excuse for purely self-serving political reasons. It just reaffirms what a snake he is.

Even though the outcome was almost assured, McConnell's disingenuousness pisses me off almost more than anything else that has happened.

McConnell's ideas of what the Senate can and cannot do seem oddly fluid. In 2016, when Obama, with almost a year left in his term, exercised his Constitutional right and duty to nominate a SC justice, McConnell decided that the right and duty of the Senate to "advise and consent" included the right to simply block; and he had the votes to back him up. Now, when the Senate itself decides by majority vote that they do indeed have the Constitutional right to complete the already-begun impeachment of a President for what he did in office even after his term is over, McConnell unilaterally decides to vote on the basis that, no, by gosh, the Senate doesn't have that right at all.

It seems the powers of the Senate are defined only by what the GOP's convenience will allow them to be.

 

[Thermal]

War is a last resort, but if that is the price we must pay for democracy, so be it
As my sig shows, I am not a big f an of pure pacifism.

I hear you. And im not a fan of Americans cheering the killing of other Americans over a partisan posturing. This was a dog and pony show. It need not end in more death and we really don't need to go there just yet.

 

[dudalb]

I hear you. And im not a fan of Americans cheering the killing of other Americans over a partisan posturing. This was a dog and pony show. It need not end in more death and we really don't need to go there just yet.

I agree, but I think to be prepared won't hurt.
But it is surprising how many liberals are not as anti gun as they used to be...

 

[dudalb]

McConnell's ideas of what the Senate can and cannot do seem oddly fluid. In 2016, when Obama, with almost a year left in his term, exercised his Constitutional right and duty to nominate a SC justice, McConnell decided that the right and duty of the Senate to "advise and consent" included the right to simply block; and he had the votes to back him up. Now, when the Senate itself decides by majority vote that they do indeed have the Constitutional right to complete the already-begun impeachment of a President for what he did in office even after his term is over, McConnell unilaterally decides to vote on the basis that, no, by gosh, the Senate doesn't have that right at all.

It seems the powers of the Senate are defined only by what the GOP's convenience will allow them to be.

Hell, it not even about Party over Country anymore;it's amount Personal Ambition over the long term good of the Party.
Whay McConell is betting on is that TRump has been politically neutralized and that his cult will fade out in the GOP, and if he and the others can let this happen and not look as if they were responsible they can sccop up the Trump supporters. This is avery dangerous miscalculations.
People said Hitler was washed up after the Beer Hall Putsch.....

 

[dudalb]

Even Conservative commentators are ridiculing McConell's trying to have it both ways.

 

[Mumbles]

WTF? McConnell now -- after the vote -- sounds like he's supporting conviction. He says Trump is morally and practically responsible for the attack on the Capitol.

"We tried to tell y'all" - ancient African-American proverb.

 

[stanfr]

That speech by McConnell makes me even angrier with him. He knows Trump was guilty and yet he votes to acquit on a flimsy and transparent excuse for purely self-serving political reasons. It just reaffirms what a snake he is.

Yep, Mitch is the epitome of how corrupt the GOP has become. On the flip side, Burr's vote shows a glimmer of hope for rationality.

Actually, the 57-43 tally is quite impressive, remarkable that it was as bipartisan as it was. To get to 67 would have required T to rip the heart from a baby in a live broadcast, and the eat it while proclaiming his allegiance to Satan. Even that might not have been enough...Mitch still would have said it was unconstitutional to convict.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Worked for O.J. Simpson.

I have to say that I always thought that I'd have voted to convict if I were on the jury. Then I watched the American Crime Story about the trial and I thought that, if it's an accurate depiction of the evidence presented, then I'd have thought that he likely did it, but I'd have voted not guilty.

There are several reasons why, but the biggest one for me is that the physical evidence wasn't taken straight to the police station, but was instead held overnight by an officer at his house. An officer that the court later played a secret recording of saying that he regularly manufactured physical evidence in order to convict innocent black people because he was racist.

I'd call that a reasonable doubt, wouldn't you?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...

Well the good news is Donald Trump is no longer President and if you are reading this you have more Twitter followers than him.

 

[Vixen]

Trump has lost his mouthpiece. He sent a written statement around and ABC at least, only read the beginning of it. Without his megaphone, can he even get more than a few thousand to come to a rally?

He tried to get Zuckerburg to let him back on FB, not happening yet.

It takes social media to rev that crowd back up and I believe right now they have no wind in their sails.

Not saying the situation can't change, just saying right now I don't feel any give-us-back-Trump movement brewing. He's a loser.

I caught this, but there was some more, too, about his plans for the future. Still lying.

 

[Vixen]

...

A non-zero sum.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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/

 

[Ryokan]

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?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

"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."

I mean, you can't say he's wrong about that.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Impeachment is about removal from office.

It isn't several judges have been impeached and convicted after no longer being in office.

 

[Ryokan]

It isn't several judges have been impeached and convicted after no longer being in office.

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!

 

[stanfr]

I have to say that I always thought that I'd have voted to convict if I were on the jury. Then I watched the American Crime Story about the trial and I thought that, if it's an accurate depiction of the evidence presented, then I'd have thought that he likely did it, but I'd have voted not guilty.

There are several reasons why, but the biggest one for me is that the physical evidence wasn't taken straight to the police station, but was instead held overnight by an officer at his house. An officer that the court later played a secret recording of saying that he regularly manufactured physical evidence in order to convict innocent black people because he was racist.

I'd call that a reasonable doubt, wouldn't you?

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.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

That would appear to be McConnell pretending it wasn't a bad thing he just let an insurrectionist off the hook.