Split Thread A second impeachment

[dasmiller]

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.

I was unaware of that; because of the schedule negotiations, I'd assumed that the Senate had more leeway. Now that I've looked it up (I had to check for myself), I believe that you're correct and my concerns were probably unfounded.

Thanks for putting the 'E' in ISF.

 

[Upchurch]

They just cited Mitch McConnell's wife as evidence against Trump. Strange days...

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

Republicans are going to abide by rules now? Tell me more of this world of wonder.

 

[kookbreaker]

Trump’s defense is supposed to get 16 hours. How are they gonna fill that? More Jim Jordan speeches with him checklisting every MAGA complaint point like cancel culture and immigration?

 

[shemp]

Maybe they can get Rudy to show us how he dyes his hair.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

Republicans are going to abide by rules now? Tell me more of this world of wonder.

I agree that there's not much reason to trust the republicans.

But, there is a difference between breaking something that is considered fair play/tradition/etc. (such as "allow votes on judicial nominees") and breaking an actual rule which has been written down/voted on/accepted.

 

[crescent]

Trump’s defense is supposed to get 16 hours. How are they gonna fill that? More Jim Jordan speeches with him checklisting every MAGA complaint point like cancel culture and immigration?

My guess is that we're in for a heaping dose of "Whataboutism". They'll spend a good bit of time going after the BLM/Social Justice protests, making claims about Antifa. They'll bring up specific protests by these groups, protests that they will claim are analogous to the event at the capitol.

Remember - they are not making a legal argument. They will be making political and cultural arguments instead because that's what sways voters and that in turn is all most of the Senators care about.

 

[Gaetan]

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.

If the cia or the police didn't expect the crowd would attact the house with all the infos about that group they had why Trump would do? They didn't take safety mesures because the speech of Trump couldn't be expected to cause problem. They were people death but they were killed by the police, the people in the crowd didn't want to kill anybody otherwise they would have done it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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!

It is making the GOP Senators look really bad every minute this goes on.

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.

That explains the reports that yesterday Trump was gleeful. Could have been a spokesperson lie or they could have told Trump acting angry signifies defeat. But I think Graham's call is the likely reason.

I wonder how Trump is going to feel after his defense attorneys put on a horrible defense. I'm going to bet they present two things, some crap about it being unconstitutional and they'll emphasize the couple times Trump said "peaceful" (one during his speech on the 6th and whenever he said it afterward.)

I hope the prosecutors focus on Trump's refusal to act during the riot during the closing. No matter how much the GOP claims he didn't incite the crowd, there's no excuse for not acting during the riot.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm glad they are bringing up the staff members and other employees.

I also hope that in closing arguments they call the "unconstitutional" out for the cowardice it is to use as an excuse.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My guess is that we're in for a heaping dose of "Whataboutism". They'll spend a good bit of time going after the BLM/Social Justice protests, making claims about Antifa. They'll bring up specific protests by these groups, protests that they will claim are analogous to the event at the capitol.

Remember - they are not making a legal argument. They will be making political and cultural arguments instead because that's what sways voters and that in turn is all most of the Senators care about.

Sounds about right. It should be entertaining.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs
I don't buy this "fear of being harmed by Trumpers" as a legitimate reason. I think it's a convenient excuse they're telling their Dem colleagues because they're just chicken **** cowards too afraid to stand up to the Trump faction of the GOP .

You are quite incorrect.

There are plenty of Democrats who have stood up to that POS Trump. That is why Trump has gotten himself impeached twice, why Trump lost the popular vote twice, and so on.

However, just about all Republicans are "chicken **** cowards too afraid to stand up to the Trump faction of the GOP".

You misread my post. "They" are the GOP members who are telling "their Dem colleagues" that they wanted to vote guilty or for the impeachment, etc but are afraid of the Trumpers who they claim have threatened their families, etc. I highlighted the part of your post which was the actual point of my post.

 

[Stacyhs]

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 wonder how long Lindsey can hold his breath before having to come out of Trump's ass before crawling back in?

 

[Vixen]

My guess is that we're in for a heaping dose of "Whataboutism". They'll spend a good bit of time going after the BLM/Social Justice protests, making claims about Antifa. They'll bring up specific protests by these groups, protests that they will claim are analogous to the event at the capitol.

Remember - they are not making a legal argument. They will be making political and cultural arguments instead because that's what sways voters and that in turn is all most of the Senators care about.

Ah, but this isn't about the rioters, it is about, 'Did Trump incite them?'

I don't recall any one person inciting the BLM/Antifa.

 

[Vixen]

Not sure I agree with the line that the rioters had no control over their own actions. We are each of us responsible for what we do. No person should be able to incite you to commit a crime or something that is obviously wrong.

As for Trump, the prosecutors have shown him to be a classic psychopath: no remorse, no empathy, a love of chaos and drama, manipulative, narcissistic and a glib liar.

He is a monster.

 

[Stacyhs]

Not sure I agree with the line that the rioters had no control over their own actions. We are each of us responsible for what we do. No person should be able to incite you to commit a crime or something that is obviously wrong.

As for Trump, the prosecutors have shown him to be a classic psychopath: no remorse, no empathy, a love of chaos and drama, manipulative, narcissistic and a glib liar.

He is a monster.

He's a sociopath, not a psychopath. He's not only a glib liar, he's a pathological liar.

 

[Vixen]

He's a sociopath, not a psychopath. He's not only a glib liar, he's a pathological liar.

You say tomato, I say tomato.

 

[Stacyhs]

CNN is reporting there are fifteen empty GOP seats during this session of the trial. Interesting. I guess they can't even be bothered to listen?

 

[crescent]

Ah, but this isn't about the rioters, it is about, 'Did Trump incite them?'

That's the argument the Dems are making - but I don't expect the Republicans to engage that argument.

I don't recall any one person inciting the BLM/Antifa.

They'll provide things that they'll claim show incitement - at least, that's my guess. If they do that, expect some pretty tortured logic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not sure I agree with the line that the rioters had no control over their own actions. We are each of us responsible for what we do. No person should be able to incite you to commit a crime or something that is obviously wrong.

As for Trump, the prosecutors have shown him to be a classic psychopath: no remorse, no empathy, a love of chaos and drama, manipulative, narcissistic and a glib liar.

He is a monster.

The fact the rioters are individually responsible, (they are and they are being held accountable), doesn't mean Trump isn't responsible for his actions.