• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread A second impeachment

Fizil said:
I am confused. CNN says the impeachment resolution was introduced. I listened to the entire pro-forma session of the House of Representatives, and did not hear it. The session started, the Sergeant-at-Arms resigned, there were a few committee assignment motions, then the motion to ask Pence to invoke the 25th, then they adjourned. Where the hell is CNN getting the idea they introduced an impeachment resolution too? Was it just introduced on paper and not brought up during this session?
Click to expand...

Because Congress is such a goddamn drama-queen of procedural dog and pony shows that "The process has started" has almost no meaning because the process is so intentionally long and intentionally convoluted and every process starts 10 times and ends 20 times.

I get it they want everything to have an air of ponderous importance but Jesus we're on a time limit here...
 
Last edited:
Fizil said:
I am confused. CNN says the impeachment resolution was introduced. I listened to the entire pro-forma session of the House of Representatives, and did not hear it. The session started, the Sergeant-at-Arms resigned, there were a few committee assignment motions, then the motion to ask Pence to invoke the 25th, then they adjourned. Where the hell is CNN getting the idea they introduced an impeachment resolution too? Was it just introduced on paper and not brought up during this session?
Click to expand...

What you saw re: the 25th was NOT the pro forma session. CNN said the pro forma session came after the session that was recessed until 9AM tomorrow.

ETA: Now I'm not sure which was which. The CNN article doesn't seem to be consistent regarding timelines. And I didn't catch the entire session(s).
 
Last edited:
slyjoe said:
What you saw re: the 25th was NOT the pro forma session. CNN said the pro forma session came after the session that was recessed until 9AM tomorrow.

ETA: Now I'm not sure which was which. The CNN article doesn't seem to be consistent regarding timelines. And I didn't catch the entire session(s).
Click to expand...
The pro-forma session that introduced the resolution to impeach came right after the House recessed this morning's session. It was very brief ... probably about a minute long. So, it would have been easy to miss.
 
jadebox said:
The pro-forma session that introduced the resolution to impeach came right after the House recessed this morning's session. It was very brief ... probably about a minute long. So, it would have been easy to miss.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

When they said recess I quite watching. That made it easy to miss too. ;)
 
JoeMorgue said:
Because Congress is such a goddamn drama-queen of procedural dog and pony shows that "The process has started" has almost no meaning because the process is so intentionally long and intentionally convoluted and every process starts 10 times and ends 20 times.

I get it they want everything to have an air of ponderous importance but Jesus we're on a time limit here...
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, unless they get Moscow Mitch and a significant block of the Republican party on side, even if the house rushes things the case probably wouldn't be voted on in the senate until after Biden's inauguration.

So, if they fast-track it, they still won't remove Trump early but may end up looking 'sloppy'. So if they take their time, do things according to procedure, they may be able to highlight Trump's transgressions in a better way.

That could be their thinking.
 
Call me crazy but I want a little pep in the step when you're responding to an angry mob storming the Capitol.

They are not acting like they truly think what Trump was did was bad and that they can just get around to dealing with it anytime they feel like it, which was the problem with the last impeachment as well.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
Unfortunately, unless they get Moscow Mitch and a significant block of the Republican party on side, even if the house rushes things the case probably wouldn't be voted on in the senate until after Biden's inauguration.



So, if they fast-track it, they still won't remove Trump early but may end up looking 'sloppy'. So if they take their time, do things according to procedure, they may be able to highlight Trump's transgressions in a better way.



That could be their thinking.
Click to expand...
Central to the point, an AG who will cooperate in finding and forwarding along evidence.
 
jimbob said:
I wouldn't be so sure.

I know that conventional wisdom is that, but there are a lot of Senators who will see how unpopular the attempted lynching of not only Nancy Pelosi, but also Trump's VP.

It might actually be rather brave of them to side with Trump. Especially if opinion polls show his popularity nosediving, which it might.
Click to expand...

They will get the 51 votes, if it's in the senate later, not now. Possibly Romney and a couple more. But they would need 17 republicans to permanently ban him from office.
 
Tero said:
They will get the 51 votes, if it's in the senate later, not now. Possibly Romney and a couple more. But they would need 17 republicans to permanently ban him from office.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about abstentions etc
 
jimbob said:
I was thinking about abstentions etc
Click to expand...

//Slight hijack//

This isn't a law about raising the tax rate on Marmoset Skin Hats from 2% to 2.1%. It's an impeachment.

You should have to have an opinion and own it.
 
JoeMorgue said:
//Slight hijack//

This isn't a law about raising the tax rate on Marmoset Skin Hats from 2% to 2.1%. It's an impeachment.

You should have to have an opinion and own it.
Click to expand...

Hell yes, but if Republican Senators are too afraid to vote to convict or to acquit this time round, as long as there are enough of them, it would be good... maybe better because it would demonstrate how much of a backbone they have.

Enough will be aware that it's only going to look worse as the levers of power have moved and investigations into Trump and associates progress.
 
Again I am just so over and done waiting for the "Oh this will be the thing that makes the Republicans reveal their true colors and that will finally matter this time, and we said that last time but this time we mean it" moment to come.
 
jimbob said:
Hell yes, but if Republican Senators are too afraid to vote to convict or to acquit this time round, as long as there are enough of them, it would be good... maybe better because it would demonstrate how much of a backbone they have.
Click to expand...

Meh. If Lindsey Graham's spine was made of spaghetti, it wouldn't even be al dente.
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't know if he wanted them to storm the Capitol. I seriously doubt that he wanted them to smash windows to get in.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, multiple reports seem to say that Trump was quite gleeful at the chaos that he unleashed and didn't understand why everyone else around him wasn't.

All too credible, unfortunately, given that this is Trump. Going further, Trump's been actively working to set the groundwork for him becoming a dictator for a long time now. His only immediate disappointment with the attack on the Capitol building is fairly certainly that it didn't directly succeed in overturning the election to keep him in power. Any regret will likely be at the negative consequences suffered, rather than any hint of remorse for what he did.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
I'm not playing devil's advocate - I genuinely think it's a dumb move.

And I'm not the only one - here's a lifelong hard-left columnist from The Guardian saying the exact same thing, for the exact same reasons:



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/11/democrats-impeach-donald-trump-exile-base



There you go - you nailed it on both counts.

Trump is an extraordinarily stupid and self-absorbed person. The idea of cause and effect is beyond his brain, and he was just playing the same game he's been playing since "Lock her up!" chants started. "Hey, they're cheering while I'm talking, I'll keep talking!"

As I keep saying, and as the Guardian bloke says, you can rise above it or sink down to his level and Democrats have chosen the latter.
Click to expand...

So, a president inciting violence against institutions of democracy should not face repercussions?

Hans
 
Right now the Republicans (and EVERYONE making this argument) are playing the roll of the abusive spouse who now wants to keep the marriage going "for the sake of the children."
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
If the bar is set so low that dislike causes the dismissal of a President, then you've dug a huge hole for every other person who wants to sit in that office.
Click to expand...
Trust me, the next time a Democratic POTUS holds a rally with thousands of people after losing an election, and after claiming even *before* the election that, if they lose, it was rigged, and reminds them that the election was stolen, and exhorts the rally to march down to the Capitol where the electoral votes are being counted to prevent the steal, and the mob breaks in and threatens legislators and people die, I will be the first to ask for the impeachment of that POTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom