Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Man, you are delusional.
Split Thread A second impeachment
- Thread starter JoeMorgue
- Start date
Man, you are delusional.
dirtywick
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 10,140
Something triggered his public concession to Biden and commitment to a peaceful transaction. My guess is that they had enough senate votes to remove him from office. And now that he’s done that, they want it to be good enough and start calling for unity.
I don’t think impeachment is a turn off to voters. I think a lack of response might be. since they passed on the 25th, they punted the ball to pelosi. Not sure she has much choice.
Either way, I think it’s pretty inconceivable to just walk out there and say let’s let bygones be bygones and move on a day after a mob of Trump supporters forced their way into the capital at his direction. There has to be a response to that, you can’t let that go.
I don’t think impeachment is a turn off to voters. I think a lack of response might be. since they passed on the 25th, they punted the ball to pelosi. Not sure she has much choice.
Either way, I think it’s pretty inconceivable to just walk out there and say let’s let bygones be bygones and move on a day after a mob of Trump supporters forced their way into the capital at his direction. There has to be a response to that, you can’t let that go.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
I'd say that it's more likely that some of his lawyers finally managed to get him to see how much he just ****** himself, legally speaking, and that backtracking was nothing more than a reaction to try to cover his arse. I wouldn't count on him to stick by it at all, though, given Trump.
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
What I would do is welcome them with open arms and let bygones be bygones... and the hit them with the biggest knife in DC when they turn their back.
Last edited:
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
You mean act like Republicans.
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
Yeah, but I'm a thin-skinned vindictive git with no principles and zero integrity.
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
I disagree entirely.
I ask you, if his recent actions weren’t sufficient to justify impeachment, what the hell would? I doubt he’d go to the effort right now to go to New York to shoot somebody on 5th Avenue, but suppose he did so on Pennsylvania Avenue? Would it still be “time to forgive and forget, try to build alliances, try to heal the divisions, not dig them deeper.”?
Actions must have consequences - it’s as simple as that.
Last edited:
Because a world where a sitting President can order an angry mob of conspiracy theorists to march on and storm the Capitol because he won't accept the results of an election and suffer no consequences is simply not an acceptable one.
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,791
NOT impeaching Trump would be playing politics.
Impeachment is what is required by their Oath of Office.
Impeachment is what is required by their Oath of Office.
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
My concern is a few lawyers I follow argue that what trump said would not exceed the requirements of Brandenburg.
I like the Brandenburg standard. I would not like to see impeachment used as a way around it.
I like the Brandenburg standard. I would not like to see impeachment used as a way around it.
Agreed. It would be a complete dereliction of every representative and senator's duty to not respond to this - even if there may not be the votes to confirm the impeachment in the senate. Not to do so would be agreeing to normalize Trump's actions. It would continue the slide towards fascism.
Last edited:
If impeached and removed from office, a former president would lose most of those benefits, but would still receive Secret Service projection. See "18 U.S. Code § 3056 - Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service"
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3056). There is no exception there for presidents removed from office as there is in the Former Presidents Act (https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/former-presidents.html).
Even if removed from office, a former president would still need protection, not just for his benefit, but to protect the US because of his knowledge of classified information.
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,791
Well, Trump certainly needs Secret Service protection from me leaving bags of flaming poo on his doorstep.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Bingo!
Go for impeachment. Let everyone know where they stood on this!
And same for the Senate when it comes to conviction.
What's that Ted Cruz? You were always totally an opponent of Trump and not just a slimy opportunist sack of ****** What's that Lindsay Graham? No, I don't want to see your video of your flambouyant gesticulations and your gazing into your soul ********. What did you vote?
You think he could remember anything not directly to do with how great he is?
I’m serious whilst that might be a consideration for every single President prior to Trump and every one after it really doesn’t apply to him.
Plus I suspect that he will lose his protection detail quite quickly when he will not take any of their advice or instructions. When he was President he could do what he wanted and the SS simply had to deal with it. Once he stops being president he will have to abide by the SS advice and instructions if he wants their protection, which we know he simply won’t be able to do.
angrysoba
Philosophile
They should give him protection all right. They can have a guy outside his cell who takes him out for his 30 minutes mandated exercise.
I would be more than happy for his retirement in solitary confinement to be long and uninterrupted by being accidentally, brutally stabbed to death while shaving.
Funny how its only the Democrats who should pursue unity, with unity of course meaning making concessions to the party that was only too happy to back a President who tried to overthrow democracy. And lets not forget Whitewater, birtherism, Benghazi, Hilary's emails, blocking Merrick Garland's nomination because it should be left to the next President and then doing a 180 when it suited them? And lets not forget all those Trumpistas who remain convinced that he was robbed of the Presidency in the face of all evidence to the contrary, you think the Democratic Party should reach to them? Or do you mean the mythical moderate Republicans everyone insists still exists even though they are seen less often than bigfoot? Grow up FFS, if you want to .heal the wounds. the onus is on the Republicans to change and impeaching Trup would be a good start.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
For the same reason it was up to Abraham Lincoln, instead of Jefferson Davis.
I wouldn't exactly say that it was time to forgive, and I sure as heck don't want to forget, but what I absolutely do not want is an opportunity for Trump to claim victory as his last act in office.
If the Democrats drop the impeachment crusade, Trump leaves office humiliated, blubbering, hiding away without even a Twitter account to turn to. If the Democrats pursue impeachment and lose, Trump leaves office a victim, who fought the deep state and an implacable foe right to the very end.
In an earlier post, I note that if you force people to go on record, they often go on record against you, because they are mad at being forced. The Democrats should understand that they aren't just forcing the Republican elected officials to go on record. They are forcing all citizens to "go on record" in every political discussion. The average person saw what happened on Wednesday and was disgusted, and the Democrats' hands were completely clean of it. Don't jump down into the gutter to wrestle with that pig.