• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Impeachment II thread

Lindsey "Windsock" Graham said:
"I don’t want to eat our own.”
Click to expand...

Your own WHAT? You've been lapping up Trump's shit for so long that you can't account for that taste in your mouth.
 
Claire McCaskill on Twitter: "Trump’s statement today called McConnell a “dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack” and arguing that the party would suffer losses in the future if he remained in charge.

No way Trump used the word “dour”." / Twitter

Or "sullen". "Unsmiling" is a borderline case.

GOP Senators Who Voted To Convict Face Home State Backlash | Morning Joe | MSNBC - YouTube

NC Reps unanimously censured Sen. Richard Burr - He responded "It is truly a sad a day for North Carolina Republicans. My party's leadership has chosen loyalty to one man over the core principles of the Republican Party and the founders of our great nation."

PA Reps are considering censuring Sen. Pat Toomey, and some county Reps have done so.

NE Reps are considering censuring Sen. Ben Sasse, and some county Reps have done so.

ME Reps are considering censuring Sen. Susan Collins.

LA Reps censured Sen. Bill Cassidy.

Some Utah Republicans sign petition to censure Romney over impeach vote - Deseret News

Local Alaska Republicans censure Sen. Lisa Murkowski, citing impeachment vote and other issues - Anchorage Daily News - "Republican officials in at least five Alaska state House districts have approved resolutions censuring U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, and many of those officials said they believe the state party also will consider a resolution denouncing her."
 
KeepTalking said:
Trausti said:
ZiprHead said:
View attachment 31932
Click to expand...

Allegedly inciting a crowd is not conspiracy. The Complaint says there was a "unified plan" but gives no facts to support that. There is no factual allegation whatsoever in the Complaint that Trump or his Campaign knowingly or intentionally agreed with others to break into the Capital building and stop the vote counting. You kinda need that if you charge - as the congress member does - a conspiracy by Trump and others to stop Congress from counting the electoral votes.
Click to expand...

LOL at Trausti hanging his hat on the complaint not having the words "intent" or "knowingly" in it to show that it is nearly as incompetent as Trump's lawyers, then when ZiprHead posts part of the complaint with that says "The insurrection at the Capital was a direct, intended, and foreseeable result of the Defendents' unlawful conspiracy." He retreats to a position that the complaint contains no facts to support it, despite the fact that it has already been explained to Trausti, who I believe at least claims to be a lawyer, that complaints don't generally include the evidence to be presented at the trial, and his subsequent admission that complaints only need to allege facts, which this one does in spades.

Where will you move those goalposts to next, Trausti?
Click to expand...

Well, Trausti can spell correctly. So he's got that on Trump's lawyers.
 
Patooka said:
ideologyhunter said:
They own Trump, and they now own January 6.
Click to expand...

No they don't. They rewrote Iraq in 2008. They rewrote McCain in 2012. They are currently rewriting Romney. Believe me, in 4-8 years, the narrative will be "Trump wasn't a true Republican, he was deep state trying to destroy the party from the inside."

And it will be said by Republicans even crazier and more fascistic than Trump without any irony or self awareness whatsoever.
Click to expand...

but how are they going to do that with any electoral success unless they detach a few million of Trump's supporters/cultists from his (un)holy body? And how is the Republican party going to do that ?
 
jab said:
Patooka said:
ideologyhunter said:
They own Trump, and they now own January 6.
Click to expand...

No they don't. They rewrote Iraq in 2008. They rewrote McCain in 2012. They are currently rewriting Romney. Believe me, in 4-8 years, the narrative will be "Trump wasn't a true Republican, he was deep state trying to destroy the party from the inside."

And it will be said by Republicans even crazier and more fascistic than Trump without any irony or self awareness whatsoever.
Click to expand...

but how are they going to do that with any electoral success unless they detach a few million of Trump's supporters/cultists from his (un)holy body? And how is the Republican party going to do that ?
Click to expand...

Easily. You're talking about a base that is totally fine with chanting, "stop the count" in one state and, "count the votes" in another. Trump supporters won't be detached. They'll be rebranded. And then get really offended when you point out their cognitive dissonance.
 
Yall hilarious. You know the Republicans will do all of the above right?
 
Trausti said:
ZiprHead said:
View attachment 31932
Click to expand...

Allegedly inciting a crowd is not conspiracy. The Complaint says there was a "unified plan" but gives no facts to support that. There is no factual allegation whatsoever in the Complaint that Trump or his Campaign knowingly or intentionally agreed with others to break into the Capital building and stop the vote counting. You kinda need that if you charge - as the congress member does - a conspiracy by Trump and others to stop Congress from counting the electoral votes.
Click to expand...

You complained about the lack of "intent" or "knowingly". Word #9 of his screenshot is "intended"--that sounds suspiciously like "intent" to me.
 
This is why they need to do another impeachment, they muffed up the second one by not calling witnesses. They need to do it again so they can call all the witnesses, and get a trial that can last enough months so that even die-hard Trump supporters can be convinced.

We can also have House hearings where they ask "Are you now or were you ever a Trump supporter?"

This is also in the news House Democrats introduce bill to bar 'twice impeached' former presidents from burial at Arlington National Cemetery

It doesn't go far enough. They should introduce a bill to repeal every law Trump signed, and another bill to revoke all appointments Trump made. Then once that bill is passed, another one to force those appointed by Trump to return their pay for the time they were in office.
 
This is why they need to do another impeachment, they muffed up the second one by not calling witnesses.
Click to expand...

Another one? A third impeachment?
Why do you think it would produce more justice than the first two? Trump has been impeached twice, but the political weinies like McConnell and Cruz just refuse to vote. They both agree that Trump is a criminal, but they don't want to vote to convict a criminal because Trump has more power than the Republican leadership does.

How about this. State legal systems start holding private citizen Trump accountable for his criminal activities? From Georgia to New York, Trump has a lot of explaining to do. Becoming "Florida Man" doesn't mean he can evade justice.

Why don't patriots, who want to Make America Great Again, demand that their leaders do the right thing? Like, "Go explain your behavior under oath." That would be the right thing, wouldn't it? Why don't people who call themselves patriots demand basic honesty from their own leaders?

I'm pretty sure I know why. Trump supporters know that Biden and Obama and Clinton, etc. are more honest and patriotic than McConnell and Trump and Cruz, etc. So they don't believe in process or justice or foundational institutions. Because justice and patriotism and the American way are now the purview of the Democrats.

Also fiscal sanity. But that's another thread.

Tom
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
If we have a third impeachment, we can this time call witnesses. That was the big problem with impeachment two. It was way too hurried.
Click to expand...
It’s unlikely they would ever have been able to get the witnesses who actually had the most pertinent information.

Remember, they’re still litigating McGahn’s subpoena from the last time.
 
Shadowy Man said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
If we have a third impeachment, we can this time call witnesses. That was the big problem with impeachment two. It was way too hurried.
Click to expand...
It’s unlikely they would ever have been able to get the witnesses who actually had the most pertinent information.

Remember, they’re still litigating McGahn’s subpoena from the last time.
Click to expand...

If the subpoena those individuals identified in the Capitol Protest, they can interview them one by one until they find one willing to say that Trump urged them to do it.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Shadowy Man said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
If we have a third impeachment, we can this time call witnesses. That was the big problem with impeachment two. It was way too hurried.
Click to expand...
It’s unlikely they would ever have been able to get the witnesses who actually had the most pertinent information.

Remember, they’re still litigating McGahn’s subpoena from the last time.
Click to expand...

If the subpoena those individuals identified in the Capitol Protest, they can interview them one by one until they find one willing to say that Trump urged them to do it.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t prove anything. They’re already saying that, practically.

Trump gets out of those by falling back on his weasely language. He knows how not to say incriminating words.

What you need is someone like Giuliani spewing what he knows or Trump himself with a “you can’t handle the truth” moment. Barring those I don’t see how Trump ever gets convicted criminally (I.e., unanimous jury).
 
With enough of them saying that under oath, perhaps a majority of Senators might actually vote to convict. But it will take a considerable amount of pressure, where that many witnesses becomes too much of a burden to ignore.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
With enough of them saying that under oath, perhaps a majority of Senators might actually vote to convict. But it will take a considerable amount of pressure, where that many witnesses becomes too much of a burden to ignore.
Click to expand...

Senators like Cruz who will leave town in the middle of a disaster in his own state then lie about all the reasons he’s going, throwing his own children under the bus? Those kinds of Senators? Senators like Ron Johnson who is implying that Pelosi is somehow involved in the insurrection to cover up some unknown crimes he thinks she’s done? Like Mitch who says his hands are tied by a procedural move that he himself decided to do? I think you have far too much faith in the senators ability to use logic and reason for good purposes than I do.
 
They pre-empted any witness impact, though, by claiming the whole effort was unconstitutional. Then, no matter how damnjng tge evidence, they would just say, doesn't natter. Like when courts jettison cases becsuse 'no standing.' May be you're in the right, but cannot go forward, to bad, shit outta luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom