Split Thread A second impeachment

[Stacyhs]

Here's to hoping that you'll live.

Hans

You like me! You really like me!

Either that or I'm channeling Sally Field.

 

[PhantomWolf]

people are mad at Mitch but Dems got the senate majority and immediately folded.

How is getting the most number of Senators to cross the floor in an impeachment trial an "immediately folding"? Having seven senators cross the floor beat the five that crossed the floor for Clinton, and those five were Republicans that voted Not Guilty on charge 2.

It was also the most number of senators to have ever voted to impeach a President (though admittedly there were only 54 Senators in total for Andrew Jackson's Impeach Trial.)

How is it the fault of the Democrats that the majority of the Republican Senators are either craven cowards that put their own reelection and jobs ahead of their oaths to protect the Constitution and to be Impartial Jurors or are so far involved in the Cult of Trump that they are willing to put the deification of a man above the rule of law and the integrity of the US Electorial system?

Better get used to it

Yeah, we are pretty used to Republicans being craven hypocrites. Nothing unusual to see really.

 

[SezMe]

The obvious solution is to change the political landscape very soon. Change the game entirely.

For example, changing federal redistribution laws for states to more equitably draw up electoral boundaries (stop gerrymandering).

Also, revising federal electoral laws to impose a consistent, equitable, robust set of election processes across all states.

In other words, force those who would "win" only by easily cheating the system to play by the rules so they have to win on their merits instead.

Never mind. I was talking about the "For the People Act" that Aridas has already cited.

 

[Stacyhs]

True enough, once again the Republican party, while shrilly shouting against political correctness and "cancel culture," is acting just like a bunch of bolsheviks, purging their party of diversity, and thus assuring that the worst of the worst will be at the helm. They're working harder to get rid of moderate voices than to censure raving lunatics who lie, foment rebellion, advocate assassination and attribute natural disaster to Jewish lasers from outer space.
In a way, I sort of hope they succeed. I think the party needs the moderates more than the moderates need the party. When the Republicans tried to shut down Jim Jeffords, he just left and won as an independent. Same with Lowell Weicker.

I just wish more Republicans had the guts to walk and tell the lunatic fringe to crash and burn without them.

Agreed! I've never seen a party work so hard at destroying itself. At this point, all I can say is: more power to them. They deserve it.

 

[SezMe]

Correct. My mistake. I will force myself to have two glasses of wine in penance tonight.

Limiting yourself to two glasses is quite a punishment, indeed. Be good to yourself.

 

[dirtywick]

How is getting the most number of Senators to cross the floor in an impeachment trial an "immediately folding"? Having seven senators cross the floor beat the five that crossed the floor for Clinton, and those five were Republicans that voted Not Guilty on charge 2.

It was also the most number of senators to have ever voted to impeach a President (though admittedly there were only 54 Senators in total for Andrew Jackson's Impeach Trial.)

How is it the fault of the Democrats that the majority of the Republican Senators are either craven cowards that put their own reelection and jobs ahead of their oaths to protect the Constitution and to be Impartial Jurors or are so far involved in the Cult of Trump that they are willing to put the deification of a man above the rule of law and the integrity of the US Electorial system?



Yeah, we are pretty used to Republicans being craven hypocrites. Nothing unusual to see really.

Guy who called for an insurrection and tried to have his VP killed got 2 more votes than the guy who lied to Congress about cheating on his wife sounds a lot less impressive when you hear it out loud tbh

It was expected that he would be acquitted. They could have made it a hard choice, or politically costly. They didn’t really put up much of a fight over it. Speedy trial, a couple of speeches and a video, really not even an investigation of any sort, with no witnesses even after said R voted that they wanted to hear them. I expected some effort. They gave up, folded. Pretty lame.

 

[Stacyhs]

Limiting yourself to two glasses is quite a punishment, indeed. Be good to yourself.

Did I say how big the glasses were? No, I did not.

 

[Stacyhs]

Guy who called for an insurrection and tried to have his VP killed got 2 more votes than the guy who lied to Congress about cheating on his wife sounds a lot less impressive when you hear it out loud tbh

It was expected that he would be acquitted. They could have made it a hard choice, or politically costly. They didn’t really put up much of a fight over it. Speedy trial, a couple of speeches and a video, really not even an investigation of any sort, with no witnesses even after said R voted that they wanted to hear them. I expected some effort. They gave up, folded. Pretty lame.

That is about the most dishonest description of the Dems' presentation that I've heard from anyone outside of a Republican. I'm shocked.

 

[Segnosaur]

It was expected that he would be acquitted. They could have made it a hard choice, or politically costly. They didn’t really put up much of a fight over it. Speedy trial, a couple of speeches and a video, really not even an investigation of any sort, with no witnesses even after said R voted that they wanted to hear them. I expected some effort. They gave up, folded. Pretty lame.

Would it have been better to call witnesses?

Doing so would not make a difference (i.e. republicans would still have voted to acquit). It would have make the impeachment proceedings last longer at a time when congress has some rather important work to do... confirming Biden's nominees, covid relief, etc. (Yes, I think they were working on that stuff at the same time they were running the impeachment proceedings, but doing them together does slow things down.)

Would it have made much difference to voters? Maybe, maybe not. I think the democrats did get their point across with their videos and various speeches. Extending impeachment proceedings to hear from witnesses probably wouldn't have made that much more impact on the voters, and it may have even backfired if the witnesses manage to deflect some of the blame off Trump.

So, they might have made a smart political decision to wrap things up quickly.

Now that impeachment is over, they can confirm Biden's nominees (including Garland, who might actually bring in criminal charges). And, they can launch a more detailed investigation over the terrorism, that might just end up wrapping up around the mid-terms (at a time when people might be deciding whether to vote for the party that supported terrorism or the Democrats).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

people are mad at Mitch but Dems got the senate majority and immediately folded.

Better get used to it

If you are talking about the impeachment trial this is apples and oranges. The need for 2/3 vote in is the Constitution.

As for in general, I believe Schumer agrees with you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Once again, I agree (it's getting to be a bad habit!). And I'd add that it would not surprise me too much if the ex, with Moscow Mitch's help, pulls a catch-22 out: that a sitting President has immunity from criminal prosecution, so the remedy for disciplining a sitting President can't be used because he's out, and the remedy for disciplining a non-sitting president can't be used because he wasn't out then. And all the time Mitcn gets to play both sides - oh so sorry my hands are tied.

Here's the deal. A lot of people wanted Obama to consider criminal charges against Bush et al for war crimes. He didn't, said it would be a bad precedent and make the divisiveness worse. Biden was in that administration.

Biden has said, and I agree, the POTUS should not be involved in directing the DoJ to charge anyone. Political vengeance should not be, or appear to be the motive behind a prosecution.

So Biden said he would appoint a good team from the AG on down and they would be commissioned to assess if Trump should be prosecuted, not Biden.

 

[Puppycow]

It was expected that he would be acquitted. They could have made it a hard choice, or politically costly. They didn’t really put up much of a fight over it. Speedy trial, a couple of speeches and a video, really not even an investigation of any sort, with no witnesses even after said R voted that they wanted to hear them. I expected some effort. They gave up, folded. Pretty lame.

Personally I'm glad it didn't drag on forever. It would have been politically costly for Democrats too.

There's other stuff that the senate needs to do. There's appointments to confirm, bills to be considered, and all of the other normal legislative business. We need an infrastructure bill. I didn't want an impeachment for an ex-president to take up the whole first 100 days or whatever.

Plus, Trump isn't necessarily out of the woods yet:

Impeachment isn’t the final word on Capitol riot for Trump

 

[EHocking]

To make an analogy, it's like Trump got off on a technicality.

No.
it’s like Trump got off because the jury was made up of members of his direct family.

Like jury not convicting a guilty defendant because someone forgot to read him his Miranda rights.

No.
They didn’t convict him because A. they had already decided on acquittal and B. They then just ignored all due process and any evidence presented by the prosecution.

I'm just glad that at least he acknowledged the facts: Biden won the election. It wasn't stolen. The rioters did what they did that day because of Trump's lie that the election had been stolen. He didn't try to pretend otherwise.

It was a cynical, self-serving piece of political bull ********. And yet again, Americans are falling over themselves buying into GOP BS and calling it “new truth”.

 

[CORed]

I'm sure it's criminal that he incited the riot and insurrection. I'd love for the FBI to build a case against him for treason.

But responding to the riot is more like negligence. So maybe if we can charge a police officer with dereliction of duty then maybe that's what 'not responding' was.

Well, I think the dereliction of duty was definitely ample cause to impeach him. I kind of doubt that there are criminal charges for that alone that will stick.

OTOH, I think there is a good possibility that Trump was complicit in the planning of the insurrection. I think when FBI and DOJ start leaning on the planners, they will talk. I'm hoping enough comes out to make criminal charges stick.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Guy who called for an insurrection and tried to have his VP killed got 2 more votes than the guy who lied to Congress about cheating on his wife sounds a lot less impressive when you hear it out loud tbh

Your math is a little off here. With Clinton, the 5 Republicans crossed the floor to vote Not Guilty, with Trump the 7 crossed the floor to vote Guilty. That's essentially a difference of 12, not 2.

It was expected that he would be acquitted.

Of course it was, because Republicans are craven cowards.

They could have made it a hard choice, or politically costly. They didn’t really put up much of a fight over it. Speedy trial, a couple of speeches and a video, really not even an investigation of any sort, with no witnesses even after said R voted that they wanted to hear them. I expected some effort. They gave up, folded. Pretty lame.

The Democrats did exactly what they needed to, they showed that Trump was as guilty as sin and then that most of the Republicans as craven cowards who are scared to uphold the Constitution in case they lose their jobs. The thing is that it won't matter because the Republican base would rather have Republican Senators who lick Trump's butt than ones that actually stand up for the Constitution. Hence why we now see Republicans attacking the seven that took their oaths seriously and stood up to protect the Constitution instead of protecting Trump's illegal actions.

 

[dirtywick]

Your math is a little off here. With Clinton, the 5 Republicans crossed the floor to vote Not Guilty, with Trump the 7 crossed the floor to vote Guilty. That's essentially a difference of 12, not 2.

fine, the charges weren't even in the same league and Clinton was popular, Trump was unpopular and used the office of the president to try and kill people.

The Democrats did exactly what they needed to, they showed that Trump was as guilty as sin and then that most of the Republicans as craven cowards who are scared to uphold the Constitution in case they lose their jobs. The thing is that it won't matter because the Republican base would rather have Republican Senators who lick Trump's butt than ones that actually stand up for the Constitution. Hence why we now see Republicans attacking the seven that took their oaths seriously and stood up to protect the Constitution instead of protecting Trump's illegal actions.

I mean, if you think they did a good job that's cool. They had the power to do a proper impeachment this time and didn't really do anything with it. If they were just going to give a couple of speeches and show a video and not really try and change anyone's mind they could have censured him.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I mean, if you think they did a good job that's cool. They had the power to do a proper impeachment this time and didn't really do anything with it. If they were just going to give a couple of speeches and show a video and not really try and change anyone's mind they could have censured him.

Do you think if they went the whole 10 yards and brought in scads of witnesses who testified to all the bad stuff first-hand, and then the GOP dragged in all THEIR counter-witnesses, such as they might have been, that there would have been any different outcome?

The Dems knew the fix was in from the outset. Even before the Congress voted and the Impeachment Managers walked across the building to the Senate. Their goal was two-fold:

1) Politically, make the GOP pay in spades for decades to come (if not forever) for their really stupid dalliances with Trumpism. If a conservative civil war in the GOP happened and it split into bickering halves, all the better. Let the GOP eat their own.

2) As a longer shot, get T**** convicted.

They got the first one. The second was closer than at any time historically, but Mitch shut it down.

 

[dirtywick]

Yes I do think it would have mattered, his lawyers were completely outclassed and unprepared. Their opening remarks flipped one Senator alone.

Maybe they'd want to hear from Mark Meadows and Raffensperger on the GA call? Want to see Trump's phone records from Jan 6? Who else did he call that we don't know about? What did Trump and Pence talk about after the riot? Was the pentagon told to deliberately scale down the national guard presence and response? On who's orders?

They could have asked this stuff and figured out what happened.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yes I do think it would have mattered, his lawyers were completely outclassed and unprepared. Their opening remarks flipped one Senator alone.

Maybe they'd want to hear from Mark Meadows and Raffensperger on the GA call? Want to see Trump's phone records from Jan 6? Who else did he call that we don't know about? What did Trump and Pence talk about after the riot? Was the pentagon told to deliberately scale down the national guard presence and response? On who's orders?

They could have asked this stuff and figured out what happened.

This wasn't about Trump's guilt or innocence for the GOP. That was obvious with their fixation on the "constitutionality" excuse. It was about finding an excuse to NOT find him guilty. You are living in La La Land if you think ANTHING the House Managers could have brought in would have changed ten more GOP votes.

 

[Bubba]

Imagine if Officer Sicknick texted his brother, after the Jan 6 riot:

"I got pepper sprayed a couple times, but I'm in good shape."

Of course, it is entirely possible — perhaps even probable — that this is true. But without an autopsy report, and with indications that Sicknick was able to get back to his office from the siege, later told his brother he was in good shape despite being pepper-sprayed, and bore no signs of blunt-force trauma, why maintain this assertion? After all, the Times has updated its story because the story, as originally published, was misleading. And the Democratic House managers — after resting their allegation solely on the Times’ dubious fire-extinguisher claim — essentially steered clear of the circumstances surrounding Sicknick’s death during their impeachment trial presentation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021...Nw0EfF8HeOoJ-lHvdwsvXAV3x_dyAYNyFiE4eOhH-6s_E