• 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

There is some historical precedent: The impeachments of Sen. William Blount in 1797 and Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 both occurred after the men were no longer in office.
Click to expand...

Rachel Maddow led off her show last night with a deep dive into the Belknap impeachment.

Worth a watch.
 
And if I recall Congress had to choose to drop the impeachment against Nixon after he resigned, it didn't like just automatically happen.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Yep. And it didn’t work, establishing a precedent.
Click to expand...

So there's a precedent, but is there a point? Is seeking a conviction worth the effort?


For my part, I wish the Senate would convene this afternoon, rush through some rule changes to allow a vote on conviction without needing the usual trappings of a trial, and actually vote him out, even with only a week left in office. However, that isn't going to happen, so is there a point in convicting him after his term ends? Seems like posturing to me. That's not horrible. Posturing isn't always a bad thing. It's just not something, at least in this case, that I can get all that excited about.
 
Meadmaker said:
So there's a precedent, but is there a point? Is seeking a conviction worth the effort?
Click to expand...

I think so.

Unlike last time, the Democrats can conduct a real trial with real evidence and testimony. Subpoena Giuliani and ask him what he meant by suggesting a “Trial by Combat”. Or who came up with the letter below and if the President ever approved of or made a speech trying to recruit a Trump Army for “fighting off the Liberal MOB”. Even asking what the camo color scheme was supposed to invoke.

50824015303_c7d4ed8918.jpg


It might just end up being a “Show Trial”, but I think both we as a people, and history, would benefit from the show. I know I would.
 
Last edited:
And like I said the last impeachment was too much political skullduggery involving things done for political gain which, sadly, far too many Americans have resigned themselves to the idea that "all politicians do it" so there was less emotional "oomph" from proving that Trump did it.

This is... not that.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I think so.

Unlike last time, the Democrats can conduct a real trial with real evidence and testimony. Subpoena Giuliani and ask him what he meant by suggesting a “Trial by Combat”. Or who came up with the letter below and if the President ever approved of or made a speech trying to recruit a Trump Army for “fighting off the Liberal MOB”. Even asking what the camo color scheme was supposed to invoke.

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50824015303_c7d4ed8918.jpg[/qimg]

It might just end up being a “Show Trial”, but I think both we as a people, and history, would benefit from the show. I know I would.
Click to expand...

Members of the Trump Army should be required to wear horns and face paint. Kind of like the KISS Army.
 
dudalb said:
alfaniner said:
Good God, I really ******* hate Republicans.
Click to expand...

I hate 90% of them. And I someone who has voted Republican, and am probably a moderate conservative on many iseues.
Click to expand...


This is a sentiment I can get behind. (See my sig.)

But the circumstances are different now. At this juncture, having watched what Repugnicans have been willing to do and say over the past several years, and especially the past several months, what they have been willing to tolerate, much less condone, I have to take the default position that anyone who is willing to voluntarily assume membership in that group, to accept that label, is a vile, sexist, racist bigot. A sociopath with no sense of guilt, no ability to empathize, no redeemable human qualities whatsoever. Completely untrustworthy, duplicitous, reprehensible.

I' not sure what one of them could do to regain any foothold on respect, or even forgiveness, but it would have to be pretty impressive.

As far as I'm concerned the Republican brand has become little different from a swastika. If someone is willing to wear it then they get all the baggage it comes with.
 
Crossbow said:
Sorry, but I do not believe that you are entirely correct.

While you are correct in what the US Constitution has to say about '2/3 of the Senators present'.

But it is my understanding that according to the rules of the Senate, that unless a senator has some terribly important reason for being absent, then all 100 of the senators must be present when the Senate is going through a Presidential impeachment trial.

As such, it will take at least 67 senators to convict Trump.
Click to expand...


Judging by the sort of statements made and positions taken by Repugnican senators over the recent past, they could claim they have and urgent appointment to wash their cat, and not so much as crack a smile.

On the outrageous or implausible scale they have already established it wouldn't even nudge the needle.
 
Pacal said:
232 Congressmen voted to Impeach Trump for a second time. Sadly 197 Republicans said nay. 5 Congressmen abstained.

I congratulate the 10 Republicans who voted for the Impeachment. Showing at least some real integrity.

What was very pathetic was the "arguments" put forth to excuse not voting for Impeachment. Whatever!!
Click to expand...


There was one, which seemed to be a talking point of sorts since it was used by so many of them, that fascinated me because it seemed to depend on the general lack of understanding of just what impeachment meant.

They complained that the impeachment was flawed because there had been no trial. I'm sorry none of the Dems bothered to point out that impeachment was the step taken so that there could be a trial.
 
Meadmaker said:
So there's a precedent, but is there a point? Is seeking a conviction worth the effort?


For my part, I wish the Senate would convene this afternoon, rush through some rule changes to allow a vote on conviction without needing the usual trappings of a trial, and actually vote him out, even with only a week left in office. However, that isn't going to happen, so is there a point in convicting him after his term ends? Seems like posturing to me. That's not horrible. Posturing isn't always a bad thing. It's just not something, at least in this case, that I can get all that excited about.
Click to expand...


A successful conviction would allow them to ban him from holding public office again.

That alone would be worth it.
 
quadraginta said:
Judging by the sort of statements made and positions taken by Repugnican senators over the recent past, they could claim they have and urgent appointment to wash their cat, and not so much as crack a smile.

On the outrageous or implausible scale they have already established it wouldn't even nudge the needle.
Click to expand...

And that's why, in this day and age (a 19th century expression), a rule change mandating real-time remote participation in debates of this gravity is necessary. God he knoweth it's feasible. Senator Grabpussy (R Woebegin) might orate sitting on his curile toilet and it wouldn't matter -- and it sure'n hell wouldn't let him hide from his stern duty.

"Hullo? Missus Senate Pres'dint? I cain't raise a signal out here in Gutpile. Reckon I won't be a votin' this time around."

"Fax your vote in, you clod!"

"Uh. Wull, I think the snow's jest 'bout to bury the phone pole, 'n --"

"Or forget next year's pork train for your godforsaken state."

"Aye! Nay! Swear me in! Cuss me out if yuh wanter! Anythang you say, Missus Senate Prez Ma'am Sir! (Scuse me while I shift m' quid. Dang near swallered it.)"


And so on at any length.
 
sackett said:
And that's why, in this day and age (a 19th century expression), a rule change mandating real-time remote participation in debates of this gravity is necessary. God he knoweth it's feasible. Senator Grabpussy (R Woebegin) might orate sitting on his curile toilet and it wouldn't matter -- and it sure'n hell wouldn't let him hide from his stern duty.



"Hullo? Missus Senate Pres'dint? I cain't raise a signal out here in Gutpile. Reckon I won't be a votin' this time around."



"Fax your vote in, you clod!"



"Uh. Wull, I think the snow's jest 'bout to bury the phone pole, 'n --"



"Or forget next year's pork train for your godforsaken state."



"Aye! Nay! Swear me in! Cuss me out if yuh wanter! Anythang you say, Missus Senate Prez Ma'am Sir! (Scuse me while I shift m' quid. Dang near swallered it.)"





And so on at any length.
Click to expand...
Or, as we saw yesterday, H. Res. 8 allows a member to report in votes from colleagues not in the chamber.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I think so.

Unlike last time, the Democrats can conduct a real trial with real evidence and testimony. Subpoena Giuliani and ask him what he meant by suggesting a “Trial by Combat”. Or who came up with the letter below and if the President ever approved of or made a speech trying to recruit a Trump Army for “fighting off the Liberal MOB”. Even asking what the camo color scheme was supposed to invoke.

50824015303_c7d4ed8918.jpg


It might just end up being a “Show Trial”, but I think both we as a people, and history, would benefit from the show. I know I would.
Click to expand...

Yup

JoeMorgue said:
And like I said the last impeachment was too much political skullduggery involving things done for political gain which, sadly, far too many Americans have resigned themselves to the idea that "all politicians do it" so there was less emotional "oomph" from proving that Trump did it.

This is... not that.
Click to expand...

Exactly - it's the first step in determining the truth. And a *proper* impeachment that looks at evidence (Yes Mitch) is needed. In fact for the travesty of the Ukraine call too.

quadraginta said:
There was one, which seemed to be a talking point of sorts since it was used by so many of them, that fascinated me because it seemed to depend on the general lack of understanding of just what impeachment meant.

They complained that the impeachment was flawed because there had been no trial. I'm sorry none of the Dems bothered to point out that impeachment was the step taken so that there could be a trial.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I think so.

Unlike last time, the Democrats can conduct a real trial with real evidence and testimony. Subpoena Giuliani and ask him what he meant by suggesting a “Trial by Combat”. Or who came up with the letter below and if the President ever approved of or made a speech trying to recruit a Trump Army for “fighting off the Liberal MOB”. Even asking what the camo color scheme was supposed to invoke.

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50824015303_c7d4ed8918.jpg[/qimg]

It might just end up being a “Show Trial”, but I think both we as a people, and history, would benefit from the show. I know I would.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that is real?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom