• 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

Vixen said:
Look. Sociopath is a euphemism created because the layman in the street had an erroneous belief that a psychopath meant a serial killer, who looked a bit like a bug-eyed Jack Nicholson. In the same way laymen saw the word 'moron', 'cretin', 'idiot' and 'spastic' as hugely negative, so new words had to be invented. A sociopath is not a nice version of a psychopath. They are one and the same, nature versus nurture notwithstanding.

Clear now?
Click to expand...

LOL! Laymen in the street created it? Where DO you come up with this stuff? Oh, never mind. I know where you come up with it. But I'm not going to belabor the point anymore or we'll just get taken to task for going off topic. Besides, it's just become too silly for words with that last bit...euphemism created by laymen in the street....omg...........



 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
Not even Raffensperger to testify as to why he felt threatened by Trump’s call?

Not even a few folks with Trump during the insurrection who could testify as to his state of mind?

Not even the Governors who wanted to send National Guard troops who were stymied or delayed?

Not even Mike Pence to ask his thoughts as to how he felt hearing the chants of “Hang Mike Pence”?

Not even a few of the injured officers?

None of which would likely sway enough Republicans. But I still don’t think they should have been the primary target - the American public and history should have been the main concern.
Click to expand...
They would all make great witnesses. But except for Pence and he'd be a risky witness given he's been a Trump cult worshiper for years, the rest would not add anything to the case that we didn't see with all the videos and quotes.

Is there any doubt Trump tried to get the election overturned by intimidating Raffensperger and others? The trial is about what he did when all those other efforts failed. Pence and other means of delaying the final certification were Trump's next step on his plan, a final step.

I would have enjoyed putting those ******* Senators on the hook by discussing how either Trump pushed them to object to the vote count, or how they were unable to admit Trump lost and there was no widespread voter fraud. But that wouldn't get them to vote to convict and I'm not sure it would engender the GOP colleagues to vote with the Democrats either.

IOW, no point.

Now they could have tried to connect Trump to handicapping the Capitol Police. I'm guessing Trump insulated himself from direct involvement. It might have been time consuming and hard to prove. If they could prove it it would be that much harder for the GOP to vote against impeachment. But how are they able to do that now? By their copout weenie stand that the trial is unconstitutional. So not much will change that.

OTOH, if Trump does try to run again, a commission to investigate the riot could get into those details.

I'm not sure Trump really will run again in 2024. He might if al those rallies put it in his head that he can win. But I don't see Trump risking failure. Time will tell.

One thing that is going to happen if Trump is cleared to run, he'll be on the donation gravy train for the next 4 years. Maybe a lot of those GOP legislators are hoping to cash in on some of that.
 
dudalb said:
Or it's people who have in many way never really got out of a teen age way of thinking, where to be as pessimistic and distopian as possible is "cool and hip".
Click to expand...
I lean that way and I'm not trying to be hip. It's just my temperament. I wish it weren't.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
They would all make great witnesses. But except for Pence and he'd be a risky witness given he's been a Trump cult worshiper for years, the rest would not add anything to the case that we didn't see with all the videos and quotes.
....
Click to expand...

By many accounts, Pence was outraged that Trump never expressed any concern for his safety or his family's. I suspect that out of office and under oath, Pence might have some interesting things to say.
 
Bob001 said:
By many accounts, Pence was outraged that Trump never expressed any concern for his safety or his family's. I suspect that out of office and under oath, Pence might have some interesting things to say.
Click to expand...

I think if he did, he'd have said them by now.
 
Minoosh said:
I think the idea is that there would be a 2/3 majority of those present for the vote.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Skeptic Ginger said:
I can see why you read my post that way but it's not what I meant. I meant pass the rule to kick non-voters out could pass with a simple majority.
Click to expand...
Also correct.

For the 51 Dems to be the 2/3 majority, there need to be 75 or fewer senators present. So if 25 or more GOP senators want to abstain, let them, but also don't let them be present for the vote.

The reason would be they have shirked their oath to judge fairly - they are refusing to judge at all. Therefore they have not earned the right to vote.

Frankly, I would have made it a point of order: If senators decide to absent themselves from this process without good reason then they should be expelled from the house for the remainder of the process. Same reason as above.
 
Bob001 said:
By many accounts, Pence was outraged that Trump never expressed any concern for his safety or his family's. I suspect that out of office and under oath, Pence might have some interesting things to say.
Click to expand...
Now why the hell would Pence expect anything like that? It would have been completely out of character.

I wonder how the Secret Service must have felt, protecting the vice president from a mob sent by the president!
 
The defense lawyers might as well spend the day tomorrow barking like dogs for three hours. They’re not going to change any votes regardless of what they say.
 
zorro99 said:
The defense lawyers might as well spend the day tomorrow barking like dogs for three hours. They’re not going to change any votes regardless of what they say.
Click to expand...


Exactly. The defense could just say, "Yes, he did all that, but you cannot convict cause this is all unconstitutional" and be done. Trump would still be acquitted.
 
Let me guess. Republicans independently think that impeachment of Trump out of office is unconstitutional. Because freedom. You can think what you want!
 
Tero said:
Let me guess. Republicans independently think that impeachment of Trump out of office is unconstitutional. Because freedom Republican. You can think what you want!
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.

ETA: A Democratic president would sooooo have been impeachable.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Sadly, his acquittal will also likely to embolden Trump.
Click to expand...

It will make him more popular with his base but he won’t gain any support. What would be great is if this new Conservative party would split the Republican vote.
 
dudalb said:
I am concerned that Trump's acquittal will be taken as a victory not only by Trump but by his followersl and more violence will result because they have been emboldened.
Click to expand...
It sounds about right. The Republicans will acquit and the rioters will be emboldened and do even worse, and the Republicans will find a way to blame the Democrats.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't think so. I think he's just that stupid.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think that Gaetz is stupid. But he is absolutely in a thrall to himself, much like T****. One result is that he is so narrow-minded that two tardigrades couldn't pass each other in his skull cavity. He's absolutely blind to any view the world other than his own, stunted one.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone recall how so many House and Senate Republicans went ape when four Americans got killed in at the Benghazi consulate when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State?

And now that Trump got five Americans killed in the US Capitol who were protecting the Congress, now just about all of those very same Republicans could care less about these five Americans.
 
Aridas said:
..... The Republican Party is in a dangerous state, right now, to say the least. At last check, more Republicans favor identifying themselves as Trump supporters rather than Republicans, for example.
Click to expand...

Dozens of former GOP officials reportedly met last week to discuss mounting a new anti-Trump party

Sorry, it's a Washington Post link. Here's some snippets:

Days before former president Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial began, more than 100 former GOP officials reportedly hopped on a Zoom call. The topic: how to best rally whatever anti-Trump momentum is left in the party.

....

While the call included discussion of forming a new party, only about 40 percent of those on the call appeared to support that course of action, McMullin said. The rest argued they could have more impact by nurturing the anti-Trump faction within the GOP.

.....,.,

“There is an extremist wing of the GOP party that has taken the party over,” McMullin said. “Certainly, former president Trump is the leader of the extremist wing of the Republican Party, but he’s not the only one. There are plenty who have joined him in Congress or elsewhere and there are many more who are silently going along.”
Click to expand...

"McMullin" is Evan McMullin, the former chief policy director for the House Republican Conference, who co-hosted the call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom