Split Thread A second impeachment

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes I do think it would have mattered, his lawyers were completely outclassed and unprepared. Their opening remarks flipped one Senator alone.

Maybe they'd want to hear from Mark Meadows and Raffensperger on the GA call? Want to see Trump's phone records from Jan 6? Who else did he call that we don't know about? What did Trump and Pence talk about after the riot? Was the pentagon told to deliberately scale down the national guard presence and response? On who's orders?

They could have asked this stuff and figured out what happened.

Do you honestly think those GOP Senators weren't convinced Trump was guilty?

As for who ordered what, you won't find Trump's fingerprints on any smoking gun. That's going to come out with the investigation. Trump's like a mob boss that keeps his orders one step removed.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yes I do think it would have mattered, his lawyers were completely outclassed and unprepared. Their opening remarks flipped one Senator alone.

As another poster asked... do you really think that any republican senator would have changed their vote based on the evidence?

If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

Seriously, they could have a video recording of Trump talking to Putin about how he hoped more police officers would have been killed in is plans to install a dictatorship, and the majority of republican senators would still vote to acquit.

Maybe they'd want to hear from Mark Meadows and Raffensperger on the GA call?

Recordings of the call have already been made public. I doubt any senator was unaware of their contents.

Want to see Trump's phone records from Jan 6? Who else did he call that we don't know about?

Senators already had enough information to convict Trump on the facts. While that sort of information should be revealed, it would not have been required to illustrate Trump was guilty. We already had more than enough evidence of that.

What did Trump and Pence talk about after the riot? Was the pentagon told to deliberately scale down the national guard presence and response? On who's orders?

They could have asked this stuff and figured out what happened.

All that stuff should be revealed. And the proper forum to do that is a full inquiry (either by the senators themselves, or by something like the Mueller report). A proper accounting of events will probably take months... more time than is practical during an impeachment trial. (And not only that, such a long, drawn-out trial would likely make the proceedings lose its impact with the voting public.)

 

[PhantomWolf]

fine, the charges weren't even in the same league and Clinton was popular, Trump was unpopular and used the office of the president to try and kill people.

And both times we had Republicans that, except for a handful, were more interested in toeing the party line and keeping their jobs than in determining if the President's actions were a threat to the office. That is why out of 55, 50 Republicans voted to find Clinton guilty, and why 43 of 50 voted to acquit Trump. Clinton was popular among Democrats and unpopular with Republicans. Likewise, Trump was unpopular with Democrats, but extremely popular still among Republicans. See how that works? Republican Senators vote with whether their base liked the President or not, not were what he did was impeachable or not. Because it's all about keeping their jobs. If you think that anything was going to change it more than it did, you are seriously living in a land of delusion.

I mean, if you think they did a good job that's cool. They had the power to do a proper impeachment this time and didn't really do anything with it. If they were just going to give a couple of speeches and show a video and not really try and change anyone's mind they could have censured him.

Ahh, bless your heart, you really believe that the sniveling cowards that are Republican Senators would really change their minds and get themselves primaried by the rabid Trumpers and nonsensical QAnons just because more people got up and said "He did it!" How special, and naive. The craven Republicans know what Trump did, even the suck-ups like Senator "Perhaps my father was involved in the Kennedy assassination" Cruz, and Senator "Let me help with that Insurrection" Hawley know that Trump's guilt is so far beyond a reasonable doubt that it can almost see Russia from its doorstep.

They don't care that he's guilty, all they care about is appeasing the mob that is Trumpers and QAnon and so not losing their jobs next primary season. No amount of witness testimony will change that. Heck, they were there, they were the targets of the mob. Trump set that mob on them, and they don't care because it's not politically convenient to care. And if you aren't willing to understand this, then you are deluding yourself, so stop blaming that delusion on the Democrats.

 

[dirtywick]

This wasn't about Trump's guilt or innocence for the GOP. That was obvious with their fixation on the "constitutionality" excuse. It was about finding an excuse to NOT find him guilty. You are living in La La Land if you think ANTHING the House Managers could have brought in would have changed ten more GOP votes.

Bill Cassidy changed his vote after the opening remarks.

You guys are ignoring that, but I'm in La La Land, I'm special, I'm naive, I'll buy a bridge? They never would have flipped their votes? One of them did.

Whatever, you guys are out of line.

 

[Pacal]

Bill Cassidy changed his vote after the opening remarks.

You guys are ignoring that, but I'm in La La Land, I'm special, I'm naive, I'll buy a bridge? They never would have flipped their votes? One of them did.

Whatever, you guys are out of line.

The chances of convicting Trump were minimal because of the lack of backbone by most Republicans. Remember Mitch afterwards said Trump was guilty but it was unconstitutional to hold an Impeachment Trial with Trump no longer in office. Which is A) pathetic and B) false and easily demonstrated to be so. And of course Mitch was the main reason the trial was held after Trump was in office. Of course Mitch damn well knows the actual law but was looking for and setting up an excuse to not convict Trump. In this he was joined by it appears most of the Republican Senators. The absolutely disgusting boot licking behavior of Graham is of course remarkable in it shows that a man without a spine can walk.

Was it impossible to convince enough Republican Senators? Of course not. Utterly improbable events do happen like being struck by a meteor or winning the lottery twice!!

Getting enough Republicans to join in convicting Trump was on the same order of very low probability to winning the lottery twice etc! It was and remains obvious to me that the great majority of Republican Senators like Mitch and Graham would have seized virtually any excuse to acquit just like how Mitch did. And the fact that previously 45 Republican Senators tried to stop the trial on the grounds it was unconstitutional, a completely bogus and easily shown to be so excuse, shows just how much Republican Senators have become beholden to the GOP - now Trump's party.

In the end it appears two Republicans minds seemed to have changed, (Personal integrity at last!), but getting anymore? a desperate uphill struggle against submission to the Orange one and perceived political self interest.

So yeah I think you are a bit naive about the whole thing.

 

[Meadmaker]

Those reactionaries aren't declaring war just against Democrats who might think it's worthwhile trying to meet them halfway, they're declaring war against members of their own party who won't toe their line (Politico via MSN):

The "big tent" GOP doesn't even have room in their own party for diversity of opinion; just more evidence that the folks who mouth "unity!" at anyone outside of it isn't talking about unity at all, they're demanding nothing less than unconditional surrender.

These "censure" votes are really scary to me. Ok maybe that's an exaggeration, but they definitely make me nervous. Is there precedent for this sort of thing? I've never heard of it. I know that they are just symbolic votes, but the idea of taking a formal vote to criticize an elected representative for voting the wrong way just gives me the creeps. It just has a huge authoritarian vibe to it, more than just voting someone out of a primary would have.

 

[alfaniner]

These "censure" votes are really scary to me. Ok maybe that's an exaggeration, but they definitely make me nervous. Is there precedent for this sort of thing? I've never heard of it. I know that they are just symbolic votes, but the idea of taking a formal vote to criticize an elected representative for voting the wrong way just gives me the creeps. It just has a huge authoritarian vibe to it, more than just voting someone out of a primary would have.

Both the censure and the impeachment dams have been broken. While they were rarely invoked before, now it's going to be happening all the time, for the slightest (and even nonexistent) offenses.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Bill Cassidy changed his vote after the opening remarks.

You guys are ignoring that, but I'm in La La Land, I'm special, I'm naive, I'll buy a bridge? They never would have flipped their votes? One of them did.

Whatever, you guys are out of line.

Whoopteedo, one guy from a swing state changed his vote.

 

[Stacyhs]

Bill Cassidy changed his vote after the opening remarks.

You guys are ignoring that, but I'm in La La Land, I'm special, I'm naive, I'll buy a bridge? They never would have flipped their votes? One of them did.

Whatever, you guys are out of line.

ONE. Let's repeat that: ONE. Out of 44. So, yes. You're in La La Land, naive, and don't let a bridge salesman anywhere near you unless you want to be the proud owner of one.

 

[Vixen]

Imagine if Officer Sicknick texted his brother, after the Jan 6 riot:

"I got pepper sprayed a couple times, but I'm in good shape."



https://www.nationalreview.com/2021...Nw0EfF8HeOoJ-lHvdwsvXAV3x_dyAYNyFiE4eOhH-6s_E

It has been known for concussed individuals to not realise how serious their condition is straightaway.

 

[dirtywick]

ONE. Let's repeat that: ONE. Out of 44. So, yes. You're in La La Land, naive, and don't let a bridge salesman anywhere near you unless you want to be the proud owner of one.

But I thought R were never going to change their minds? Now it’s big deal one did? Maybe with some proper investigation and evidence it could have been more. There’s evidence it’s possible because it happened right in front of you. Who can say, they didn’t try.

like I said earlier I don’t mind if anyone thinks they did a good job with the impeachment. no need to be a jerk about it


Skeptic Ginger, Bill Cassidy is a senator from LA. Is that a swing state

 

[dirtywick]

The chances of convicting Trump were minimal because of the lack of backbone by most Republicans. Remember Mitch afterwards said Trump was guilty but it was unconstitutional to hold an Impeachment Trial with Trump no longer in office. Which is A) pathetic and B) false and easily demonstrated to be so. And of course Mitch was the main reason the trial was held after Trump was in office. Of course Mitch damn well knows the actual law but was looking for and setting up an excuse to not convict Trump. In this he was joined by it appears most of the Republican Senators. The absolutely disgusting boot licking behavior of Graham is of course remarkable in it shows that a man without a spine can walk.

Was it impossible to convince enough Republican Senators? Of course not. Utterly improbable events do happen like being struck by a meteor or winning the lottery twice!!

Getting enough Republicans to join in convicting Trump was on the same order of very low probability to winning the lottery twice etc! It was and remains obvious to me that the great majority of Republican Senators like Mitch and Graham would have seized virtually any excuse to acquit just like how Mitch did. And the fact that previously 45 Republican Senators tried to stop the trial on the grounds it was unconstitutional, a completely bogus and easily shown to be so excuse, shows just how much Republican Senators have become beholden to the GOP - now Trump's party.

In the end it appears two Republicans minds seemed to have changed, (Personal integrity at last!), but getting anymore? a desperate uphill struggle against submission to the Orange one and perceived political self interest.

So yeah I think you are a bit naive about the whole thing.

Maybe. Perhaps several more would have changed in the face of greater evidence and public pressure. Would have been nice to find out.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Skeptic Ginger, Bill Cassidy is a senator from LA. Is that a swing state

Believe it or not, yes when it comes to Senators.

Wiki

They've had almost all Democratic Senators from 1876 until 2005. Cassidy's immediate predecessor was a Democrat, Mary Landrieu.

 

[acbytesla]

It has been known for concussed individuals to not realise how serious their condition is straightaway.

I got knocked out cold playing football in high school. After they gave me smelling salts to wake me up I begged to get back on the field. Thank God science that the coaches wouldn't let me. Later after the game I began to vomit and passed out again.

I was in the ICU for 3 days.

 

[Segnosaur]

But I thought R were never going to change their minds? Now it’s big deal one did? Maybe with some proper investigation and evidence it could have been more. There’s evidence it’s possible because it happened right in front of you. Who can say, they didn’t try.

First of all, that's one senator... it took 4 days of trial to convince him to vote to convict. At that rate it would take another month and a half to convince the other 10 or so republicans.

It should also be pointed out that while other posters were wrong about Cassidy being from a swing state, he himself used to be a democrat. (I am sure his current allegiences are to the GOP, but it does mean he might not be as "hard core" as long-term repubilcans.) And he also regularly voted against Trump in congress. (he did not support overturning the votes in Arizona/Penn, he voted to restrict Trump from taking military action in Iran without congressional approval, and voted to keep troops in Afghanistan/Syria.) So Cassidy voting against Trump is not THAT surprising.

Lastly... keep in mind that he did not technically "switch" his vote... the 2 votes were for different things... was the impeachment constitutional, and was Trump guilty. Yes, most senators would have probably considered them close to "the same", but if someone had some integrity in accepting the results of the first vote, its possible that the second vote will go from a no to a yes.

 

[Segnosaur]

Maybe. Perhaps several more would have changed in the face of greater evidence and public pressure. Would have been nice to find out.

Yes, because the American public NEVER loses interest in anything, regardless of how long it goes on.

(sarcasm intended)

 

[Segnosaur]

And, the republican infighting has begun...

From: CBC (Canuck broadcasting corporation)
Former U.S. president Donald Trump lashed out at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday, signalling a growing feud between the two most important voices in the Republican Party. "Mitch is a dour, sullen and unsmiling political hack, and if Republican Senators are going to stay with him, they will not win again," Trump said in a statement released through his political action committee amid the fallout over his second impeachment trial.

So despite the fact that Moscow Mitch provided cover for Trump over 4 years, and voted not to impeach him (twice), Trump attacked him. Hopefully re-enforcing the lesson to all of Trump's boot-lickers... any "loyalty" from trump only works when you are completely subservient.

 

[Stacyhs]

But I thought R were never going to change their minds? Now it’s big deal one did? Maybe with some proper investigation and evidence it could have been more. There’s evidence it’s possible because it happened right in front of you. Who can say, they didn’t try.

like I said earlier I don’t mind if anyone thinks they did a good job with the impeachment. no need to be a jerk about it
Skeptic Ginger, Bill Cassidy is a senator from LA. Is that a swing state

No, YOU are making it a big deal that ONE did.

I agree, no need to be a jerk about it. So stop digging the hole any deeper. It's been obvious from the beginning that this impeachment, just like the first one, was going nowhere because the current GOP is the PARTY OF TRUMP and as long as the GOP senators are up his ass, it will continue to be.

 

[Minoosh]

And, the republican infighting has begun...

From: CBC (Canuck broadcasting corporation)
Former U.S. president Donald Trump lashed out at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday, signalling a growing feud between the two most important voices in the Republican Party. "Mitch is a dour, sullen and unsmiling political hack, and if Republican Senators are going to stay with him, they will not win again," Trump said in a statement released through his political action committee amid the fallout over his second impeachment trial.

Trump didn't write that! It's rewarding seeing his words muffled by his own PAC.

His original statement would have closer to "Mitch is a LOSER and anyone pathetic enough to support him will be a LOSER in 2022. Sad!"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump didn't write that! It's rewarding seeing his words muffled by his own PAC.

His original statement would have closer to "Mitch is a LOSER and anyone pathetic enough to support him will be a LOSER in 2022. Sad!"

No kidding. Have we ever seen Trump use the words dour and sullen? It's laughable.