Impeach!

[Copper]

This isn't Hitler.

And he condemned the violence immediately when it happened.

Many people seem to have worked themselves into such a frenzy they think he actually asked the mob to do what they did.

He didn't.

In fact he condemned it.

[George K]

@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:

@george-k said in Impeach!:

Again, other than the symbolism, what's the point?

They went easy on Hitler after his attempt to flip the government and look what happened.

And Trump is no longer president in 7 days. Who's going easy on him?

I really don't see your point. Are you suggesting that he will take the presidency in the future?

And you went full Godwin. Never go full Godwin.

[Doctor Phibes]

@copper said in Impeach!:

This isn't Hitler.

Hitler actually took part in the march, rather than telling the rabble he was going to do so, and then fucking off home to watch it on TV.

[Doctor Phibes]

Incidentally, they didn't go easy on Hitler. They put him in jail.

[Jolly]

@jon-nyc said in Impeach!:

@loki said in Impeach!:

5% is now being pumped all over the media as historic bipartisanship. Explain that to me please. Seriously.

Sure. None of the other impeachments got a single vote from the President’s party.

Political cover. See Cheney.

[Aqua Letifer]

@george-k said in Impeach!:

And Trump is no longer president in 7 days. Who's going easy on him?

You seem to be suggesting it? Do you believe he truly did nothing wrong?

I really don't see your point. Are you suggesting that he will take the presidency in the future?

This is what the process is, this is how you determine the legality of his actions. I think that's what needs to happen.

And you went full Godwin. Never go full Godwin.

I didn't. Somewhere between Congress hiding in bunkers, pipe bombs, a Capitol invasion and the National Guard being called to sleep at the Capitol until the inauguration, we're already in Godwin territory.

The best way to ensure that eventually we repeat the mistakes of the late 30s is tell ourselves it can never happen again, and laugh when any comparison is made.

[George K]

@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:

This is what the process is, this is how you determine the legality of his actions. I think that's what needs to happen.

What process? Please tell us about what evidence was presented, what direct and cross examination occurred. This is an indictment, not a conviction. as Jon points out. If you're going to go into legality, rather than politics, well, that's a much higher bar.

[Doctor Phibes]

@george-k said in Impeach!:

I'm glad that the (2nd) greatest deliberative body in the world took two hours to discuss this!

The Chinese Communist Party were probably too busy.

[Aqua Letifer]

@george-k said in Impeach!:

What process?

Impeachment, then the hearings. Literally what you're seeing on TV today. You're saying they didn't follow procedure? Where? What step did they skip?

[Mik]

So.. they need 2/3, do they not? What happens if they fail...again?

[Horace]

I would like to queue up two impeachments for Biden and Harris.

[xenon]

@mik said in Impeach!:

So.. they need 2/3, do they not? What happens if they fail...again?

There's not enough time to do a trial in one week. Constitutionally it can't spill over outside of this term.

The senate is only allowed to remove an "incumbent President"

[jon-nyc]

@xenon said in Impeach!:

Constitutionally it can't spill over outside of this term.

Good luck finding that in the constitution. The current plan is to take up the trial in about three months.

[Aqua Letifer]

@mik said in Impeach!:

So.. they need 2/3, do they not? What happens if they fail...again?

I'd be okay with it. And I think with him gone, most others would accept that, too.

[jon-nyc]

I think, in practice, whether there's a trial or not will depend on what comes out of the FBI/DOJ investigation.

[Loki]

@jon-nyc said in Impeach!:

@xenon said in Impeach!:

Constitutionally it can't spill over outside of this term.

Good luck finding that in the constitution. The current plan is to take up the trial in about three months.

And then there would be a constitutional issue. No one knows if you can do that to an ex-President. That could take another 100 days. And there you have it folks Trump dominating a Biden Presidemcy. Sound like people rather fight than govern.

[xenon]

@jon-nyc I think you're right. I thought it was more cut and dried than it is. But it's still a murky constitutional question.

[kluurs]

Maybe I'm the only person who has spoken with and had dinner with actual mobsters. They rarely admit anything. There's a lingo. "We had a 'conversation' with him." "I ran an auto parts business." "A couple of friends of mine had a 'talk' with him and then he changed his mind."

No question that Trump conveys what he wants - but is careful in the words he used.

[jon-nyc]

@loki said in Impeach!:

And then there would be a constitutional issue. No one knows if you can do that to an ex-President. That could take another 100 days. And there you have it folks Trump dominating a Biden Presidemcy. Sound like people rather fight than govern.

Well, the Senate can just do it. Trump could go to court to try to invalidate it but its not like he can stop them.

But I think in practice Biden will make the call whether he wants to deal with the distraction. And that will really depend on what they find in the investigation. I suspect he won't opt for the distraction if it's going to result in another acquittal. Which means most likely, no trial. Again IMO.

[George K]

@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:

What step did they skip?

Examining evidence.