Split Thread A second impeachment

[Fast Eddie B]

I had heard of more than a few people having difficulty sleeping with all the turmoil and drama of the election, it’s aftermath and the events of January 6. I had not had that problem. Until last night.

I had not been glued to the TV all day Saturday, but for the most part at least had it on in the background. When it was announced the House managers were going to call for at least one witness, and were leaving it open to call more, I was thrilled. FINALLY they were acting like a majority party that could call the shots!

I tuned out for a while, and when I started watching again, it took me a few moments to realize the House managers were giving closing arguments. What the hell happened? They had earlier held a vote, and every single Democratic Senator, and even five Republican Senators, had voiced their desire to hear witnesses.

The first impeachment trial was rightfully derided for not being a real trial - a real trial typically has witness testimony. And the Republican majority had the power back then to make a mockery of the whole thing by not hearing any witness testimony. But this time around, the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. Had I been a Senator who voted for witnesses, only to have my vote ignored by the House managers, I would have been livid. The House managers did a fine job presenting their case, but nothing takes the place of real time witness testimony. Not to mention where some of that testimony might have led.

Would witnesses have changed the final result of the impeachment trial? Almost certainly not. But one by one Republicans had been gradually shifting over to vote for conviction, so why not even try?

As a final note, the President’s lawyers did make a good point at how limited the impeachment charges were against the President, basically just the incitement charge. What harm would there have been to add counts of dereliction of duty and violation of the Presidential oath? If anything, I think those were more solid cases than the incitement charge. Again, they should have presented the case for each of those charges, for the history books, if not for intransigent Republican Senators.

Anyway, this whole thread is pretty much moot now, and I’m very close to putting it on ignore.

But hopefully by getting this off my chest I’ll be able to sleep better tonight.

 

[Minoosh]

ETA: It's really no different than him waiting until the last credible second to acnowledge that Biden and Harris won.

Did he wait, though? I thought I read about him referring to Biden as president-elect pretty early in the process.

More of the GOP mainstream should have called Trump out *early* for either lying or being delusional. That base, though. I keep wanting to say they're meaner than snakes, but snakes aren't so bad.

I'm glad McConnell said what he did though. Lindsey Graham thinks it's going to be used against Republicans in 2022. GOOD. I don't know why McConnell did it. Maybe he had an epiphany. His party at the very least enabled Trump as he grew increasingly erratic and *dangerous*. I wonder if he spares a thought about whether he played a part in the GOP's current struggles.

Being now in the minority for the first time in 10 years will be a shock to the system. He might even have to cooperate with The Other. I loved Obama but my perception is that he wasn't that into the legislative nitty-gritty. I don't know if that would have helped, but I think Biden is both well-liked and pugnacious enough to conjure up some bipartisanship. Party-line votes with razor-thin majorities make me a little nervous, something to do with 2010.

 

[dirtywick]

Seditionists,
Anti-Science
Anti-American
Hypocrites
Dishonest

I figured I'd add a few. Not sure you could ever list them all.

But in all fairness, I'm not sure this describes conservatives. It describes most Republicans these days however. The GOP is not conservative. It is selfish, self centered and nuts.

I don’t think those describe individual conservatives


But when people talk about “conservatives” they’re referring to GOP leadership. On that count it’s fairly accurate

 

[Segnosaur]

ETA: It's really no different than him waiting until the last credible second to acnowledge that Biden and Harris won.

Did he wait, though? I thought I read about him referring to Biden as president-elect pretty early in the process.

The election was in early November. Moscow Mitch did not acknowledge Biden's win until mid-December. Although there were some delays due to things like absentee ballot counting, it was obvious Biden won by mid-November over a month before McConnell admitted it

By comparison, Romney congratulated Biden by November 7 or 8.


Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

 

[Mumbles]

I don’t think those describe individual conservatives


But when people talk about “conservatives” they’re referring to GOP leadership. On that count it’s fairly accurate

I'd say it describes part of the leadership, and the entirety of their base - and now that the hangers-on are realizing that "limited government" isn't really compatible with "police are allowed to beat, rape, and/or murder nonwhite/LGBT people at random", they're starting to run away. They're shocked by what's happened.

Gotta say, I'm not, in the slightest.

 

[Meadmaker]

Gosh, I for one sure hope so. It’ll throw a monkey wrench into every other Republican presidential wannabe’s campaign machinery.

Oh wait, you think he could then go on to win? That’s cute.

That's what I said in 2016.

I'm pretty sure he couldn't win in 2024, but nothing would surprise me anymore.

 

[Segnosaur]

McConnell wanted right wing judges, and he got them. But now that the republicans are out of power, they won't be getting any more for at least 4 years, maybe more.

And while he wanted right-wing judges, I suspect he didn't care which right wing judges were picked. Had he been smart, perhaps he might have decided to reject Drunky McRapeface... Trump would have picked someone just as right-wing as a replacement, but likely without the baggage. And perhaps fewer moderates or democrats would be as fired up to vote against the republicans as a result.

And yes, they got their millionaire tax cuts, but those are unlikely to last much longer now that the democrats have taken control.

We'll see on that last one. Truth is, those tax cuts that some (but not all) lower-income folks got are just about set to expire - meaning folks are about to see their taxes shift upwards, while the super-rich get to keep their cuts.

Yes, if nothing changes, the lower classes are expected to get the short end of the stick. I figure the most likely scenario for Biden and the Democrats is that they will do a 'flip'... keep the reduced taxes for lower/middle class (or maybe a small increase), and have a huge increase in taxes on the wealthy.

But, at the very least he could have done more in the short term... get more legislation passed when they had both congress and the white house, do more to try to hold on to the senate for at least another term to at least have some control over tax legislation and judicial nominees.

Well, they failed to get rid of Obamacare, which was their *other* plan to harm the poor and middle class and hand money to the ultra-rich. Aside from that...what did they seriously want at the federal level?

Well, getting rid of Obamacare would have been the biggest thing. But I'm also thinking of a lot of the things that Stubby McBonespurs enacted via executive order... things like financial and environmental deregulation... the republicans (and their wealthy benefactors) would have been better off to have those done through legislation, rather than the more easily reversed executive order. Or maybe enact gun rights legislation at the federal level.

ETA: And even if he didn't want to pass more legislation, being smarter (maybe cutting Trump loose during the first impeachment) might have kept the senate in Republican hands, allowing them to block changes to taxes and to Obamacare that the democrats want.

 

[Mumbles]

Yes, if nothing changes, the lower classes are expected to get the short end of the stick. I figure the most likely scenario for Biden and the Democrats is that they will do a 'flip'... keep the reduced taxes for lower/middle class (or maybe a small increase), and have a huge increase in taxes on the wealthy.

They'll likely try. We'll see what happens.

Well, getting rid of Obamacare would have been the biggest thing. But I'm also thinking of a lot of the things that Stubby McBonespurs enacted via executive order... things like financial and environmental deregulation... the republicans (and their wealthy benefactors) would have been better off to have those done through legislation, rather than the more easily reversed executive order. Or maybe enact gun rights legislation at the federal level.

Nah, they don't really care about that - apart from deregulation, which, again, lines his pockets.

ETA: And even if he didn't want to pass more legislation, being smarter (maybe cutting Trump loose during the first impeachment) might have kept the senate in Republican hands, allowing them to block changes to taxes and to Obamacare that the democrats want.

Not a chance. I doubt he had the votes even if he wanted to - and if he did, the base would stomp off while Dolt 45 formented more hatred. And really, imagine Pence or McConnell trying to use their charm to bring in new voters - especially when he's denouncing voting rights for black people as "socialist", trying to wreck health care, his supreme courts are screaming about how awful it is to be called a bigot for saying same-sex couples should be legally discriminated against, and so forth. The GOP gambled on their elites keeping the violent bigots in line because the other side elected a black guy to the presidency and let the gays kiss in public, and then Toupee Fiasco crashed in like a klansman, screaming that black and Hispanic people weren't even Americans, and there were fine people marching around chanting "Jews will not replace us", and Mexicans are all rapists and should be in concentration camps, and the bigots said "He says what I'm thinking!" and flocked to him.

And he really only became Majority Leader after that had happened.

Whoops.

I've said for a long time now, the actual smart person with a shred of decency was John Boehner. Saw exactly what was coming, got the Pope to address a joint session of Congress, and skipped out literally singing "Zippidy Doo Da" and went to market weed instead.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's what I said in 2016.

I'm pretty sure he couldn't win in 2024, but nothing would surprise me anymore.

Trump has a cult following. But unless some big money sees a benefit in betting on him, 2016 was a fluke. He's burnt, damaged goods. A cult following no matter how stupid some legislators are right now being in that cult, is going to burn out just like Trump.

The curtain was pulled back and the wizard turned out to be a fake.

 

[Mumbles]

Trump has a cult following. But unless some big money sees a benefit in betting on him, 2016 was a fluke. He's burnt, damaged goods. A cult following no matter how stupid some legislators are right now being in that cult, is going to burn out just like Trump.

The curtain was pulled back and the wizard turned out to be a fake.

I make no predictions. Best thing for the country is, frankly, for him to drop dead so his cult can start mangling one another for a while. But don't underestimate the...

How should I put this...

...The ability of people to sit in their tent like Achilles on the one hand, and the self-damaging love of white supremacism on the other.

 

[jimbob]

That's pretty much what he wanted to begin with. The problem is that he's in an untenable position in the long-term. The GOP base has been fed on conspiracy nonsense (how long ago was the Clinton murder list, or the War on Christmas?) and hatred of the other (Bogative's avatar is a classic example of racism via the Jezebel stereotype - pure slave rape apologism carried up to the current year- and folks like Limbaugh and D'Souza have trafficked in similar junk for decades, never mind Reagan's anti-gay hatred that allowed the HIV pandemic to flourish while he smiled about it), while the elites work to funnel more money to themselves.

Toupee Fiasco just cut through all that and spewed unvarnished white nationalism, starting with birtherism back in 2011. And now the base isn't really satisfied with anything less. McConnell's trying to persuade the folks that thought the GOP was really about "small government" or "good business", but there's just no way to hide the "we hate ******* and queers" faction. But really, this all set up before Moscow Mitch rose to leadership - again, this was set in the Goldwater-Reagan era, and solidified at most a decade ago.

ETA: Gingrich's scorched earth strategy had it's own role to play, of course, but the overall descent to neo-fascism and conspiracy theory wasn't him.

He, don't forget Nixon. Or Ford's pardon of him.


I've heart people say the rot set in with Reagan and his anti-intellectualism, but we need to look at the two GOP presidents before him.

 

[Vixen]

<snip>

As a final note, the President’s lawyers did make a good point at how limited the impeachment charges were against the President, basically just the incitement charge. What harm would there have been to add counts of dereliction of duty and violation of the Presidential oath? If anything, I think those were more solid cases than the incitement charge. Again, they should have presented the case for each of those charges, for the history books, if not for intransigent Republican Senators.

Anyway, this whole thread is pretty much moot now, and I’m very close to putting it on ignore.

But hopefully by getting this off my chest I’ll be able to sleep better tonight.

I think had they added charges, as Van der Veen pointed out, they would each have to be separate impeachments (or so he claims, although thinking about it that is obviously pants).

 

[jimbob]

I had heard of more than a few people having difficulty sleeping with all the turmoil and drama of the election, it’s aftermath and the events of January 6. I had not had that problem. Until last night.

I had not been glued to the TV all day Saturday, but for the most part at least had it on in the background. When it was announced the House managers were going to call for at least one witness, and were leaving it open to call more, I was thrilled. FINALLY they were acting like a majority party that could call the shots!

I tuned out for a while, and when I started watching again, it took me a few moments to realize the House managers were giving closing arguments. What the hell happened? They had earlier held a vote, and every single Democratic Senator, and even five Republican Senators, had voiced their desire to hear witnesses.

The first impeachment trial was rightfully derided for not being a real trial - a real trial typically has witness testimony. And the Republican majority had the power back then to make a mockery of the whole thing by not hearing any witness testimony. But this time around, the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. Had I been a Senator who voted for witnesses, only to have my vote ignored by the House managers, I would have been livid. The House managers did a fine job presenting their case, but nothing takes the place of real time witness testimony. Not to mention where some of that testimony might have led.

Would witnesses have changed the final result of the impeachment trial? Almost certainly not. But one by one Republicans had been gradually shifting over to vote for conviction, so why not even try?

As a final note, the President’s lawyers did make a good point at how limited the impeachment charges were against the President, basically just the incitement charge. What harm would there have been to add counts of dereliction of duty and violation of the Presidential oath? If anything, I think those were more solid cases than the incitement charge. Again, they should have presented the case for each of those charges, for the history books, if not for intransigent Republican Senators.

Anyway, this whole thread is pretty much moot now, and I’m very close to putting it on ignore.

But hopefully by getting this off my chest I’ll be able to sleep better tonight.

Exactly. I think it was a mistake.

 

[Elagabalus]

The Trump Supporters here are no better then the mindless iditos in Germany who felt "The Fuehrur Can Do No Wrong!'.
Make no mistake, a dictaroship is what they want.
And the only regreat they have about the insurrection is that if failed.
But given that they also thought that Biden would never take office Ithink their gifts of prophecy are limited.

Let's hope this fizzles.

Lindsey Graham Displays His Deep Devotion to the Cult of Trump in Fox Interview (Rolling Stone).

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/lindsey-graham-trump-fox-news-interview-1128305/

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I think had they added charges, as Van der Veen pointed out, they would each have to be separate impeachments (or so he claims, although thinking about it that is obviously pants).

I don’t think that’s true.

The first impeachment trial had two charges:

On December 10, 2019, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee announced they would levy two articles of impeachment, designated H. Res. 755: (1) abuse of power, and (2) obstruction of Congress, in its investigation of the President's conduct regarding Ukraine.

Both charges were tried in a single Senate trial, with separate votes on each charge.

Even back then, I think they undercharged. Mueller had handed them about a dozen other obstruction charges they could have easily added, and didn’t. And so, much of the U.S. population, thanks in part to Bill Barr, still thinks Mueller found “no obstruction”. A trial on at least a few of those charges would have at least exposed the evidence for those charges to a larger segment of the population.

I am pretty rabidly anti-Republican right now. But still dissapointed at how weak and inept the Democrats can be.

 

[bruto]

I half agree with a lot here.

Biden was never my first choice but at least he is fairly decent. Asking an objectionable person to resign is not as robust an action as we'd like, but our former leader would have doubled down and lied. At least Biden is not an insane demagogue.

As for the remaining rump of the Republican party, I agree that they're not conservative in any real sense of that word. They like to throw that term around, but they're radical reactionaries, not conservatives. But the party has welcomed them aboard, and we must be aware by now how small a minority can be dangerous if they're sufficiently violent and motivated.

I hope Graham is right that the party cannot prevail without the rump, because there's a good chance that when their leader dies or goes utterly off the rails, they'll fall apart in a spate of power struggles, ideological bickering and purging.

I think Nixon bears much of the blame for establishing the rhetorical stance that his opponents were enemies, not only of himself but of democracy. But he hadn 't figured out just how to implement it. We can credit Newt Gingrich for much of that, his realization of how ideologues can simply refuse to compromise at all, his characterization of the conflict as a war of good against evil in which the stakes were all or nothing. e.t.a.: I also have a particular hatred of Bob Dole, who, after losing to Clinton, said outright that as a senator he would continue to represent the near majority who voted against him, and did his best to implement congressional gridlock.

I think this is the dilemma the Democrats must continue to grapple with: that the reactionaries of the Republican party have declared war not only against the tradition of bipartisan compromise, but against democracy and decency itself, and as so often happens, it is difficult to fight them without sinking to their level. As we see so often right here, you cannot argue rationally with those who abandon rationality.

The republican rump is like a schoolyard bully yelling "Nyah Nyah, I dare you!" We can admire the forbearance of those who say "I won't sink to your level," but the bully who recognizes his power rests on the decency of his opponents will keep on coming back.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I half agree with a lot here.

Biden was never my first choice but at least he is fairly decent. Asking an objectionable person to resign is not as robust an action as we'd like, but our former leader would have doubled down and lied. At least Biden is not an insane demagogue.

As for the remaining rump of the Republican party, I agree that they're not conservative in any real sense of that word. They like to throw that term around, but they're radical reactionaries, not conservatives. But the party has welcomed them aboard, and we must be aware by now how small a minority can be dangerous if they're sufficiently violent and motivated.

I hope Graham is right that the party cannot prevail without the rump, because there's a good chance that when their leader dies or goes utterly off the rails, they'll fall apart in a spate of power struggles, ideological bickering and purging.

I think Nixon bears much of the blame for establishing the rhetorical stance that his opponents were enemies, not only of himself but of democracy. But he hadn 't figured out just how to implement it. We can credit Newt Gingrich for much of that, his realization of how ideologues can simply refuse to compromise at all, his characterization of the conflict as a war of good against evil in which the stakes were all or nothing.

I think this is the dilemma the Democrats must continue to grapple with: that the reactionaries of the Republican party have declared war not only against the tradition of bipartisan compromise, but against democracy and decency itself, and as so often happens, it is difficult to fight them without sinking to their level. As we see so often right here, you cannot argue rationally with those who abandon rationality.

The republican rump is like a schoolyard bully yelling "Nyah Nyah, I dare you!" We can admire the forbearance of those who say "I won't sink to your level," but the bully who recognizes his power rests on the decency of his opponents will keep on coming back.

It would probably help if they stopped saying things like "We need a strong Republican party" and started speaking plainly about how totally corrupt their counterparts have become.

We actually don't need a strong Republican party, and I really wish one of these journalists would press the Dems on statements like these, because I have no idea what they mean by this.

If the party itself can be saved, an extended period of time as a powerless minority party is probably necessary to spur meaningful reform. Or it can just whither and become replaced by some other party.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I know if I die before the 2024 election, I'm going to rise up and vote anyway just to piss Trump off.

Here's to hoping that you'll live.

Hans

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In washing his hands of guilt McConnell said it's up to the justice system, not him to hold Trump accountable.

So here's my question, is Trump legally liable for not responding to the riot?

 

[turingtest]

...

I think this is the dilemma the Democrats must continue to grapple with: that the reactionaries of the Republican party have declared war not only against the tradition of bipartisan compromise, but against democracy and decency itself, and as so often happens, it is difficult to fight them without sinking to their level. As we see so often right here, you cannot argue rationally with those who abandon rationality.

The republican rump is like a schoolyard bully yelling "Nyah Nyah, I dare you!" We can admire the forbearance of those who say "I won't sink to your level," but the bully who recognizes his power rests on the decency of his opponents will keep on coming back.

Those reactionaries aren't declaring war just against Democrats who might think it's worthwhile trying to meet them halfway, they're declaring war against members of their own party who won't toe their line (Politico via MSN):

The North Carolina Republican Party is set to vote Monday on whether to censure Sen. Richard Burr for his vote to convict Donald Trump after the former president's impeachment trial, adding to the growing list of Republican members of Congress facing consequences for moves against Trump.
...
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) also faced backlash for his vote Saturday, with his state's GOP voting the same day to censure the senator for his decision. Cassidy continued to defend his vote on Monday, writing in a Baton Rouge newspaper that he "voted to convict former President Trump because he is guilty. That’s what the facts demand."
...

Cassidy and Burr are just a couple of Republicans being rebuked by their state parties for their votes in Trump’s second impeachment trial. Earlier this month, Sen. Ben Sasse faced a censure effort by Nebraska’s Republican Party, and Maine Republicans are slated to discuss Sen. Susan Collins' conviction vote this week. Multiple House Republicans have also faced reprisal for their votes — including No. 3 House Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming.

The "big tent" GOP doesn't even have room in their own party for diversity of opinion; just more evidence that the folks who mouth "unity!" at anyone outside of it isn't talking about unity at all, they're demanding nothing less than unconditional surrender.