Impeach!
-
The thing is, there was never a chance to remove Trump from office before the inauguration. Never. And very slim chance that the impeachment would remove the chance that he could take Federal Office again. It was purely political theater. Throwing red meat to both mobs. And here is the biggest problem and issue. Trump looked the fool last week. He looked like the weak and petulant little man that I personally believe he is. He still would have had his nugget of support but he was a vastly diminished presence after the riot. Now, thanks to this stupidity, he's being given more power. He's regaining support. Trump was defeated, but then the Democrats said "You know what we need? More Trump!" And they are doing everything they can to get more Trump! And they are too stupid to see it.
@lufins-dad said in Impeach!:
The thing is, there was never a chance to remove Trump from office before the inauguration. Never. And very slim chance that the impeachment would remove the chance that he could take Federal Office again. It was purely political theater. Throwing red meat to both mobs. And here is the biggest problem and issue. Trump looked the fool last week. He looked like the weak and petulant little man that I personally believe he is. He still would have had his nugget of support but he was a vastly diminished presence after the riot. Now, thanks to this stupidity, he's being given more power. He's regaining support. Trump was defeated, but then the Democrats said "You know what we need? More Trump!" And they are doing everything they can to get more Trump! And they are too stupid to see it.
Agree. I think it was (is?) incumbent upon the dems who now are in charge to slow down the velocity of madness rather than feed it. Were the Republicans in the same position, an argument can be made that they too would have done the impeachment - but that isn't an argument for doing the same thing. This past year has seen a lot of manufactured madness. It is worth spending some time to better understand the devils of our nature.
Sadly, I think Biden is not our best choice to achieve that. Looking back at recent Presidents, GWB might have had the right demeaner to pull it off. Actually, almost any of the past few Presidents (excepting the current one) would be better at pulling it off.
-
@george-k George - the articles of impeachment make a sort of "doing X could foreseeably be seen to leading to Y" sort of argument.
The "X" is falsely claiming that the election was stolen. The "Y" is political violence.
I supposed you could argue that they need proof that this is false - but given that Trump had multiple court cases on this you could argue that it's false by default until proven true.
If you read the articles of impeachment (they're short), that's the basic claim.
-
And today, we learn from the FBI that this riot was planned in advance of Trump's speech.
But that doesn't matter because Orange Man Bad.I think that makes it much worse for Orange Man. Why rile up angry people (who you made angry), further?
Unless he was given no heads up by national security folks that he may be making people violently angry (though it doesn't take a genius to figure that out). His false claims on the election is what made people foreseeably angry.
And as I've said before, you don't even need there to be any violence for the action of sending a crowd to the capitol pressure the VP and congressmen to overturn electoral college votes to be deeply unconstitutional.
EDIT: the only reason I can think of why no one cared about Trump's election stealing non-sense before this, is because everything is a nothingburger with Trump and his words don't matter. We've been conditioned to ignore everything he says and only judge him on outcomes. No one expected any sort of real outcome on this.
-
And today, we learn from the FBI that this riot was planned in advance of Trump's speech.
But that doesn't matter because Orange Man Bad.I think that makes it much worse for Orange Man. Why rile up angry people (who you made angry), further?
Unless he was given no heads up by national security folks that he may be making people violently angry (though it doesn't take a genius to figure that out). His false claims on the election is what made people foreseeably angry.
And as I've said before, you don't even need there to be any violence for the action of sending a crowd to the capitol pressure the VP and congressmen to overturn electoral college votes to be deeply unconstitutional.
EDIT: the only reason I can think of why no one cared about Trump's election stealing non-sense before this, is because everything is a nothingburger with Trump and his words don't matter. We've been conditioned to ignore everything he says and only judge him on outcomes. No one expected any sort of real outcome on this.
@xenon I'm being very picky here about the articles of impeachment which you suggested I read.
Both counts, the speech on the 6th, and the call to Rafensperger on the 2nd occurred after we know that the riot was being planned.
I get it, he said a lot of things that people could consider "incitement," but those are not mentioned in the impeachment, and therefore, moot. The articles specify two things. The planning of the riot antedated those two things.
-
@xenon I'm being very picky here about the articles of impeachment which you suggested I read.
Both counts, the speech on the 6th, and the call to Rafensperger on the 2nd occurred after we know that the riot was being planned.
I get it, he said a lot of things that people could consider "incitement," but those are not mentioned in the impeachment, and therefore, moot. The articles specify two things. The planning of the riot antedated those two things.
@xenon I'm being very picky here about the articles of impeachment which you suggested I read.
Both counts, the speech on the 6th, and the call to Rafensperger on the 2nd occurred after we know that the riot was being planned.
I get it, he said a lot of things that people could consider "incitement," but those are not mentioned in the impeachment, and therefore, moot. The articles specify two things. The planning of the riot antedated those two things.
In the preamble to your screenshots are the words:
In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. There, he reiterated false claims that "we won this election, and we won it by a landslide."
So - the argument for impeachment does begin with bringing up the false statements on the election.
And on Jan 6. they use the term "reiterated". Meaning continuing a previous pattern.
-
Both counts, the speech on the 6th, and the call to Rafensperger on the 2nd occurred after we know that the riot was being planned.
I get it, he said a lot of things that people could consider "incitement," but those are not mentioned in the impeachment, and therefore, moot. The articles specify two things. The planning of the riot antedated those two things.We knew while the attack was going on that this wasn't in direct response to the President's speech. People don't bring weapons, sledge hammers, ladders, Molotov cocktails and miscellaneous assault gear to a Presidential speech just in case he/she plans to call on them to attack the Capitol. I don't have a problem with them asking Pence to consider invoking the 25th amendment, but if I were Pelosi, I'd keep the powder dry on impeachment and wait until a reasonable investigation can be made. Were there really congress critters aiding the planning and assault of the Capitol? Were the President or staff aware of the plans? Was information withheld? This requires a thoughtful investigation - not a second mob action.
-
@xenon I'm being very picky here about the articles of impeachment which you suggested I read.
Both counts, the speech on the 6th, and the call to Rafensperger on the 2nd occurred after we know that the riot was being planned.
I get it, he said a lot of things that people could consider "incitement," but those are not mentioned in the impeachment, and therefore, moot. The articles specify two things. The planning of the riot antedated those two things.
In the preamble to your screenshots are the words:
In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. There, he reiterated false claims that "we won this election, and we won it by a landslide."
So - the argument for impeachment does begin with bringing up the false statements on the election.
And on Jan 6. they use the term "reiterated". Meaning continuing a previous pattern.
@xenon I'm being very picky here about the articles of impeachment which you suggested I read.
Both counts, the speech on the 6th, and the call to Rafensperger on the 2nd occurred after we know that the riot was being planned.
I get it, he said a lot of things that people could consider "incitement," but those are not mentioned in the impeachment, and therefore, moot. The articles specify two things. The planning of the riot antedated those two things.
In the preamble to your screenshots are the words:
In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. There, he reiterated false claims that "we won this election, and we won it by a landslide."
So - the argument for impeachment does begin with bringing up the false statements on the election.
And on Jan 6. they use the term "reiterated". Meaning continuing a previous pattern.
Then it would be incumbent on them to at least demonstrate the falseness of his claims. This is the biggest miss of the whole thing. There are reasonable questions regarding the whole process. There have also been reasonable answers to those questions. The problem is that those reasonable answers have not gotten much air time even in the mainstream media and "Conservative" media has been outright ignoring it. If I wasn't on this forum, I would have missed much of it. They should have demonstrated the falseness of his claims one by one. They didn't and now the legend grows...
-
@lufins-dad said in Impeach!:
Then it would be incumbent on them to at least demonstrate the falseness of his claims. This is the biggest miss of the whole thing. There are reasonable questions regarding the whole process. There have also been reasonable answers to those questions. The problem is that those reasonable answers have not gotten much air time even in the mainstream media and "Conservative" media has been outright ignoring it. If I wasn't on this forum, I would have missed much of it. They should have demonstrated the falseness of his claims one by one. They didn't and now the legend grows...
Yes, good post. Worth reading again. Thanks LuFins Dad!
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rand-paul-warns-senate-conviction-will-destroy-gop
Rand Paul: One-third of Republicans will leave party if GOP senators go along with convicting Trump
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rand-paul-warns-senate-conviction-will-destroy-gop
Rand Paul: One-third of Republicans will leave party if GOP senators go along with convicting Trump
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rand-paul-warns-senate-conviction-will-destroy-gop
Rand Paul: One-third of Republicans will leave party if GOP senators go along with convicting Trump
Increasingly I think any appetite for impeachment trial will diminish unless Trump says something to encourage such in the near future.
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rand-paul-warns-senate-conviction-will-destroy-gop
Rand Paul: One-third of Republicans will leave party if GOP senators go along with convicting Trump
-
That may not be a bad thing. The remaining part of the Republic party can merge with the more central part of the Democrat party and form an actual central party. Leave the extremes on both sides to fight each other.
-
That may not be a bad thing. The remaining part of the Republic party can merge with the more central part of the Democrat party and form an actual central party. Leave the extremes on both sides to fight each other.
@taiwan_girl said in Impeach!:
That may not be a bad thing. The remaining part of the Republic party can merge with the more central part of the Democrat party and form an actual central party. Leave the extremes on both sides to fight each other.
LOL, there’s a helluva lot more than just 4-sides here. You have a fringe on each side willing to be violent, you have a fringe on each side willing to be cooperative, and then you have a much bigger middle on each side not willing to be violent, but also not willing to compromise. And both of those big middles are shifting towards the more dangerous extremes.
