Thanks - I actually hadn’t seen that one - my allusion was to a much earlier deposition under oath, can’t even recall which one it was as he has been the defendant in so many trials!
Split Thread A second impeachment
- Thread starter JoeMorgue
- Start date
Thanks - I actually hadn’t seen that one - my allusion was to a much earlier deposition under oath, can’t even recall which one it was as he has been the defendant in so many trials!
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Except not really. Trump projected that public persona, sure, but at last check, he was talked out of a lot of things in more private settings and when real consequences to he, himself, were made clear.
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,449
You only need enough to convict. BTW, a false narrative or political agenda isn't evidence, it's propaganda.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Sounds a lot like Rupert Murdoch at the Leveson Inquiry.
At the least, it's not a fringe Republican view. We know that in public they're supporting Taylor Greene.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Unfortunately you also need at least 17 Republican senators to put their sworn oaths before themselves.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Not necessarily. They need 2/3rds of the people present. If some Republicans decide that it's best for them to stay home "out of protest"* because it's "unconstitutional", then fewer Republicans are needed to vote to convict. If 25 stay home, then they won't need any Republican votes at all.
*But actually to get rid of Trump in a way that means that they can still be seen to support him and therefore have the best of both worlds.
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
“Join the TRUMP ARMY!”
“March on the Capitol!”
“Fight like hell or you don’t have a country!”
Not being a criminal trial, “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is not necessarily the standard. Nor is “a preponderance of evidence”.
But, “C’mon man!”
We're almost at the point where we're just going to have to ask the Republicans vague, open ended question and then apply them to Trump without their permission.
Democrats: "Yes or no. Ordering a violent mob to storm the Capitol is an impeachable offense?"
Republicans: "Yes."
Democrats: "Gotcha. So that's a 'Yes' vote for impeaching Trump."
Republicans: "Wait, not that's not what..."
Democrats: "Don't care. You're so dishonest and have such a poor grasp on reality that it doesn't matter. You agree that what Trump actually did is an impeachable offense. You pretending Trump didn't do it is beside the point."
Democrats: "Yes or no. Ordering a violent mob to storm the Capitol is an impeachable offense?"
Republicans: "Yes."
Democrats: "Gotcha. So that's a 'Yes' vote for impeaching Trump."
Republicans: "Wait, not that's not what..."
Democrats: "Don't care. You're so dishonest and have such a poor grasp on reality that it doesn't matter. You agree that what Trump actually did is an impeachable offense. You pretending Trump didn't do it is beside the point."
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
I am asking you to express an opinion on the points in the impeachment document. All of which are verifiable by everybody. The information is public.
Do you consider those acts acceptable for a democratically elected leader?
This is not a court case. This is a political procedure. Every voter should decide whether they will support such actions.
This is not a court case. It is not about the evidence; the evidence is clear. It is about whether the conduct shown is compatible with the office of president.
Oh I can. I don't hate him. I just despise him too much to say his name. You might notice that I rarely use swear words. Where I come from, liars are generally considered despicable.
Hans
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Some Democrat needs to quote the words of Aaron Burr from his speech to the Senate upon leaving the Vice-Presidency in March 1805-
Not that it will make any difference to most of the Republicans- but it would make a great sound bite, and sound-bites are, unfortunately, a big part of politics today. It would at least be a bit that could be used in 2022 against certain GOP senators up for re-election- "how did your Senator measure up to this standard?"
-with particular emphasis on the highlighted bit.
Not that it will make any difference to most of the Republicans- but it would make a great sound bite, and sound-bites are, unfortunately, a big part of politics today. It would at least be a bit that could be used in 2022 against certain GOP senators up for re-election- "how did your Senator measure up to this standard?"
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
TDS is just another name for patriotism. It would be unpatriotic to be able to politically damage or a member of his cult and not do it.
Another name for opposing fascists, for opposing rank ignorance, for opposing lies, for opposing infantility, for opposing woeful incompetence, for opposing racism and bigotry, for opposing unbridled narcissism, for opposing cults, for opposing conspiracy theorists, and for opposing a sociopath.
If there's ever been a significant politician who embodied so many deplorable charactertics, I don't know who that person is. TDS my ass.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,490
It's not a false narrative. Them there are FACTS. Not that will persuade you or the Republican Senators.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,490
Not that the evidence doesn't clearly pass the bar on either standard. You're right. This isn't a court of law. The same rules do not apply.
What we are looking at just like in the first impeachment trial is the possibility even probability of jury nullification.
The evidence is overwhelming. In the first trial GOP Senators refused to even look at the evidence. Those that did, admitted he was guilty but said passing the buck that thhe American people should decide.
Last edited:
Talking about a "false narrative" in relation to Trump and calling the Brief submitted accusing Trump of various acts so is highly amusing.
Lets us discuss the truly false narrative that Trump pushed after the November Presidential Election that the Election was stolen. How Trump pushed and pushed that obvious lie and made repeatedly false accusations about this that and the other related to the Election. Shall we talk about Trump's efforts, post-election to delay etc., completion and certification of the results of the Election. Shall we talk about Trump's repeated phone calls to pressure election officials, such has Election Officials in Georgia that resulted in an outpouring of death threats and what was Trump's response to that well said Official was again attacked by Trump.
Shall we mention that Trump before the Election was saying if he lost it could only be because the Election was rigged. Thus Trump had already in place some sort of plan to scream "Fire" when there was no fire. And even before the 2016 Election Trump was saying if he lost that it would only be because of fraud and after the 2016 Election Trump alleged that 3 million illegal votes were cast for Hillary. Trump had an investigation set up to find this alleged massive fraud and guess what they found nothing even remotely like massive Fraud in fact they found pretty close to zero. So the accusation of Election fraud by Trump has a well established history and so does Trump lying about it.
The above isn't simply simple Propaganda, it goes beyond it into outright lies. It is a false narrative deliberately created by Trump and his enablers.
On January 6th 2021 Trump continued to push his false narrative whipping up a crowd which then proceeded to storm the Capital. Trump told them the Election had been stolen, a lie, etc. And while it was happening Trump did very little to stop or contain it. And has of right now Trump continues to push the false narrative of a stolen Election, which imperils the future of American Democracy and certainly poisons the political landscape in the USA.
As for the Senate trial itself. Well... It is painfully obvious that unless something almost miraculous happens Trump will not be convicted. Why? Because most of the Republican Senators are spineless jellyfish who no matter what the evidence is will NEVER convict Trump of anything. To them the evidence does not matter, what matters is their fear of Trump and his supporters and their perception of their future political careers. Thus the Republicans will be tied to Trump and continue to push conspiracy lies and crap.
As for TDS, (Trump Derangement Syndrome). Do you honestly think that Trump's behavior since the November Election is remotely acceptable? Do you honestly think his grifting of his followers is acceptable? (Of hundreds of millions of Dollars!)
I find it amusing that you accuse the Brief of being a "false narrative", "propaganda", and having a "political agenda", while ignoring that Trump's campaign of lies etc., is all of those things.
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
Further...
“House Mgr Raskin sets a 5p Friday deadline for Trump to respond to invite to testify: "Whereas a sitting President might raise concerns abt distraction from their official duties, that concern is obviously inapplicable here. We therefore anticipate your availability to testify."
“House Mgr Raskin sets a 5p Friday deadline for Trump to respond to invite to testify: "Whereas a sitting President might raise concerns abt distraction from their official duties, that concern is obviously inapplicable here. We therefore anticipate your availability to testify."
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Finally, when they were able to get it through his Neanderthal-like, thick skull that he would actually suffer some really bad consequences personally for once in his life he actually shut up and listened. Proof that miracles do happen.