Split Thread A second impeachment

[angrysoba]

I never thought he was crazy. Evil, maybe, but not crazy.

Whoever thought we'd be saying that Dubya was the more competent president than another president?

We've had evil presidents and idiot presidents, but Trump is truly an evil idiot president.

His idiocy, if anything, makes things better. Imagine what he would have been like if he actually knew anything and had competent people around him.

 

[angrysoba]

Basic rule is "it can always get worse". In this case, in 4 years there will be republican contender for presidency worse than Trump. Let it sink in.

Tell me about it. I say it all the time myself.

In this case, "worse" would be someone who is smart.

In fact, one thing that might smooth the way for a worse president is if it becomes the new Godwin to compare people to Trump.

 

[dudalb]

Reporters who cover the Senate say that McConnell really, really, hates Trump. He blamed Trump for blowing the Georgia election and costing him the Majority even beforre the Insurrection, and that just made MCConnell hate him al lthe more.

 

[zorro99]

I heard that the drying up of corporate donations is creating an incentive to impeach.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Reporters who cover the Senate say that McConnell really, really, hates Trump. He blamed Trump for blowing the Georgia election and costing him the Majority even beforre the Insurrection, and that just made MCConnell hate him al lthe more.

This. Donny is the sloppy turd in McConnell's own punchbowl of political graft and corruption. The Turtle was doin' just fine coasting along untouched to a fortune, until Donny came along and ruined it all.

 

[Stacyhs]

Mitch had himself a nice little kingdom going in the Senate and Donnie came along and ruined it.

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome president? Oh, hey...Nancy...got a sec?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I hope the far-right voters Trump mobilized for the GOP will feel as betrayed as they were and never vote Red again.

 

[Segnosaur]

Reporters who cover the Senate say that McConnell really, really, hates Trump. He blamed Trump for blowing the Georgia election and costing him the Majority even beforre the Insurrection, and that just made MCConnell hate him al lthe more.

I have no doubt that Moscow Mitch hates Trump.

But, the thing that Moscow Mitch loves is power. His decision to join in on the impeachment is going to depend on whether he thinks it will help republicans in the future more than anything else.

Look at it this way: McConnell claimed that the senate couldn't start looking at impeachment until the 19th or 20th. Schumer pointed out that the rules allow the senate to meet earlier, if they wanted to look at impeachment almost immediately. If McConnell really wanted Trump gone early, why didn't he pick up on that little rule? Not like Mitch is a newbie when it comes to senate procedures.

See: The Hill

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I saw that, too. I'm absolutely boggled.

I mean, I thought that McConnell had concluded that Trump was a liability and wanted him out, but I didn't think he'd actually let it be known that he felt that way.

Follow the money. It ain't hard. A number of corporations that donate a lot to GOP candidates dumped Trump and anyone who supports him.

 

[fromdownunder]

One thing I am sure about. McConnell can count. Surely privately he has done some serious checking as to whether or not he has the numbers to win, and that is absolutely vital to know before he commits to anything, Same with Pence. He probably does not want to go ahead with Section 25 because he has not got, and can't get the numbers in Cabinet.


When you make a serious move, make sure you can win first. Rule No. One for any savvy Politician.



Norm

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What makes you think Trump is toast? If he's still alive in 2024, what makes you think he couldn't win?

If Trump is a viable candidate in 2024, we're all going to still be in deep trouble.

 

[Stacyhs]

One thing I am sure about. McConnell can count. Surely privately he has done some serious checking as to whether or not he has the numbers to win, and that is absolutely vital to know before he commits to anything, Same with Pence. He probably does not want to go ahead with Section 25 because he has not got, and can't get the numbers in Cabinet.


When you make a serious move, make sure you can win first. Rule No. One for any savvy Politician.



Norm

That's my fear. At least not until the new Senate takes their seats, perhaps?

 

[dirtywick]

I have no doubt that Moscow Mitch hates Trump.

But, the thing that Moscow Mitch loves is power. His decision to join in on the impeachment is going to depend on whether he thinks it will help republicans in the future more than anything else.

Look at it this way: McConnell claimed that the senate couldn't start looking at impeachment until the 19th or 20th. Schumer pointed out that the rules allow the senate to meet earlier, if they wanted to look at impeachment almost immediately. If McConnell really wanted Trump gone early, why didn't he pick up on that little rule? Not like Mitch is a newbie when it comes to senate procedures.

See: The Hill

i agree but it's hard to envision how tacitly endorsing an insurrection against themselves is going to make them stronger

personally i think nobody knows how to deal with this situation

 

[PhantomWolf]

McConnell and Cheney, sure, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a different matter. They essentially have to go along with the Commander-in-Chief.

It's just interesting troubling that they felt the need to remind their own forces that their duty is to the Constitution and NOT to the president.

For those who continue to insist that this is more coo-coo than coup coup, they obviously think that there is a risk that Trump will try to use military personnel to stay in power. Just this alone underlines how important it is to strip him of any influence whatsoever.

One of the reasons that I'm not overly worried about Trump's attempts to use the military is that the military has already had their say on which side they are on, on Nov 3rd with everyone else, and they voted in overwhelming numbers for Biden.

I think that the CoS reminder is aimed at the minority that supported Trump and might be part of the Trumpist Cult, rather than a belief that the majority of the military would side with Trump in any Coup attempt.

 

[angrysoba]

One of the reasons that I'm not overly worried about Trump's attempts to use the military is that the military has already had their say on which side they are on, on Nov 3rd with everyone else, and they voted in overwhelming numbers for Biden.

I think that the CoS reminder is aimed at the minority that supported Trump and might be part of the Trumpist Cult, rather than a belief that the majority of the military would side with Trump in any Coup attempt.

Of course. But the fact that there is handover where the JCS still feel the need to weigh in is the issue.

 

[Firestone]

"There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and of his oath to the Constitution" Liz Cheney

Not that I suddenly become a Liz Cheney fan, but her full statement is great.

On January 6, 2021 a violent mob attacked the United States Capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop the counting of presidential electoral votes. This insurrection caused injury, death and destruction in the most sacred space in our Republic.

Much more will become clear in coming days and weeks, but what we know now is enough. The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.

I will vote to impeach the President.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000176-f8dc-d367-a17e-fefc40700000

No buts, no weasel words, not both-sideisms, no pious references to "concerns about the electoral process". Just a clear description of what happened and the logical conclusion.

Whether that will help her within the GOP caucus or not, we'll see.
But great to finally see another elected GOP leader, with a career still before her, come out this way against Trump.
Compare that to McCarthy and Scalise.

 

[metacristi]

Split from: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341715&highlight=Impeachment

Posted By: Darat

And dust this back off....

New Articles of Impeachment coming on Monday, including “incitement of insurrection.”

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/house-democrats-impeachment-plans/index.html

There is indeed no way to support Trump's actions in general but now we have also 'incitement to insurrection'? When the guy tells clearly in his speech before the events that 'I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard'? All I see here (and in the shameful way Twitter, Facebook and so on basically censored him) is the same 'progressive' approach of cancelling the opposition with all costs, lies or half truths are always fully acceptable to combat the perceived 'fascists'. The problem is that this severe erosion of free speech does not serve anyone on medium and long term and this will be more and more visible in the future, if this kind of making 'justice' have its way. Trump may be a problem for democracy indeed but the current approach of continually restraining free speech is definitely not the right way ahead.

 

[slyjoe]

There is indeed no way to support Trump's actions in general but now we have also 'incitement to insurrection'? When the guy tells clearly in his speech before the events that 'I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard'?

All I see here (and in the shameful way Twitter, Facebook and so on basically censored him) is the same 'progressive' approach of cancelling the opposition with all costs, lies or half truths are always fully acceptable to combat the perceived 'fascists'. The problem is that this severe erosion of free speech does not serve anyone on medium and long term and this will be more and more visible in the future, if this kind of making 'justice' have its way. Trump may be a problem for democracy indeed but the current approach of continually restraining free speech is definitely not the right way ahead.

Try reading the first amendment. You seem to be confused about what "free speech" is.

ETA: And what makes you think the incitement to insurrection is ONLY about his speech on the ellipse?

 

[metacristi]

What Trump did is definitely not 'insurrection', his speech (widely produced as proof by some) cannot be used to claim that he intended to cause violence. The truth is rather that the massively 'progressive' infiltrated Democrats fear so much Trump that basically anything is useful to oust him. If Trump is cancelled using this 'progressive' patented method then anyone, no matter how rational, can be a victim in the future.

 

[slyjoe]

What Trump did is definitely not 'insurrection', his speech (widely produced as proof by some) cannot be used to claim that he intended to cause violence. The truth is rather that the massively 'progressive' infiltrated Democrats fear so much Trump that basically anything is useful to oust him. If Trump is cancelled using this 'progressive' patented method then anyone, no matter how rational, can be a victim in the future.

Of course his speech itself is not "insurrection". The question is: is it "incitement".

Proving intent IS the hard part. But impeachment is not a legal process, it's a political one. So forget about arguing legality.