Split Thread A second impeachment

[Safe-Keeper]

Time to arm up, folks. I think a second civil war is a matter of time now that it has been estalbsihed that a president is above the law, and the militant right has been emboldened.

I think it was established a long time ago that the American elite is above the law. Or is that just me being cynical?

 

[Vixen]

About Mitch McConnell saying Trump can be criminally prosecuted..

I can't help but think...

Is that what he wants?

I mean, the evidence that he's guilty is overwhelming.

And in some ways, I agree that this wasn't constitutional. Impeachment is about removal from office.

The problem is that the Americans have made their presidents immune from prosecution, a power only reserved, and only in theory, to monarchs in Europe. If a politician breaks the law in Europe, and there are many examples of that, it's a legal and judicial matter, not a political one.

So... Is an aquittal here actually for the best? If Trump had been found guilty, could it have been said that he had been punished enough? And now, found not guilty by the legislative branch, is it time to give the judicial branch a go?

Only the Queen is above the law and she is most unlikely to be shimmying up walls of Westminster, smashing reinforced glass with a fire extinguisher and screaming 'Hang Mike Gove!" although the nation would be willing.

 

[Lplus]

As a Ukian I'm interested in your use of "Conservative".

Being entirely serious, is it your contention that having conservative views in the US removes any political nuance?

I understand that Trump caused a lot of damage to the GOP and conservatives in general, but reading your, let's face it, polemic, it insists that all "Conservatives" are.

1. Racist
2. Homophobic
3. Transphobic
4. Fundamentalists
5. 2nd amendment Proud Boys
6. Anti-immigration
7. Anti-abortionist
8. Climate Change Deniers
9. Covid 19 hoax proponents
10. Anti free speech
11. Cancel culture whores

I think I got 'em all.
Your position seems a little extreme to me and one borne from anger. How accurate do you believe it to be? Would you claim that it's representative of the general leftist position?

You missed White.

 

[Vixen]

I think OJ is guilty. I also think that the person who took the physical evidence home with him before it was officially logged saying on tape that he manufactured physical evidence against innocent black people because he wanted them to go to prison makes all of that physical evidence unreliable. And without the physical evidence there's a reasonable doubt.

Not really. His alibi that he was in Chicago or wherever was found to be false. That legally counts as evidence against him.

 

[Vixen]

The Turtle's speech was to Trump, not the public.

He basically said "I got your sorrow son-of-a-bitch POS ass off the hook on a technicality when we all know you are guilty as ****. So your sorrow son-of-a-bitch POS ass now belongs to ME! So shut the **** up, find another ******* career, never run for politics again, and get back in your ******* hole where you belong. Or there will be criminal prosecutions which I can't stop."

But politely, in a Southern accent.

In which case, you need to add, 'Sir'.

 

[Mumbles]

As a Ukian I'm interested in your use of "Conservative".

Being entirely serious, is it your contention that having conservative views in the US removes any political nuance?

I understand that Trump caused a lot of damage to the GOP and conservatives in general, but reading your, let's face it, polemic, it insists that all "Conservatives" are.

1. Racist
2. Homophobic
3. Transphobic
4. Fundamentalists
5. 2nd amendment Proud Boys
6. Anti-immigration
7. Anti-abortionist
8. Climate Change Deniers
9. Covid 19 hoax proponents
10. Anti free speech
11. Cancel culture whores

I think I got 'em all.

Your position seems a little extreme to me and one borne from anger. How accurate do you believe it to be? Would you claim that it's representative of the general leftist position?

It's very clearly representative of republicans (who, again, are right-wing radicals and not conservative at all).

 

[Vixen]

So everything is fine and great. Things are just as they should be, and couldn't be better.

As I said, you Americans have a warped sense of justice.

It's the polarisation of politics that is a problem in the USA: the Dems vs the GOP. We see the same thing in the UK (cf Brexit). There is nothing in between. This is a recipe for civil unrest being the ultimate solution to bring things to a head. The two-party system has become so acrimonious something has to give. If not now, tomorrow.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Not really. His alibi that he was in Chicago or wherever was found to be false. That legally counts as evidence against him.

Sure. But the standard is whether or not there's a reasonable doubt. None of the physical evidence being reliable introduces a reasonable doubt.

 

[Vixen]

Trump has been acquitted. His base is now motivated and solidified with a passion like never before. There will be no Republican party split, there will be primaries for RINOs.

Now that it's over, can we focus less on President Trump and move on to healing the Nation now? Remember "unity"? From the outside looking in, it looks like the promise of "unity" is an empty one. I hope I'm wrong, but the seething hatred is difficult to ignore.

Kumbaya.

 

[dirtywick]

Like every other insult he's ever used, Trump is the king of RINOs

 

[Norman Alexander]

You can say what you want about McConnell, but he's not stupid. In order for what you say to be true he'd have to believe he could control Trump, that he could control the DOJ, and he could trust Trump to keep his word in 3 years' time. And in order to believe those things he'd have to be stupid.

Mitch is TRYING to control T****. The Orange presidency really stretched Mitch's ability and patience to lie through his wobbly jowls to excuse T*****, especially since it made him look bad (OK, worse) as well. And after this one last rescue mission, he's had enough. It is one huckster telling another huckster to GTFO his turf.

It would not take much effort for Mitch to stroll round to the DOJ and drop a load of what he knows of illegal behind-the-scenes machinations by T***** that T**** would probably like to remain hidden. So Mitch doesn't "control" the DOJ, but it is a LOT easier for him to drop T***** in the **** than the the other way round.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The Right Thing for the GOP since Gingrich has always been:
"whatever the Dems don't want".

All evidence was irrelevant, because it was the Democrats who wanted a conviction they had to be opposed; doubly so if they were in the right, as not to set a precedent that they in fact got to do the right thing.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

It wasn't my letter, it was Eddie's but I do agree that staff sent the photocopy reply, threw Eddie's letter away and went out for happy hour(s).

Last comments on the letters.

I would hope the staff at least keeps a tally of the import of the letters received.

Of course, in Tennessee the staff would probably have been able to report to their respective Senators that letters were trending 10 to 1 in favor of acquittal.

So, my letters were a probably no more than a “fool’s errand”. I suppose I just wanted to be sure I at least attempted to make my voice heard.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Kumbaya.

"Oh ****, we're on the defensive, let's try for this unity and reconcilliation after all!"

 

[Andy_Ross]

Only the Queen is above the law and she is most unlikely to be shimmying up walls of Westminster, smashing reinforced glass with a fire extinguisher and screaming 'Hang Mike Gove!" although the nation would be willing.

Well, the last time a monarch thought he was above the law he had his head chopped off.

 

[Vixen]

Sure. But the standard is whether or not there's a reasonable doubt. None of the physical evidence being reliable introduces a reasonable doubt.

Maybe in a classic murder case, physical evidence makes the case stronger. Here you have Exhibit A, B and C that you can feel, touch, pick up, examine under a microscope, extract DNA and fingerprints, smell, weigh, see. However, that is not the sole sum of evidence. In a case like Insurrection Against the USA Government by a Sitting President, it is a lot more abstract as leading an insurrection involves proving there was a persuading of minds, inflaming of emotions, whipping up of hysteria, none of which is is tangible. This is why Van der Veen's core argument was, 'Well, for stirring up an insurrection, you have to look at the words used, which led on nicely to his other key argument, the First Amendment, the right to free speech, which he argued quite well as being of essential for a politician at the highest levels in order to express political concepts, whatever they may be.

His error was focussing solely on the speech Trump made at the Ellipse before and during the mob march down Pennsylvannia Avenue. Trump very cannily included the word 'peacefully' - well, he could hardly say, 'violently' - and his whole case hinged around that. In addition, Trump was not physically there at the Capitol Riots. Unlike Wat Tyler of the fourteen century, leading his angry mob of peasants over London Bridge after marching all the way from Canterbury, incensed by the newly imposed Poll Tax, to confront the king, 14-year-old Richard II, where they met face to face at Smithfield. (Tyler met a sorry end, when Richard's men killed him.) Quite likely, Trump intended to 'walk' with them but was forcibly prevented by his bodyguards for fear of his assassination.

So, how do you prove 'insurrection' beyond a reasonable doubt if the perpetrator wasn't actually at the scene of the action? Well, we look at something that is extremely important in criminal law/impeachment law: we look closely at the chronology of events, and the House Managers did this superbly and should not be downhearted at the defeat. Trump had planted the claim of a 'rigged election' during the six months previously. This he did as tactically and as strategically as any army general.

He built up a hardcore of 'troops' made up the most radicalised, violent, psychopathic, baying thugs, hiding behind 'patriotism' as an excuse for thuggery. The prosecution showed an exchange of social media message between Kremer, an organiser for his rally, in which she agreed to change the date of a rally earmarked 20/21 Jan 2021 to 6 Jan 2021 timed to take place 11:00 - circa 13:00, when the certification of the election was due to take place at Capitol Hill - saying 'I am bringing the Calvary' [sic], to which Trump retweeted with the words, I am greatly honored.

Van der Veen made the ludicrous claim that when there is a murder, it doesn't matter what the murderer does afterwards, to rebut the hard physical evidence in the form of a phone log between Trump and Turbeville that Trump knew Pence and his family were in immediate danger, yet still (a) failed to do anything at all to stop the riots as Commander-in-Chief with the National Guard at his disposal, and (b) continued to bear pressure on a Senator to prevent the certification.

So, was that enough to convict, given there is never going to be 'hard evidence' for an abstract concept of insurrection, especially if the supposed leader is not even there at the scene of the uprising? IMV the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What Trump did - or failed to do - after his speech of 6th Jan 2021 was just as important as what he did before. The chronology is very clear and sound legally acceptable evidence.

 

[Tero]

Now that Mitch has shown the way, and kept "unity," we are well on our way to 2022 when Mitch, now a nevertrumper, takes charge of the senate. And the Biden impeachment.

First witness: Hunter Biden. Because we now need witnesses.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It would not take much effort for Mitch to stroll round to the DOJ and drop a load of what he knows of illegal behind-the-scenes machinations by T***** that T**** would probably like to remain hidden.

Without implicating himself?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Maybe in a classic murder case, physical evidence makes the case stronger.

Right. And this particular digression was about OJ Simpson.

 

[Horatius]

It's very clearly representative of republicans (who, again, are right-wing radicals and not conservative at all).

But who, it should be noted, have co-opted the "conservative" tag so thoroughly that yes, at this point, "conservative" in the US is largely synonymous with that list of far-right positions.

This can be seen in their choices of what to defend, and how they defend it. Someone gets "canceled" for being racist, and they frame it as "being canceled because they are conservative!"

No one gets "canceled" because they advocate for lower taxes, repealing regulations, supporting real law and order, attending church, or any of a dozen other "traditionally conservative" activities.