• 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

turingtest said:
Of the five Republicans who voted to proceed with the impeachment process, I'm really only inclined to give Sasse and Romney credit for voting their consciences instead of strictly for their party's interest (or their own). I only exclude Toomey because I don't know much about him- he may indeed deserve some credit here.

Susan Collins, though, really had no other choice consistent with her previous "I hope Trump has learned his lesson" from the first impeachment, when she voted to acquit, in the face of demonstrable evidence that he damned well didn't learn any lesson except that he could get away with pretty much anything. And, after all, she just won re-election, so she has six years to convince moderate Maine voters that her second vote today was the one for them to remember, the first one doesn't count; and, for the Trump faithful in Maine, just the reverse, that the first vote was the one that deserves their attention. Six years is a long time with a voting public that has an attention span of about five minutes.

As for Murkowski- yes, she said she wanted Trump out, she was considering leaving the GOP over his antics, etc. But how badly can that really hurt her? Alaska now has a ranked-choice voting system (USA Today):
Click to expand...
[OT] Fascinating, the USA is using PR....
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Lindsey Graham on Fox says warns not to call witnesses during the trial.
He says if Democrats vote to call a single witness, “we’ll want the FBI to come in”

What is he on about?

(Video in link)

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1356403657370001408
Click to expand...

I think he's suggesting that if the Democrats call one or more witnesses to attest that President Trump is guilty of insurrection, the GOP will insist that the FBI comes in to say that the attack was planned well ahead of time and so President Trump's actions on the day were irrelevant.
 
The Don said:
I think he's suggesting that if the Democrats call one or more witnesses to attest that President Trump is guilty of insurrection, the GOP will insist that the FBI comes in to say that the attack was planned well ahead of time and so President Trump's actions on the day were irrelevant.
Click to expand...

That has an element of truth but that would have been the hard core who would not have had the numbers without the wider mob Trump persuaded to march on the Capital...
 
Segnosaur said:
Again, this is not my opinion, it is the opinion of a practicing lawyer, who is not associated with Trump or the republicans, and has been very vocal in his criticism of Trump and his administration.
Click to expand...

The lawyers i have seen discuss the issue (popehat, legal eagle) have all focused only at his comments in the speech on Jan 6, and not considered his actions and words before that point. I said this to popehat and he never responded.

Has the lawyer to whom you are referring included words and actions before Jan 6 in their analysis?
 
The Don said:
In the event that President Trump does appear (and I think that's very unlikely), will he actually say anything or will he spend his time saying that he doesn't recall and/or hasn't read anything ?
Click to expand...

Sure, but that could set the stage for some theatrics...

“Mr. President, I bring to your attention this solicitation from your campaign for followers to “Join the Trump Army”. Do you not see how asking followers to join an “Army” could imply a call to military-style action?

“I don’t recall that”.

“Let me refresh your memory.” (displays a poster of the email solicitation).

50824015303_c7d4ed8918_w.jpg


Are you saying you never saw this or that you just don’t remember?”

“Yeah”.

“Yes, what? You don’t remember or you never saw it?”

“I don’t remember”.

“Fine. Moving on, it also called for “fighting off the Liberal Mob”. Do you recall that?”

“Like I said, I don’t remember any of that.”

“Fine. Do you remember your attorney - Mr. Giuliani - provoking the crowd, asking for “Trial by combat”? What do you think he meant by that?”

“I don’t remember that”.

“Maybe this will refresh your memory. (Plays video of Giuliani).

And so on.

Or maybe I’ve been watching too many courtroom dramas.

Anyway, we’ll see what happens! :p
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
I think he's suggesting that if the Democrats call one or more witnesses to attest that President Trump is guilty of insurrection, the GOP will insist that the FBI comes in to say that the attack was planned well ahead of time and so President Trump's actions on the day were irrelevant.
Click to expand...

And if that is true it needs to be publicized, regardless of how it impacts the impeachment. I don't see a reason for the dems to want to avoid that.
 
The Don said:
I think he's suggesting that if the Democrats call one or more witnesses to attest that President Trump is guilty of insurrection, the GOP will insist that the FBI comes in to say that the attack was planned well ahead of time and so President Trump's actions on the day were irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Then they'll just be relying on the perception that the only thing Trump is being impeached for is what he said and did on that one day, and the article itself (NPR) makes it clear that that is not the case-

In his conduct while President of the United States — and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, provide, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed — Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States, in that:

On January 6, 2021, pursuant to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representatives, and the Senate met at the United States Capitol for a Joint Session of Congress to count the votes of the Electoral College. 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....
...
President Trump's conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to "find" enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.
In all this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Click to expand...

It won't help Trump to say that the attack wasn't just due to his speech that day, that it was well-planned in advance, when the case against him also includes his actions in advance of that day. The question will be whether the "planning in advance" was instigated by his allegations of frauds; for that, there are plenty of people who were there who could testify that they were because they were asked to be by Trump to support and advance those allegations, with a result that any reasonable and responsible person could and should have foreseen. Even without the Jan 6 riot, I think Trump is impeachable for his irresponsible actions in regard to the election; but I don't see how there can be any doubt that those actions, as the context for the speech, did lead predictably to the riot.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Sure, but that could set the stage for some theatrics...

“Mr. President, I bring to your attention this solicitation from your campaign for followers to “Join the Trump Army”. Do you not see how asking followers to join an “Army” could imply a call to military-style action?

“I don’t recall that”.

“Let me refresh your memory.” (displays a poster of the email solicitation).

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50824015303_c7d4ed8918_w.jpg[/qimg]

Are you saying you never saw this or that you just don’t remember?”

“Yeah”.

“Yes, what? You don’t remember or you never saw it?”

“I don’t remember”.

“Fine. Moving on, it also called for “fighting off the Liberal Mob”. Do you recall that?”

“Like I said, I don’t remember any of that.”

“Fine. Do you remember your attorney - Mr. Giuliani - provoking the crowd, asking for “Trial by combat”? What do you think he meant by that?”

“I don’t remember that”.

“Maybe this will refresh your memory. (Plays video of Giuliani).

And so on.

Or maybe I’ve been watching too many courtroom dramas.

Anyway, we’ll see what happens! :p
Click to expand...

Would be so much fun to see.
(even though the T**** in your example is far too eloquent).
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Sure, but that could set the stage for some theatrics...

<snip>
Click to expand...

That does remind me of the deposition where Donald Trump said that he hadn't read any of the documents. IMO he'll also claim that many of his statements were made in jest, were sarcastic or some other reason why they should not be taken literally or figuratively.
 
turingtest said:
Then they'll just be relying on the perception that the only thing Trump is being impeached for is what he said and did on that one day, and the article itself (NPR) makes it clear that that is not the case-
Click to expand...

The GOP members of the Senate will try to make it about President Trump's actions on the day. After all, if he'd encouraged insurrection before that day, why wasn't he impeached at the time ? :boggled::boggled:
 
The Democrats have filed their trial brief.

The non-surprising conclusion:
Many have suggested that we should turn the page on the tragic events of January 6, 2021. But to heal the wounds he inflicted on the Nation, we must hold President Trump accountable for his conduct and, in so doing, reaffirm our core principles.

Failure to convict would embolden future leaders to attempt to retain power by any and all means—and would suggest that there is no line a President cannot cross. The Senate should make clear to the American people that it stands ready to protect them against a President who provokes violence to subvert our democracy.
Click to expand...

https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/house_trial_brief_final.pdf
 
If Trump has to testify, he can and should be barred from ever running for office again, simply by the predictable display of total amnesia.
 
C'mon. Holding a POTUS accountable after he's out of office is wrong because.....

I mean, I should be able to try and steal all the money from the company I work for as long as I actually leave the company when they fire me....the firing is accountability enough, right?
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Sure, but that could set the stage for some theatrics...
Click to expand...

I think a sharp prosecutor could do better than that. He'll say anything to defend his ego.

Prosecutor: So, sir, would you say that a good public speaker can influence the behavior of the crowd?

DJT: Of course.

P: And are you a good public speaker?

DJT: I'm a great public speaker. Ask anyone. Some people say I'm the greatest speaker ever.

P: Do you think those people were justified in attacking the Capitol after the election was stolen from you, or were they overreacting? Should they have just waved their signs for a bit and then let it go?

DJT: Of course they were upset, it was the worst act of theft in American history! Dead people voting, machines changing votes, millions of fake ballots!

P: So should they have just waved their signs and then given up? Is that what real patriots do?

DJT: No, you don't just let the radical Democrats get away with that!

P: Now, when you were speaking to the crowd, were they paying attention to you? Were they taking you seriously?

DJT: I'm their president, and the greatest president ever! Of course they were taking me seriously. Even the antifa and BLM guys were impressed by what I said.

P: And did you understand the crowd? I know it's sometimes hard to judge a group of people, but a good speaker should be-

DJT: Of course I understood the crowd! It was my crowd!

P: So you knew there was a chance they might get violent? Or did you misjudge that?

DJT: I didn't misjudge anything!

P: So you were talking to a large crowd that you knew might get violent. Do you think you would have been able to persuade them not to get violent, or were you not a good enough speaker to have that kind of control?

DJT: I'm the best speaker ever. Of course I could control the crowd.

P: The crowd listened to you and then attacked the Capitol. Did you lose control of them? Were you not a good enough speaker?

DJT (getting angry): Of course I never lost control of them! I-

P: No further questions.
 
dasmiller said:
I think a sharp prosecutor could do better than that. He'll say anything to defend his ego.
<snip>
Click to expand...

And such an exchange would be very entertaining but it still wouldn't stop all, or nearly all of the GOP senators to vote to acquit and it wouldn't stop 40%-45% of the US electorate voting for President Trump if they got the opportunity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom