Impeachment II thread

[jab]

So when do you think they’ll get the trial started? Next week? Or Next month?

Predictions on the final vote? I’m going to guess 92-8 to convict and bar from office. Hawley, cotton, Cruz, two fascist fucks from Mississippi, Tuberville, and I’m sure he’ll find two others whom I’m not sure of yet.

Everybody else in the Republican Party will see this as the opportunity to be rid of Trump once and for all.

I think Mitch was smart to delay and the Democrats should support it, because the more time that goes by the more information about how bad Trump was behind closed doors might see the light of day and the more distance some of the Senators will have from him. They won't have to convict an active President of their own party. The only hope that Trump has is the idea that you can't convict a President no longer in office and he gets off on a technicality.

Mitch delayed so the Dems were in charge of the Senate, not the GOP, so he can say 'it was out of his hands'. Granted, he could have put it to an immediate vote and vote against conviction too.

Regardless, McConnell fears Trump less than Trump's base. And the base is insane and will obfuscate any reality into their warped mindset.

But with Harris' resignation, which party is in control of the American Senate? Does the California Governor have the same leeway as the Georgia Governor, to Loeffler the vacant sear?

 

[Angry Floof]

Mitch delayed so the Dems were in charge of the Senate, not the GOP, so he can say 'it was out of his hands'. Granted, he could have put it to an immediate vote and vote against conviction too.

Regardless, McConnell fears Trump less than Trump's base. And the base is insane and will obfuscate any reality into their warped mindset.

But with Harris' resignation, which party is in control of the American Senate? Does the California Governor have the same leeway as the Georgia Governor, to Loeffler the vacant sear?

It's 50/50. but the VP has the tiebreaker vote and she's a Democrat, so Democrat control but only by a thread until a seat flips one way or another.

 

[blastula]

But with Harris' resignation, which party is in control of the American Senate? Does the California Governor have the same leeway as the Georgia Governor, to Loeffler the vacant sear?

Newsom already appointed Alex Padilla as replacement. He and Warnock and Ossoff are being sworn in today.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Padilla should be getting sworn in by VP Harris today as well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So when do you think they’ll get the trial started? Next week? Or Next month?

Predictions on the final vote? I’m going to guess 92-8 to convict and bar from office. Hawley, cotton, Cruz, two fascist fucks from Mississippi, Tuberville, and I’m sure he’ll find two others whom I’m not sure of yet.

Everybody else in the Republican Party will see this as the opportunity to be rid of Trump once and for all.

I think Mitch was smart to delay and the Democrats should support it, because the more time that goes by the more information about how bad Trump was behind closed doors might see the light of day and the more distance some of the Senators will have from him. They won't have to convict an active President of their own party. The only hope that Trump has is the idea that you can't convict a President no longer in office and he gets off on a technicality.

To my knowledge delaying a trial more often works in favor of the defendant. I'm not sure why, however. A delay of only a month seems inconsequential.

More time for something to happen to a witness or the like.

 

[Shadowy Man]

To my knowledge delaying a trial more often works in favor of the defendant. I'm not sure why, however. A delay of only a month seems inconsequential.

More time for something to happen to a witness or the like.

But in this case it is a political trial not a criminal one. More time will allow more witnesses to feel able to speak up I would think. With the defendant out of power.

 

[DrZoidberg]

To my knowledge delaying a trial more often works in favor of the defendant. I'm not sure why, however. A delay of only a month seems inconsequential.

More time for something to happen to a witness or the like.

But in this case it is a political trial not a criminal one. More time will allow more witnesses to feel able to speak up I would think. With the defendant out of power.

What I don't understand is the motivation to impeach him? Isn't the whole point of an impeachment to get a president out of power? If he's already out of the White House then what's the point of it?

 

[Elixir]

But in this case it is a political trial not a criminal one. More time will allow more witnesses to feel able to speak up I would think. With the defendant out of power.

What I don't understand is the motivation to impeach him? Isn't the whole point of an impeachment to get a president out of power? If he's already out of the White House then what's the point of it?

No, that is NOT "the whole point".
Additional points include preventing him from getting back into power and taking away the millions upon millions worth of undeserved "perks".

 

[crazyfingers]

But in this case it is a political trial not a criminal one. More time will allow more witnesses to feel able to speak up I would think. With the defendant out of power.

What I don't understand is the motivation to impeach him? Isn't the whole point of an impeachment to get a president out of power? If he's already out of the White House then what's the point of it?

He abused his power though 4 years, purposely weakened democracy and weakened and abused our institutions of democracy and government and finally fomented a failed coup which I regard as treason. There needs to be a stake in the sand that such behavior is not acceptable. He appears to have committed crimes while in office and needs to be held accountable for them.

 

[Jarhyn]

But in this case it is a political trial not a criminal one. More time will allow more witnesses to feel able to speak up I would think. With the defendant out of power.

What I don't understand is the motivation to impeach him? Isn't the whole point of an impeachment to get a president out of power? If he's already out of the White House then what's the point of it?

No, that is NOT "the whole point".
Additional points include preventing him from getting back into power and taking away the millions upon millions worth of undeserved "perks".

Impeachment is like a toilet. It's where shit presidents ought end up. But sometimes the shit squeaks out late and ends up in society's pants.

Thing is, you are still gonna want to put that turd in the toilet, even if you already put it in your pants, because that's still the appropriate mechanism for disposal. It's not like you are really justified in shaking your turd out a plant leg.

No, you can't unshit your pants, but you can at least deal with most of the aftermath and prevent a stinky room or trash can.

Similarly, with presidential turds, we can't just leave the turd out on the open floor. We have to put it where it belongs, because if we don't it will just keep stinking up the place.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But in this case it is a political trial not a criminal one. More time will allow more witnesses to feel able to speak up I would think. With the defendant out of power.

What I don't understand is the motivation to impeach him? Isn't the whole point of an impeachment to get a president out of power? If he's already out of the White House then what's the point of it?

No, that is NOT "the whole point".
Additional points include preventing him from getting back into power and taking away the millions upon millions worth of undeserved "perks".

That's a bit petty. He has been the elected president of the nation. Doesn't he deserve some perks just on that basis? And what's wrong with him being eligible for office again? USA is a democracy. If most Americans want him back then he should. Don't you agree?

 

[DrZoidberg]

No, that is NOT "the whole point".
Additional points include preventing him from getting back into power and taking away the millions upon millions worth of undeserved "perks".

Impeachment is like a toilet. It's where shit presidents ought end up. But sometimes the shit squeaks out late and ends up in society's pants.

Thing is, you are still gonna want to put that turd in the toilet, even if you already put it in your pants, because that's still the appropriate mechanism for disposal. It's not like you are really justified in shaking your turd out a plant leg.

No, you can't unshit your pants, but you can at least deal with most of the aftermath and prevent a stinky room or trash can.

Similarly, with presidential turds, we can't just leave the turd out on the open floor. We have to put it where it belongs, because if we don't it will just keep stinking up the place.

I'm sorry to ruin your metaphor, but the Americans have flushed already. The turd is gone. All that is left is a bit of stink. That's not going to go away with an impeachment. The stink will stay.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, that is NOT "the whole point".
Additional points include preventing him from getting back into power and taking away the millions upon millions worth of undeserved "perks".

Impeachment is like a toilet. It's where shit presidents ought end up. But sometimes the shit squeaks out late and ends up in society's pants.

Thing is, you are still gonna want to put that turd in the toilet, even if you already put it in your pants, because that's still the appropriate mechanism for disposal. It's not like you are really justified in shaking your turd out a plant leg.

No, you can't unshit your pants, but you can at least deal with most of the aftermath and prevent a stinky room or trash can.

Similarly, with presidential turds, we can't just leave the turd out on the open floor. We have to put it where it belongs, because if we don't it will just keep stinking up the place.

I'm sorry to ruin your metaphor, but the Americans have flushed already. The turd is gone. All that is left is a bit of stink. That's not going to go away with an impeachment. The stink will stay.

No, the turd is still there. The question is, will we be putting clothespins on our nose and asking "why does the room smell like shit?" Because voting a politician out is not itself an act of making that person not-a-politician. That's what impeachment does: it brands them an exile from politics forever. It's appealing to both Dems and the GOP because it prevents violence AND leverage on the party.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But in this case it is a political trial not a criminal one. More time will allow more witnesses to feel able to speak up I would think. With the defendant out of power.

What I don't understand is the motivation to impeach him? Isn't the whole point of an impeachment to get a president out of power? If he's already out of the White House then what's the point of it?

No, that is NOT "the whole point".
Additional points include preventing him from getting back into power and taking away the millions upon millions worth of undeserved "perks".

Plus, the vote will be important. Exactly who stands by Florida Man because of the (R), and who says "Enough is too much!"
Just the ten saying to impeach was significant.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, that is NOT "the whole point".
Additional points include preventing him from getting back into power and taking away the millions upon millions worth of undeserved "perks".

Plus, the vote will be important. Exactly who stands by Florida Man because of the (R), and who says "Enough is too much!"
Just the ten saying to impeach was significant.

I think the trouble we have at the moment, and this is why McConnell again fucked America, we might not have time to impeach. There is simply too much to do, from the GOP Senate's failure to provide confirmations of ANY of Biden's picks, to dealing with the Pandemic that Trump and the GOP failed to address, to this whole massive Russian hack that needs to be fully uncovered, among other things.

 

[Gun Nut]

No, that is NOT "the whole point".
Additional points include preventing him from getting back into power and taking away the millions upon millions worth of undeserved "perks".

That's a bit petty. He has been the elected president of the nation. Doesn't he deserve some perks just on that basis? And what's wrong with him being eligible for office again? USA is a democracy. If most Americans want him back then he should. Don't you agree?

Most Americans want to pay $0 in federal taxes to support the country's infrastructure. If most American's wish to pay no taxes, then don't you agree they should not?

 

[Gun Nut]

No, that is NOT "the whole point".
Additional points include preventing him from getting back into power and taking away the millions upon millions worth of undeserved "perks".

Impeachment is like a toilet. It's where shit presidents ought end up. But sometimes the shit squeaks out late and ends up in society's pants.

Thing is, you are still gonna want to put that turd in the toilet, even if you already put it in your pants, because that's still the appropriate mechanism for disposal. It's not like you are really justified in shaking your turd out a plant leg.

No, you can't unshit your pants, but you can at least deal with most of the aftermath and prevent a stinky room or trash can.

Similarly, with presidential turds, we can't just leave the turd out on the open floor. We have to put it where it belongs, because if we don't it will just keep stinking up the place.

I'm sorry to ruin your metaphor, but the Americans have flushed already. The turd is gone. All that is left is a bit of stink. That's not going to go away with an impeachment. The stink will stay.

I live in Colorado, but travel to NY from time to time... If I murder someone in NY, get arrested and indicted, then get out of jail on bail before trial, I then should be able to go home to Colorado and not face any penalty in NY, because I left the state, right?

Trump left office, so his crimes in office are just as irrelevant as my NY murder... because I changed jurisdiction. Furthermore, penalizing me for murder wouldn't bring that person back to life... so actually it makes no sense to penalize someone for such a "crime" at all.

OR.. maybe you have an idea why it might make sense to go ahead with penalizing me for my out of state murder... how that wouldn't apply to Trump and his crimes is beyond me. Looking forward to your explanation..

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, that is NOT "the whole point".
Additional points include preventing him from getting back into power and taking away the millions upon millions worth of undeserved "perks".

That's a bit petty.

His crimes against our democracy weren't.

He has been the elected president of the nation. Doesn't he deserve some perks just on that basis?

The US Constitution forbids that, especially with regards to foreign emoluments.

And what's wrong with him being eligible for office again?

Other than committing repeated crimes regarding election fraud (Ukraine, GA phone call, inciting a riot at the Capitol)?

 

[TomC]

No, that is NOT "the whole point".
Additional points include preventing him from getting back into power and taking away the millions upon millions worth of undeserved "perks".

That's a bit petty. He has been the elected president of the nation. Doesn't he deserve some perks just on that basis? And what's wrong with him being eligible for office again? USA is a democracy. If most Americans want him back then he should. Don't you agree?

I disagree with everything in this post.

Starting with the "he was elected" part. I realize that Americans like to talk about democracy. It's easy to think that all of our top officials were elected. But they aren't.

Trump has never won an election in his life. Our system is what it is, but it's not democracy when it comes to the President. Trump lost by nearly three millions in 2016 and over seven millions in 2020. In 2016 he was appointed by the state legislatures who choose the EC delegates. In 2020 he was not.
But he's never been elected.
Ever.
Tom

 

[jab]

No, that is NOT "the whole point".
Additional points include preventing him from getting back into power and taking away the millions upon millions worth of undeserved "perks".

That's a bit petty. He has been the elected president of the nation. Doesn't he deserve some perks just on that basis? And what's wrong with him being eligible for office again? USA is a democracy. If most Americans want him back then he should. Don't you agree?

The American Constitution does not agree.