Split Thread A second impeachment

[ponderingturtle]

Which is contrary to how the house voted right at the start of the proceedings. The trial IS constitutional. They cannot just hand-wave that away and declare it not so.

Haven't you been paying attention of course they can, hypocrisy is an artform for republicans. Who would hold them accountable for that?

 

[eerok]

I use the "Disable Javascript" addon for Firefox. If I strike a site that keeps popping up JavaScript nag windows, a quick flick of the "JS" switch disables that functionality, then I can navigate the site with no issues.

Thanks. I was too lazy to hunt for a good addon for js since NoScript went defunct, but this one seems to work pretty well. Simple and direct.

 

[ponderingturtle]

they held the senate before trump and lost the senate directly due to him

i'm not sure why they continue to believe they need him

Because it is their only chance to stay in power. The base is Trumpist so they need to be Trumpist or get primaried.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Because it is their only chance to stay in power. The base is Trumpist so they need to be Trumpist or get primaried.

Not convicting Trump might be enough for Republicans not to get threatened with violence.
It won't be enough not to get primaried, and definitely not enough to get reelected.

 

[Meadmaker]

The democrats can show all the videos they want, Trump never told them to attack the house. They look like racists who accuse a black because some black did a criminal act.

In my humble opinion, you are kind of right and kind of wrong. The racism comment is irrelevant, but I know people love to say things are just like racism, whether or not they are anything at all like racism.

If this were a criminal trial, I don't hink there's enough to convict. Maybe something will come up, but from what I've seen, I don't think there is any proof that he knew that crimes would occur as a result of his speech.

He should have known. I was listening live to that speech, and when I heard him talking about marching to the Capitol and "fight like Hell", I was certain there would be violence, and I thought it entirely possible that they would literally storm the Capitol.

Trump's only real defense is, "I'm such a moron that I didn't realize what would happen when I told them to go to the Capitol, fight, and stop the Congress from doing what they were doing. They were supposed to take me seriously, but not literally,"

They took him literally this time.

In my opinion, for impeachment, that's plenty. Moreover, I fully accept the argument that his "high crimes and misdemeanors" did not begin on January 6. I think his constant undermining of democracy is thoroughly reprehensible and makes him unfit for office. That behavior was disgusting and should not be tolerated.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Lindsey Graham tweets

@LindseyGrahamSC
The 'Not Guilty' vote is growing after today.

I think most Republicans found the presentation by the House Managers offensive and absurd.

 

[Susheel]

Lindsey Graham tweets

@LindseyGrahamSC
The 'Not Guilty' vote is growing after today.

I think most Republicans found the presentation by the House Managers offensive and absurd.

Why do I have the feeling that reality might be just the opposite?

 

[Darat]

Lindsey Graham tweets

@LindseyGrahamSC
The 'Not Guilty' vote is growing after today.

I think most Republicans found the presentation by the House Managers offensive and absurd.

I think we have established that speaking truth is offensive to a certain group.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

GOP. Sen. Mike Lee objected to evidence in managers’ case naming him as source about a Trump call
By Colby Itkowitz

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...live-updates/#link-MHTM7BUWCNE4NOUTHZD6Y2PGLU

paywall

[blue_mountain@linux ~]$ URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/10/trump-impeachment-live-updates/"
[blue_mountain@linux ~]$ elinks -dump "$URL" | egrep -v '^[[:space:]]+(Link:|AD[[:space:]]*$)' | sed '/Show More/,$d' | less

Sorry, that's the Linux geek in me coming out. elinks is a console-based HTTP client (aka "browser") that doesn't process JavaScript. The Washington Post's paywall is implemented using JavaScript, so without JavaScript the content is available.

I use the "Disable Javascript" addon for Firefox. If I strike a site that keeps popping up JavaScript nag windows, a quick flick of the "JS" switch disables that functionality, then I can navigate the site with no issues.

Thanks. I was too lazy to hunt for a good addon for js since NoScript went defunct, but this one seems to work pretty well. Simple and direct.

If you're using Firefox and want to disable Javascript without installing an addon, you can do this instead:

1. Open a new tab or window.
2. Enter "about:config" in the URL/search bar.
3. Enter "javascript" in the search bar.
4. You will then see a large list of configuration options, sorted alphabetically. Find the "javascript.enabled" option, which will probably be the second option in the list. (I rather imagine they arranged for that on purpose.) Toggle that option by clicking at the right-hand side of that line.
5. Open the web page that's using Javascript to enforce a paywall.
6. To re-enable Javascript, repeat steps 1 through 4. (You can save yourself from repeating steps 1 through 3 by leaving the Javascript options tab open.)

 

[Foster Zygote]

In my humble opinion, you are kind of right and kind of wrong. The racism comment is irrelevant, but I know people love to say things are just like racism, whether or not they are anything at all like racism.

That's racist!

But seriously, I agree with everything you wrote. Trump probably didn't intend for his supporters to storm the Capitol Building (although he was reportedly quite excited when they did), but being a recklessly irresponsible moron is certainly grounds for impeachment in itself. Defending Trump by saying he didn't mean for it to happen is like saying, "but your Honor, my client didn't mean to hit that full school bus after having four bourbons for lunch and then deciding to drive back to work".

 

[Monza]

If you're using Firefox and want to disable Javascript without installing an addon, you can do this instead:

1. Open a new tab or window.
2. Enter "about:config" in the URL/search bar.
3. Enter "javascript" in the search bar.
4. You will then see a large list of configuration options, sorted alphabetically. Find the "javascript.enabled" option, which will probably be the second option in the list. (I rather imagine they arranged for that on purpose.) Toggle that option by clicking at the right-hand side of that line.
5. Open the web page that's using Javascript to enforce a paywall.
6. To re-enable Javascript, repeat steps 1 through 4. (You can save yourself from repeating steps 1 through 3 by leaving the Javascript options tab open.)

Thank you for that.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Lindsey Graham tweets

@LindseyGrahamSC
The 'Not Guilty' vote is growing after today.

I think most Republicans found the presentation by the House Managers offensive and absurd.

He tweeted this after telling the press that he spoke to Trump on the phone in order to reassure him that he wasn't going to be convicted. Nothing like stating your conclusion before you've seen the evidence.

 

[Ladewig]

So far, the prosecution’s presentation has been well done.

Thinking back to the O.J. trial, jurors can get overwhelmed and numbed when hit with too much information at the same time. I like the way the prosecutors haven’t even used all their time.

In the end, I hope their closing argument is brief and to the point. Something like...

“You have seen the timeline. You have seen and heard the President’s words and actions before, during and after the insurrection. You have seen the consequences of those words and actions. Can anyone here actually believe that this riotous insurrection would have occurred but for the President’s words and actions? In your heart of hearts, putting politics aside, can you in good conscience vote to acquit and in so doing, say the President is without any guilt in what transpired? Has no blame for the deaths, injuries and mayhem which ensued? Remember, history will not look kindly on those who on this day choose to selfishly put Party over Country. I only ask you for you to do what you know is right, and that is to vote to convict Donald J. Trump for the articles before you.”

It’s not likely to sway enough Republicans to make a difference, but at least we may have a “Patrick Henry before the Virgina Convention”-type speech for the history books!

Yes. I keep coming back to that.

I kept thinking won’t these disgusting vermin eventually face their grandkids or great-grandkids who will ask “why did you vote to release a career conman who tried to hide behind a tissue of lies while endangering your very life?”

I think the answer falls somewhere between
- I’ll be dead by then
- long before they are old enough to ask the question, the family will have taught them to hate “those” people, so they will be praising me and my vote.
- telling lies, accusing one’s opponents of the thing that one is doing, arguing from the most hypocritical of positions, and having a dozen logical fallacies ready to use in a moments notice has worked up to this point. Why switch horses in midstream?
-three words: “The Bigger Lie”
-if Trump has taught us anything, it is how powerfully liberating it is to not worry about anything other than what is right in front of you. Sure, we’ve always been climate-change/shmilage-change, but Trump brought us to new levels.

 

[acbytesla]

Lindsey Graham tweets

@LindseyGrahamSC
The 'Not Guilty' vote is growing after today.

I think most Republicans found the presentation by the House Managers offensive and absurd.

Given that Lindsey Graham is a co- conspirator, his tweet is unsurprising. McConnell is the most machiavellian, whereas Graham is the most servile and obsequious. I despise McConnell but I really can't stand Graham.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Is it just one month, though? Once the precedent is established that the conviction vote can be cancelled if it can be delayed past the president's term, what's to prevent a Senate majority leader from going all Garland on it and saying, for example, "Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust" if the impeachment occurs in the last year of a president's term?

Yep.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Raskin: "This case is much worse than someone who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. It's more like like a case where the town fire chief, who's paid to put out fires, sends a mob not to yell fire in a crowded theatre, but to actually set the theatre on fire."

 

[Susheel]

He tweeted this after telling the press that he spoke to Trump on the phone in order to reassure him that he wasn't going to be convicted. Nothing like stating your conclusion before you've seen the evidence.

I think that tweet was meant for a very specific audience of one.

 

[CapelDodger]

they held the senate before trump and lost the senate directly due to him

i'm not sure why they continue to believe they need him

The only answer I can come up with is that they're thinking no further than their next primary. It's all about personal interest, not the Party interest. Which bodes well for the Democratic Party in the near future.

 

[timhau]

Lindsey Graham tweets

@LindseyGrahamSC
The 'Not Guilty' vote is growing after today.

I think most Republicans found the presentation by the House Managers offensive and absurd.

Translation: "President T****, please don't tell my constituents I'm gay."

 

[Segnosaur]

Of course, which is why the GOP Senate members are basing their decision to acquit on their argument that impeachment hearings cannot be carried out against ex-presidents (thus giving all future Presidents a one month get out of jail free card at the end of their term) . . .

Is it just one month, though? Once the precedent is established that the conviction vote can be cancelled if it can be delayed past the president's term, what's to prevent a Senate majority leader from going all Garland on it and saying, for example, "Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust" if the impeachment occurs in the last year of a president's term?

There is a senate rule that the impeachment trial must begin the day after the articles of impeachment are delivered from the House to the Senate. So, the ability for Moscow Mitch to pull a "Garland" is limited.

In order to get around that, Moscow Mitch would either have to change the rules of the senate (which, I think need to be done at the start of the session, so he couldn't do it after the impeachable offences have occurred... although I could be wrong about that), or they would have to 'start' the proceedings, then reeeeeallllly drag things out.