Impeach!
-
wrote on 9 Jan 2021, 18:30 last edited by
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
Read the 6/6 tweet...
Why are we always focusing on the precedents the group we don't like is setting and frame every bad thing my group is doing as merely reactionary?
You could break with that tradition by expressing your opinion about whether this specific thing is a good idea or not.
-
wrote on 9 Jan 2021, 18:43 last edited by
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
Read the 6/6 tweet...
Why are we always focusing on the precedents the group we don't like is setting and frame every bad thing my group is doing as merely reactionary?
Because the Dems have cheapened impeachment into silly political theater. They have set and are continuing to set precedents that will most certainly hurt the country and possibly, hopefully, bite them in the ass, some time in the future.
You know, go back and read George's Althouse thread. Look at the BLC video I posted, where they clearly show the vast majority of people at the rally did not storm the capitol.
A lot of the shit Jon has been posting and much of what you are seeing on CNN or in the Post is nothing more than driving an agenda. This impeachment talk in Congress is nothing more than driving an agenda. I thought Graham's plea to Biden last night was significant...In short, you better think what is good for the country, before letting your party go down this road again.
The only reason the Dems want to impeach Trump and remove him from office, is they do not want him to try to run again. For whatever reason, they are scared of him.
I The question becomes, "Why?" .
-
Third country exile is always an option. I'm sure there's a willing host out there....somewhere.
-
wrote on 9 Jan 2021, 18:57 last edited by
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
Read the 6/6 tweet...
Why are we always focusing on the precedents the group we don't like is setting and frame every bad thing my group is doing as merely reactionary?
Because it feels good.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 00:22 last edited by George K 1 Nov 2021, 00:26
https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/11021-0
JANUARY 10, 2021 PRESS RELEASE
Dear Democratic Colleague,
On this Sunday, as we pray that God will continue to Bless America, I write to inform you of our next actions, which will be made with the great solemnity that this moment requires.
I want to call to your immediate attention the action to be taken tomorrow morning, when Majority Leader Hoyer will request Unanimous Consent to bring up the Raskin resolution. This resolution calls on the Vice President to convene and mobilize the Cabinet to activate the 25th Amendment to declare the President incapable of executing the duties of his office, after which the Vice President would immediately exercise powers as acting President. The text of the resolution can be found here.
If we do not receive Unanimous Consent, this legislation is planned to be brought up on the Floor the following day. We are calling on the Vice President to respond within 24 hours.
Next, we will proceed with bringing impeachment legislation to the Floor.
In protecting our Constitution and our Democracy, we will act with urgency, because this President represents an imminent threat to both. As the days go by, the horror of the ongoing assault on our democracy perpetrated by this President is intensified and so is the immediate need for action.
I look forward to our Caucus call tomorrow. I am grateful to all Members for the suggestions, observations and input that you have been sending. Your views on the 25th Amendment, 14th Amendment Section 3 and impeachment are valued as we continue. I am answering your communications in chronological order and will do so into the night.
Thank you for your patriotism.
Prayerfully,
Good that Speaker Pelosi is pursuing this, because in 10 days it will be, at least functionally, moot. @jon-nyc points out that it will prevent him from holding federal office again. In my opinion, that's not a serious consideration. In 10 days, Trump, as far as being a force in government, will be irrelevant.
This is grandstanding, again.
And a waste of "The People's House" time.
If it goes to the Senate, even more of a waste of time.
BTW, how much did the last impeachment cost?
I wonder what President-elect "Unite us" Biden thinks.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 00:24 last edited by
Grandstanding.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 00:35 last edited by
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Biden stated on Friday that President Trump “isn’t fit to hold the job” and said that he did not want Trump to attend the inauguration. I have no problem with that statement. Indeed, Trump himself has said far worse about Biden and he has also stated that he does not want to attend the inauguration. I also have no problem with calls for Trump’s resignation or a bipartisan statement of condemnation from Congress. However, critics want to push through an impeachment will little discussion or deliberation on highly dubious constitutional grounds.
When asked, Biden stated;
“I’m focused on the virus, the vaccine, and economic growth. What the Congress decides to do is for them to decide,” Biden answered when asked if he supported such moves. … We’re going to do our job and the Congress can decide how to proceed with theirs. That’s a decision for the Congress to make. I’m focused on my job.”
The defense of the Constitution is “his job” and this would gut both the process and the standard for impeachments. This was an opportunity to take a principled stand to unify the country by asking his party to stand down and not pursue a “snap impeachment.” As I discuss in my column today, this impeachment not only threatens principles underlying impeachment but also free speech in our Constitution.
As with court packing, this is not the time for good people to stand silent even in the face of such unhinged anger. Indeed, Democrats may loathe the day that they embraced the concept of a “snap impeachment” — a contradiction in constitutional terms. Impeachments are designed for deliberative, not impulsive, acts.
Indeed, Biden’s reference to more pressing matters is preciously the point. He should have asked Congress to focus on those issues and not an impeachment that will not succeed in removal but will succeed in undermining our constitutional system.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 00:35 last edited by
Other than pure vindictiveness, what's the point?
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 01:01 last edited by
@george-k said in Impeach!, quoting Jonathan Turley:
...
Indeed, Biden’s reference to more pressing matters is preciously the point. He should have asked Congress to focus on those issues and not an impeachment that will not succeed in removal but will succeed in undermining our constitutional system.Has Turley ever got around to comment on Trump’s priorities (e.g., vaccine rollout vs. frivolous “election fraud” lawsuits) or Trump undermining our constitutional system? He ever commented on how Trump supporters challenging and dragging out the electoral vote counting process and rioting at the Capitol distracted Congress from “more pressing matters”?
I got the sense that this Turley dude is some mix of a Trumpist and a partisan hack. What do you think?
-
@george-k said in Impeach!, quoting Jonathan Turley:
...
Indeed, Biden’s reference to more pressing matters is preciously the point. He should have asked Congress to focus on those issues and not an impeachment that will not succeed in removal but will succeed in undermining our constitutional system.Has Turley ever got around to comment on Trump’s priorities (e.g., vaccine rollout vs. frivolous “election fraud” lawsuits) or Trump undermining our constitutional system? He ever commented on how Trump supporters challenging and dragging out the electoral vote counting process and rioting at the Capitol distracted Congress from “more pressing matters”?
I got the sense that this Turley dude is some mix of a Trumpist and a partisan hack. What do you think?
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 01:07 last edited by@george-k said in Impeach!, quoting Jonathan Turley:
...
Indeed, Biden’s reference to more pressing matters is preciously the point. He should have asked Congress to focus on those issues and not an impeachment that will not succeed in removal but will succeed in undermining our constitutional system.Has Turley ever got around to comment on Trump’s priorities (e.g., vaccine rollout vs. frivolous “election fraud” lawsuits) or Trump undermining our constitutional system? He ever commented on how Trump supporters challenging and dragging out the electoral vote counting process and rioting at the Capitol distracted Congress from “more pressing matters”?
I got the sense that this Turley dude is some mix of a Trumpist and a partisan hack. What do you think?
I don't know. You asked the question, you can do the homework.
But in reference to this column, nothing I've read about the proposed articles of impeachment have anything to do with the questions you raise. If they do, please elaborate.
"This Turley dude..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley
In the wake of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Turley argued that, despite his doubts that fraud existed, Americans should welcome the involvement of the courts to vet and validate the election results.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 01:09 last edited by
Other than pure vindictiveness, what's the point?
I think it’s important for the history books to document that there were repercussions to a sitting president who refused to accept a free and fair election that he lost, lied about fraud and it being stolen, and incited a mob that invaded the Capitol.
-
Other than pure vindictiveness, what's the point?
I think it’s important for the history books to document that there were repercussions to a sitting president who refused to accept a free and fair election that he lost, lied about fraud and it being stolen, and incited a mob that invaded the Capitol.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 01:14 last edited by
incited a mob that invaded the Capitol
- Please provide evidence.
- Do you support impeachment, then?
- If so, what will it accomplish, remove him from office?
- You serious, Clark?
- Yes, as well as the 25th.
- Yes, along with the historical record of the consequences if another sitting president tries to do this.
-
incited a mob that invaded the Capitol
- Please provide evidence.
- Do you support impeachment, then?
- If so, what will it accomplish, remove him from office?
- You serious, Clark?
- Yes, as well as the 25th.
- Yes, along with the historical record of the consequences if another sitting president tries to do this.
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 01:23 last edited by-
Damn right I'm serious. Please provide evidence where he suggested people invade the Capitol and attack their political opponents (Maxine Waters did that) and LEOs. Specific quotations, please.
-
You support impeachment. OK, it's a political process. I suppose I can understand that on the basis of your hatred for this (admittedly) reprehensible man. At what cost, however? When the GOP controls the House, and they will, sooner or later, do you think they will not do exactly the same thing? I don't.
-
The historical record will show that he was impeached twice, setting up a precedent that is to be followed in the future: "We hate this guy, so let's throw him out."
3a) "if another sitting president tries to do this." What, specifically, are you talking about? See point #1.
Again, let me reiterate. I found President Trump to be a horrible person. I disagreed with much of his behavior. I would not enjoy his company in my home. Does he lie? Yeah, probably. Does he cheat? Yeah, probably that too. Those are not, IMO, "high crimes and misdemeanors."
But...
Unless you can point to specific things he's done you have little to hang your hat on other than your distaste for the man. If you can't, it's TDS.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 01:26 last edited by
Also, in regards to point #1, see Ann Althouse's comments I posted in another thread, Clark.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 01:49 last edited by
Yes, exactly
Like most of what he has been accused of for 4 years.
He didn’t quite do what they say
He did not intend to incite a riot -
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 02:04 last edited by xenon 1 Nov 2021, 02:05
If you are 100% sure there was election stealing and you’ve exhausted every legal avenue, and you’re being stonewalled- an armed insurrection makes sense. What else do you do at that point?
The POTUS - who has the ability to get the best information says the election was 100% stolen.
There’s essentially no more representation at that point.
-
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 02:11 last edited by
Also - “let’s have trial by combat” is not a great phrase to utter.
Yes, Giuliani said it. But if Himmler suggested something about killing Jews while Hitler is on the same stage - there’s not much distinction.
(Sorry for using a Nazi analogy, I don’t mean to say Trump and his administration are Nazis)
-
Also - “let’s have trial by combat” is not a great phrase to utter.
Yes, Giuliani said it. But if Himmler suggested something about killing Jews while Hitler is on the same stage - there’s not much distinction.
(Sorry for using a Nazi analogy, I don’t mean to say Trump and his administration are Nazis)
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 02:13 last edited by“let’s have trial by combat” is not a great phrase to utter.
Yes, Giuliani said it. But if Himmler suggested something about killing Jews while Hitler is on the same stage - there’s not much distinction.Bullshit.
You can be prosecuted/impeached because of something that someone you associate with said?
Is that your point?
-
If you are 100% sure there was election stealing and you’ve exhausted every legal avenue, and you’re being stonewalled- an armed insurrection makes sense. What else do you do at that point?
The POTUS - who has the ability to get the best information says the election was 100% stolen.
There’s essentially no more representation at that point.
wrote on 11 Jan 2021, 02:15 last edited byIf you are 100% sure there was election stealing and you’ve exhausted every legal avenue, and you’re being stonewalled- an armed insurrection makes sense. What else do you do at that point?
The POTUS - who has the ability to get the best information says the election was 100% stolen.Strawman. I didn't bring up his complaints about a stolen election. You did.
What incitement to riot did he utter? I'm being very, very specific here. He's said a lot of bad things, a lot of inaccurate things, but unless you can show that he actually incited a riot, or a crime, then there's nothing.