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.
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 23:49 last edited by@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.
-
I'm glad that the (2nd) greatest deliberative body in the world took two hours to discuss this!
ETA: I'm not saying it was, or was not, justified. However, the rushed push for impeachment, with no discussion, no evidence, etc reeks of nothing but partisanship and hatred.
What, other than preventing the unlikely possibility of him holding federal office again (and, c'mon, how likely was that?) what is the point of this exercise other than being a demonstration of a temper tantrum?
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 23:50 last edited by -
@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.
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 23:52 last edited by -
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 23:54 last edited by
So.. they need 2/3, do they not? What happens if they fail...again?
-
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 23:56 last edited by
I would like to queue up two impeachments for Biden and Harris.
-
wrote on 13 Jan 2021, 23:57 last edited by xenon
-
wrote on 14 Jan 2021, 00:02 last edited by
-
wrote on 14 Jan 2021, 00:03 last edited by jon-nyc
I think, in practice, whether there's a trial or not will depend on what comes out of the FBI/DOJ investigation.
-
wrote on 14 Jan 2021, 00:06 last edited by
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.
-
-
wrote on 14 Jan 2021, 00:11 last edited by
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.
-
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.
wrote on 14 Jan 2021, 00:13 last edited by jon-nycAnd 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.
-
wrote on 14 Jan 2021, 00:20 last edited by
-
wrote on 14 Jan 2021, 00:22 last edited by
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
What step did they skip?
Examining evidence.
So you're telling me they didn't examine evidence, or are you saying that you don't like the way they did?
-
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
What step did they skip?
Examining evidence.
So you're telling me they didn't examine evidence, or are you saying that you don't like the way they did?
wrote on 14 Jan 2021, 00:24 last edited by@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
they didn't examine evidence
Exactly. The rush to judgment was so frenzied that they didn't wait for the actual facts to be brought to evidence.
He was impeached early this afternoon.
Sperry tweeted this an hour ago.
-
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.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
they didn't examine evidence
Exactly. The rush to judgment was so frenzied that they didn't wait for the actual facts to be brought to evidence.
He was impeached early this afternoon.
Sperry tweeted this an hour ago.
wrote on 14 Jan 2021, 00:29 last edited by -
wrote on 14 Jan 2021, 00:34 last edited by
-
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.
wrote on 14 Jan 2021, 00:34 last edited byMaybe 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.
I have not dealt with Chicago or NY guys, but I have with those in a couple other cities and 1% er bikers. Explicit language is not their way. Can’t say I had dinner with them