• 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

I was pretty much resigned to having all this done by this afternoon, with the obvious outcome being acquittal. But this new development moves the needle slightly in the opposite direction. I for one am glad that Trump is not getting off the hook so easily. The more stress he experiences, the better.

Schoen might have been convinced to stay on what amounted to another day or so, but with this expecting to be being dragged out he is probably having strong thoughts about quitting for good.

I loved when Van der Been got laughed at, and especially his pouty, almost teary, retort "I didn't laugh at you!"

Whatever points McCarthy scored with Trump by going to Florida to (kiss his ring) have probably been negated by the broken story. He's probably on Trump's **** list now. And those are always carved in stone.

Will we be seeing Van der Been replaced?
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
If anyone’s curious, Senator Hagerty’s response to my letter:

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50939321452_97dae899c7_z.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...



A thing of beauty, complains about people trying to score cheap political points, then turns around and tries to score cheap political points.
 
alfaniner said:
I was pretty much resigned to having all this done by this afternoon, with the obvious outcome being acquittal. But this new development moves the needle slightly in the opposite direction. I for one am glad that Trump is not getting off the hook so easily. The more stress he experiences, the better.

Schoen might have been convinced to stay on what amounted to another day or so, but with this expecting to be being dragged out he is probably having strong thoughts about quitting for good.

I loved when Van der Been got laughed at, and especially his pouty, almost teary, retort "I didn't laugh at you!"

Whatever points McCarthy scored with Trump by going to Florida to kiss his ring have probably been negated by the broken story. He's probably on Trump's **** list now. And those are always carved in stone.

Will we be seeing Van der Been replaced?
Click to expand...

Dems have nothing to lose. The acquittal was in, so witnesses only gives them a chance to try to move things.
 
They need to tie "what Trump knew and when" to the National Gaurd issues.

Firing up the opposition is only half a coup. Intentionally disempowering defense forces is a central part of the takeover attempt (and presses for Senators how he was ready to sacrifice them to a mob for his own sake, not collective party ascendancy).
 
Vixen said:
.....
Other missed news is that Lindsey Graham vocal Trumpeteer, has changed his vote to side with the Democrats to call witnesses.
.....
Click to expand...

Graham is not siding with the Dems. He announced previously that if the Dems call witnesses, his side will gum up the works by calling their own witnesses, like the defense lawyer claiming he'll depose 100 witnesses at his Philadelphia office.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lind...nt-trial-witnesses_n_6019284cc5b6aa4bad374665
 
acbytesla said:
It's not patently false. There already is a precedent. Secretary of War William Belknap resigned his office, then was impeached and tried. The idea that this is a slippery slope is absurd. The Belknap impeachment took place 160 years ago. That was the last time.

The House and Senate are clearly not inclined to hold a rash of impeachments in the future.
Click to expand...

Blount though provides the precedent that Members of Congress are not subject to impeachment. So at best, you have 2 precedents where one supports impeachment after they have already left office, and the other establishes who is subject to it. Neither of these really help the President's case.
 
Just watching a repeat of the lead up to the vote on witnesses or documents. Trump's lawyer was arguing vociferously against it, saying that Democrats were trampling on the Constitution. Didn't I just watch footage of Trump's lawyers arguing that Democrats didn't provide any evidence?

Make up your mind.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
"I think the real question is what did Nancy Pelosi know and when did she know it" -- Roger Marshall Republican senator from Kansas,
Click to expand...

I keep thinking, go ahead, call Pelosi. How is this even a threat?

The big threat is dragging the trial out. Given the House is working away on legislation and the Senate has every morning to take care of business, other than boring the public I'm not sure the threat is viable.

If the GOP calls meaningless witness after witness, it might not be that hard to get the public annoyed with the GOP rather than with the Democrats. Maybe the Republicans will start getting picked off, moving to the conviction side.
 
Last edited:
More witnesses, longer trial, poor Trumpy may have to use donations for his defense on his actual defense instead of pocketing it.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I keep thinking, go ahead, call Pelosi. How is this even a threat?

The big threat is dragging the trial out. Given the House is working away on legislation and the Senate has every morning to take care of business, other than boring the public I'm not sure the threat is viable.

If the GOP calls meaningless witness after witness, it might not be that hard to get the public annoyed with the GOP rather than with the Democrats. Maybe the Republicans will start getting picked off, moving to the conviction side.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the defense does not have carte blanche to call witnesses. It requires Senate approval.
 
I've been trying to follow the defense, and it seems approximately like this:

Prosecutor: Here's a picture of the victim, dead after being shot.

Defense: But we don't know who shot him.

P: Here is the defendant with a gun in his hand.

D: But we don't know if he shot it.

P: Here is a picture of him pulling the trigger and the gun smoking.

D: But we don't know whether it was his bullet that hit the victim.

P: Here is the ballistics report that says it was.

D: But we don't know what he was aiming at.

P: Here is a picture of him aiming at the victim after threatening to kill him.

D: But did anyone see the bullet? Unless you can see the bullet, you have to allow for the possibility that the victim was shot by Jewish lasers from outer space. Acquit!
 
This might be a good point to get a deal to dismiss the trial; get a vote of censure for incitement of insurrection and strip Trump of his pension, travel and office budget. Maybe they could even strip him of his official customs and courtesies.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
As far as I can gather, the "calling Nancy Pelosi" thing seems to be that they're going to try to paint it that it was her who was responsible for disallowing reinforcements, seemingly based on these statements about "optics". Pelosi is not mentioned in the article.
Click to expand...

In addition to the National Guard, Washington DC is full of federal cops. All the agencies have large staffs of agents and officers in their headquarters here (commissioned officers in addition to the support staff). There are three major airports that weren't doing a lot with large contingents of CBP officers. The FBI field office in Washington is one of the largest.

The administration could have had a massive yet relatively discreet security presence if it was so inclined and wanted to manage the "optics".
 
So deal struck, read the relevant Tweet, enter rebuttal evidence to the defense claim Trump acted when he found out about the Capitol breach.

I think the first 2 of Trump's actual responses, matched to the timeframe of the mob's action was pretty clear proof he knew and didn't act to stop it.
 
Vixen said:
I missed this, but according to the GUARDIAN Van der Veen is at it again:




Other missed news is that Lindsey Graham vocal Trumpeteer, has changed his vote to side with the Democrats to call witnesses. Mitt Romney - one of the witnesses - I expect has had an epiphany moment when he bumped into Officer Goodman yelling at him to turn the other way and RUN! with Trump's thug army at the other end of the corridor coming into sight.

IMV if it becomes an inescapable and irrevocable fact that Trump was happy to see his own Vice President, Mike Pence, HANG that may swing enough Republicans to vote in favour of conviction,
Click to expand...

I hope you’re right but I doubt it. Most of them seem pretty committed to party over anything else and simply won’t be able to countenance a Dem ‘win’. There are very few principles left in the Republican Party. Because they never actually got hold of Pence it’ll just be hand washed away.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom