[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Capitalism and Consumerism... now what? - sirdroseph - Apr 12, 2021 - 5:31am
 
Race/Ethnicity-Genetics Connection - sirdroseph - Apr 12, 2021 - 5:25am
 
Media Bias - sirdroseph - Apr 12, 2021 - 5:16am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - sunybuny - Apr 12, 2021 - 5:12am
 
Guns - sirdroseph - Apr 12, 2021 - 4:37am
 
The Netherlands - second - Blackbirds - Apr 12, 2021 - 2:42am
 
Two sexes or ? Gender as a non-binary concept - Jiggz - Apr 12, 2021 - 1:55am
 
A Brave Woman - Jiggz - Apr 12, 2021 - 1:48am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Apr 11, 2021 - 7:49pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - Lazy8 - Apr 11, 2021 - 4:02pm
 
What Makes You Cry :) ? - Red_Dragon - Apr 11, 2021 - 3:16pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - Red_Dragon - Apr 11, 2021 - 2:54pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Apr 11, 2021 - 2:16pm
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Apr 11, 2021 - 8:41am
 
Poetry Forum - GeneP59 - Apr 11, 2021 - 8:28am
 
Death Metal - westslope - Apr 11, 2021 - 8:21am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - miamizsun - Apr 11, 2021 - 7:01am
 
Extraordinary Machine - miamizsun - Apr 11, 2021 - 6:50am
 
Iran - Red_Dragon - Apr 11, 2021 - 6:48am
 
Bring Back the New RP Fonts! - GeneP59 - Apr 10, 2021 - 7:56pm
 
Play the Blues - rhahl - Apr 10, 2021 - 4:50pm
 
Tech & Science - R_P - Apr 10, 2021 - 2:37pm
 
New Music - R_P - Apr 10, 2021 - 11:30am
 
Live Music - sirdroseph - Apr 10, 2021 - 5:53am
 
Taxes, Taxes, Taxes (and Taxes) - rhahl - Apr 10, 2021 - 5:27am
 
Economix - sirdroseph - Apr 10, 2021 - 4:50am
 
Race in America - sirdroseph - Apr 10, 2021 - 4:22am
 
Freedom of speech? - sirdroseph - Apr 10, 2021 - 4:11am
 
So, where do you go, what happens? - oldviolin - Apr 9, 2021 - 6:15pm
 
Automotive Lust - R_P - Apr 9, 2021 - 3:07pm
 
MQA Stream Coming to BLUOS - scoots_mcgoo - Apr 9, 2021 - 3:05pm
 
Funny Videos - KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 9, 2021 - 2:56pm
 
First World Problems - Lindo525 - Apr 9, 2021 - 2:45pm
 
COVID-19 - miamizsun - Apr 9, 2021 - 2:22pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - haresfur - Apr 9, 2021 - 12:47pm
 
Immigration - black321 - Apr 9, 2021 - 12:04pm
 
LeftWingNutZ - sirdroseph - Apr 9, 2021 - 10:47am
 
The War On You - sirdroseph - Apr 9, 2021 - 8:44am
 
Things You Thought Today - oldviolin - Apr 9, 2021 - 8:34am
 
Trump - R_P - Apr 9, 2021 - 7:21am
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - miamizsun - Apr 9, 2021 - 4:49am
 
Joe Biden - sirdroseph - Apr 9, 2021 - 4:08am
 
What Did You Do Today? - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 8, 2021 - 9:36pm
 
KEEP YOUR MONEY! - haresfur - Apr 8, 2021 - 2:37pm
 
Recommended documentaries - Red_Dragon - Apr 8, 2021 - 2:24pm
 
partial incompatibility with Symantec's Moon Mind2? - BillG - Apr 8, 2021 - 9:51am
 
Things that make you go Hmmmm..... - sirdroseph - Apr 8, 2021 - 5:06am
 
True Confessions - oldviolin - Apr 7, 2021 - 10:36pm
 
A designers worst nightmare - kcar - Apr 7, 2021 - 10:00pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - geoff_morphini - Apr 7, 2021 - 9:34pm
 
Beer - GeneP59 - Apr 7, 2021 - 10:29am
 
Breaking News - Red_Dragon - Apr 7, 2021 - 10:00am
 
Philosophy (Meaty Metaphysical Munchables!) - cc_rider - Apr 7, 2021 - 8:08am
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - rhahl - Apr 7, 2021 - 6:22am
 
Questions. - R_P - Apr 6, 2021 - 8:07pm
 
Unusual News - haresfur - Apr 6, 2021 - 5:15pm
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - kcar - Apr 6, 2021 - 4:15pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - GeneP59 - Apr 6, 2021 - 2:58pm
 
workplaces that work - sirdroseph - Apr 6, 2021 - 4:05am
 
And the good news is.... - haresfur - Apr 5, 2021 - 8:50pm
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Apr 5, 2021 - 5:32pm
 
RP via Bluesound - Lagging - jarro - Apr 5, 2021 - 4:33pm
 
In My Room - kcar - Apr 5, 2021 - 2:50pm
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 5, 2021 - 11:23am
 
Republican Party - Red_Dragon - Apr 5, 2021 - 10:33am
 
Israel - westslope - Apr 5, 2021 - 7:22am
 
What the hell OV? - oldviolin - Apr 4, 2021 - 8:10am
 
RP song titles in cache - conkyjoe - Apr 4, 2021 - 7:37am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Blackbirds - Apr 4, 2021 - 6:07am
 
Iphone app "my favourites" - BillG - Apr 3, 2021 - 9:14pm
 
FLAC Streaming - jarro - Apr 3, 2021 - 1:04pm
 
Latin Music - R_P - Apr 3, 2021 - 12:03pm
 
MIXES - miamizsun - Apr 3, 2021 - 6:33am
 
Electronic Music - Manbird - Apr 2, 2021 - 7:44pm
 
Derplahoma! - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 2, 2021 - 1:31pm
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Impeachment Time: Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 57, 58, 59  Next
Post to this Topic
rgio

rgio Avatar

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 12, 2021 - 8:16am



 cc_rider wrote:

What I want to know is, what if the mob had gotten to a legislator? Pence? In the heat of the moment, that person very well could have been killed. Video shows how close the terrorists actually were. What if they had dragged Pence out and hung him - exactly what they said they would do? The Vice President lynched on the Capitol grounds? Then what? Would the Trumpists still support him?

What if they'd gotten hold of Pelosi? And put a bullet in her brain - exactly what they said they would do? What then?

Five people died as a direct result of the attack. But they were not legislators, just regular schmucks either caught up in the moment, or officers trying to do their jobs. One woman was trampled to death. Scores of injuries, some permanent. This attack was unprecedented, horrendous. Yet there are people who still think it was the right thing to do. Really? People died. Hundreds are now facing serious prison time. For what? What?
c.

 
If they had killed anyone in the chain of command, Trump would have declared martial law.  

Thank you Mike...but you now provide me more opportunities dead.  Good luck in the Capital!

cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 12, 2021 - 8:15am



 VV wrote:


 steeler wrote:

 
Agreed. And yet there are idiots still supporting him.

I understand why the GOP is still supporting him... fear. But I can't figure out what the average Joe's motivation is... too stupid to fathom what he really did? Understand but just don't care? Is their own personal identity too wrapped up in his "cult of personality" to ever see the forest because they are too close to the trees? Have they so deeply bought into a martyr complex that somehow Trump has been this misunderstood, downtrodden figure that has been forced into making mistakes and is not responsible for any/all of his transgressions? Too embarrassed to acknowledge that they have been played by someone who despises them?

I do understand what their motivations were for originally voting him in... but it's all the stuff that has happened during his presidency that I can't turn a blind eye to.

Heck even the horned guy that stormed the Capitol came to his senses.

 
What I want to know is, what if the mob had gotten to a legislator? Pence? In the heat of the moment, that person very well could have been killed. Video shows how close the terrorists actually were. What if they had dragged Pence out and hung him - exactly what they said they would do? The Vice President lynched on the Capitol grounds? Then what? Would the Trumpists still support him?

What if they'd gotten hold of Pelosi? And put a bullet in her brain - exactly what they said they would do? What then?

Five people died as a direct result of the attack. But they were not legislators, just regular schmucks either caught up in the moment, or officers trying to do their jobs. One woman was trampled to death. Scores of injuries, some permanent. This attack was unprecedented, horrendous. Yet there are people who still think it was the right thing to do. Really? People died. Hundreds are now facing serious prison time. For what? What?
c.

rgio

rgio Avatar

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 12, 2021 - 8:13am



 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
But, most of all, Trump lacks anything like the organisational skills that Hitler and Stalin had, or even their political nous. He may have been a strong-man wannabe, but even at this, he was an abject failure.

 
So if the worst ever had 5 exceptional skills (say motivation, leadership, organization, vision, consistency...?) then Trump having only half of them makes him a worse leader...no? 

Evil....the other guys were able to do a lot more damage....but as far as horrible leadership, Trump is an eternal low spot.  It's hard to imagine given Harding and Johson, but he will go down as the worst President in history.
oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 12, 2021 - 8:06am



 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:


 oldviolin wrote:


 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:


 rgio wrote:




    
History will judge our last President, and those who pander to him and his voters, much in the way the world now looks at Hitler, Stalin, and the Kim's.  He was a disaster before the insurrection, and January 6th will go down as the first detail in his obituary.  He didn't want the job...he wanted the platform to create wealth for himself.  He was a snake oil salesman....and you keep drinking the potion, believing it's going to magically fix all that wrong with your life.  It won't.

 
Much as I agree with the rest of you post, Trump is nowhere near the likes of Hitler or Stalin.. though he might have something in common with Kim, though even this is doubtful.

Firstly, it is glaringly obvious that Trump is not responsible for the death of millions by decree. Rather, he is only responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to bumbling incompetence.

But, most of all, Trump lacks anything like the organisational skills that Hitler and Stalin had, or even their political nous. He may have been a strong-man wannabe, but even at this, he was an abject failure.

 
I see a furor and I want to paint it black(er)

 

it wasn't his shirt that was brown.
 

One need only stand in front of the ovens in Dachau and listen to the wind to gain some perspective...
VV

VV Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 12, 2021 - 7:59am



 steeler wrote:
Those who continue to ardently — and blindly — support Trump after all we now know happened inside the Capitol on January 6 should be deeply ashamed.

What we are now seeing is that it could have been much, much worse. It almost is beyond comprehension. Grossly disturbing. Seeing it again, in great detail, traumatizes anew.

Trump said his speech and behavior at his  January 6 rally was ‘totally appropriate.” That tells us all we need to know about him.
 
Agreed. And yet there are idiots still supporting him.

I understand why the GOP is still supporting him... fear. But I can't figure out what the average Joe's motivation is... too stupid to fathom what he really did? Understand but just don't care? Is their own personal identity too wrapped up in his "cult of personality" to ever see the forest because they are too close to the trees? Have they so deeply bought into a martyr complex that somehow Trump has been this misunderstood, downtrodden figure that has been forced into making mistakes and is not responsible for any/all of his transgressions? Too embarrassed to acknowledge that they have been played by someone who despises them?

I do understand what their motivations were for originally voting him in... but it's all the stuff that has happened during his presidency that I can't turn a blind eye to.

Heck even the horned guy that stormed the Capitol came to his senses.

NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 12, 2021 - 7:59am



 oldviolin wrote:


 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:


 rgio wrote:




    
History will judge our last President, and those who pander to him and his voters, much in the way the world now looks at Hitler, Stalin, and the Kim's.  He was a disaster before the insurrection, and January 6th will go down as the first detail in his obituary.  He didn't want the job...he wanted the platform to create wealth for himself.  He was a snake oil salesman....and you keep drinking the potion, believing it's going to magically fix all that wrong with your life.  It won't.

 
Much as I agree with the rest of you post, Trump is nowhere near the likes of Hitler or Stalin.. though he might have something in common with Kim, though even this is doubtful.

Firstly, it is glaringly obvious that Trump is not responsible for the death of millions by decree. Rather, he is only responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to bumbling incompetence.

But, most of all, Trump lacks anything like the organisational skills that Hitler and Stalin had, or even their political nous. He may have been a strong-man wannabe, but even at this, he was an abject failure.

 
I see a furor and I want to paint it black(er)

 

it wasn't his shirt that was brown.
oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 12, 2021 - 7:54am



 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:


 rgio wrote:




    
History will judge our last President, and those who pander to him and his voters, much in the way the world now looks at Hitler, Stalin, and the Kim's.  He was a disaster before the insurrection, and January 6th will go down as the first detail in his obituary.  He didn't want the job...he wanted the platform to create wealth for himself.  He was a snake oil salesman....and you keep drinking the potion, believing it's going to magically fix all that wrong with your life.  It won't.

 
Much as I agree with the rest of you post, Trump is nowhere near the likes of Hitler or Stalin.. though he might have something in common with Kim, though even this is doubtful.

Firstly, it is glaringly obvious that Trump is not responsible for the death of millions by decree. Rather, he is only responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to bumbling incompetence.

But, most of all, Trump lacks anything like the organisational skills that Hitler and Stalin had, or even their political nous. He may have been a strong-man wannabe, but even at this, he was an abject failure.

 
I see a furor and I want to paint it black(er)

NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 12, 2021 - 7:44am



 rgio wrote:




    
History will judge our last President, and those who pander to him and his voters, much in the way the world now looks at Hitler, Stalin, and the Kim's.  He was a disaster before the insurrection, and January 6th will go down as the first detail in his obituary.  He didn't want the job...he wanted the platform to create wealth for himself.  He was a snake oil salesman....and you keep drinking the potion, believing it's going to magically fix all that wrong with your life.  It won't.

 
Much as I agree with the rest of you post, Trump is nowhere near the likes of Hitler or Stalin.. though he might have something in common with Kim, though even this is doubtful.

Firstly, it is glaringly obvious that Trump is not responsible for the death of millions by decree. Rather, he is only responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to bumbling incompetence.

But, most of all, Trump lacks anything like the organisational skills that Hitler and Stalin had, or even their political nous. He may have been a strong-man wannabe, but even at this, he was an abject failure.

rgio

rgio Avatar

Location: West Jersey
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 12, 2021 - 7:32am





 kurtster wrote:

Your party
with the help of your media, has been trying to impeach Trump since the day after the 2016 election and has never stopped to this day. Your party leaders have never stopped calling Trump an illegitimate president via a stolen election. To think that this has no bearing on anything regarding how Trump is viewed by his supporters is your fatal error. To think that history will not factor any of this is foolish as well.
    
History will judge our last President, and those who pander to him and his voters, much in the way the world now looks at Hitler, Stalin, and the Kim's.  He was a disaster before the insurrection, and January 6th will go down as the first detail in his obituary.  He didn't want the job...he wanted the platform to create wealth for himself.  He was a snake oil salesman....and you keep drinking the potion, believing it's going to magically fix all that wrong with your life.  It won't.

The "you've been trying to impeach him since day 1" BS is tired, and plays to Trump's "they're all out to get us" crap.  Stop doing illegal stuff....and you'll stop getting impeached.

The people who invaded the Capital, killed cops, gouged cops' eyes out, broke cop ribs, and injured a few dozen cops....all say they were following orders from OUR President.   Law and Order?  The hypocrisy is Shakespearian.

Wanting him impeached or not has nothing to do with the facts Kurt.  Facts...like the American people selected Joe Biden in November.  The entire purpose for the rally was to disrupt the ratification of our election.  No theft.  Do you still believe Trump won?  I'm sure you'll duck the answer..."I've already stated my case"...somewhere none of us can find?

You keep saying YOUR...but it's OURS.  OUR last President tweeted that Mike Pence failed 10 minutes after hearing he was being rushed from the Capital with his family for safety!  Why?  Because he was doing his Constitutional duty.

If you really do love the country, and you believe in OUR democracy and the Constitution, then you have no choice but to agree he needs to be convicted of inciting domestic terrorists.  That's not opinion...it's fact.  The only reason he won't be convicted...it's because idiots like Cruz and Hawley want your next vote.  That strategy is going to fail, and you and they will be left miserable in your belief that socialists are ruining everything. 
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Feb 12, 2021 - 4:18am



 kurtster wrote:

Your party with the help of your media, has been trying to impeach Trump since the day after the 2016 election and has never stopped to this day. Your party leaders have never stopped calling Trump an illegitimate president via a stolen election. To think that this has no bearing on anything regarding how Trump is viewed by his supporters is your fatal error. To think that history will not factor any of this is foolish as well.
     


YOUR FATAL ERROR is that you think Trump has never committed an impeachable offense and that the Democrats invented evidence and crazy reasons for impeaching Trump. But the facts and the Constitution are against you, Kurt.

The Democrats impeached Trump twice because he committed (at the very least) high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic Party never claimed the 2016 election was a stolen election. 

History is going to make you look very foolish, Kurt. 
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Feb 12, 2021 - 4:06am



 kurtster wrote:
 

I'm not so sure about your historical interpretation.  Maybe if this was a real impeachment of a sitting president, but it is not.

The Chief Justice refused to participate.  The current presiding judge has already said he would vote to impeach; a private citizen over which the Senate has no jurisdiction.  Why am I thinking about Roy Bean ?  ....

Just because the Senate voted that this was impeachment is constitutional, does not make it so.  The SCOTUS is what determines what is constitutional and what is not.  Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Your party with the help of your media, has been trying to impeach Trump since the day after the 2016 election and has never stopped to this day.  Your party leaders have never stopped calling Trump an illegitimate president via a stolen election.  To think that this has no bearing on anything regarding how Trump is viewed by his supporters is your fatal error.  To think that history will not factor any of this is foolish as well.  But I know that you are not susceptible to confirmation bias so you will bet the farm that you are right.

Have a nice day and a happy impeachment !

ymwv ...

 

"The Chief Justice refused to participate. "

False. The Chief Justice presides over an impeachment trial for a president. But Trump was no longer president at the beginning of the trial. The president pro tempore generally presides over impeachment trials involving non-presidents.


https://www.scotusblog.com/202...

As Frank Bowman explained inan article for SCOTUSblog before Trump’s first impeachment trial last year, the Constitution requires the chief justice to preside over an impeachment trial for the president. But Trump, who was impeached on Jan. 13 for his role in inciting the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol that left five people dead, including a Capitol police officer, is no longer the president.

In a statement released on Monday, Leahy wrote that the president pro tempore “has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents.” Leahy pledged to adhere to his “constitutional and sworn obligations to administer the trial with fairness.”

The Supreme Court had no comment regarding Roberts’ absence from the second impeachment trial.



See https://www.nytimes.com/2021/0....    and https://www.newsweek.com/fact-....   for more details. The Newsweek piece notes that there is no evidence that Chief Justice Roberts refused or was even asked to preside. 

Do you have evidence showing that Senator Leahy said that he would convict Trump?



"Just because the Senate voted that this was impeachment is constitutional, does not make it so. The SCOTUS is what determines what is constitutional and what is not."

Gosh Kurt: who wanted the Senate (and not the SCOTUS) to vote on the constitutionality of an impeachment trial for a former president? Why it was Republican Senator Rand Paul. Do take a look at this link: it's a Fox News article which includes this excerpt: 


The Senate has held impeachment trial proceedings for lower office holders that were no longer in office in the past, including in for former Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876. The Senate acquitted Belknap after he departed office.



miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 12, 2021 - 3:59am

turley's take

Did The Democrats “Tank” The Second Trump Trial?

Below is my column in USA Today on the lack of a strategy by the House to secure conviction in the trial of former President Donald Trump. As I have previously noted, the House managers did an excellent job in their presentations and many of the videotapes rekindled the anger that most of us felt over the riot. They also reinforced the view of many (including myself) that former president Donald Trump bears responsibility in the tragedy that unfolded due to his reckless rhetoric. Yet, there was a glaring omission in the substance of the House arguments. The managers did not lay out what the standard should be in convicting a former president for incitement of an insurrection and only briefly touched on proving any “state of mind” needed for such a conviction. That is why I have referred to their case as more emotive than probative. It lacked direct evidence to support the claim that Trump wanted to incite an actual insurrection or rebellion against the United States, as alleged in the article of impeachment.  I do not believe that an acquittal was inevitable in this case, but it was all but assured by critical decisions made by the House in this impeachment. The unforced errors discussed below raise the question of whether the Democrats “tanked” the trial.

Here is the column: 

The second trial of former President Donald Trump is shaping up to be a curious exercise designed more to enrage than convict. While legal eagles will be analyzing every move, what citizens really need is an Philadelphia Eagles fan to understand what is unfolding. In the NFL, it is called “tanking.” This year, there was a raging debate whether Eagles coach Doug Pederson was actually trying to win or just losing convincingly to secure a better draft pick. The House trial strategy has every indication of a tanked trial, but few are noting the glaring lack of a credible offense.

When it comes to football, tanking allegations arise when the inexplicable speeds along the inevitable. That point was reached this season when Pederson decided not to tie the game against Washington in the third quarter with a field goal and instead put Nate Sudfeld in the game over Jalen Hurts. The House may have reached that point when the managers seemed to be trying harder to make a better case for losing than winning. That was driven home by the selection of such managers as Rep. Eric Swalwell in the wake of his scandal with Chinese spy. Swalwell’s comments not only include disturbing legal claims, but highly personal and offensive remarks like mocking threats against Susan Collins, R-Maine. Swalwell declared “Boo hoo hoo. You’re a senator who police will protect. A sexual assault victim can’t sleep at home tonight because of threats. Where are you sleeping? She’s on her own while you and your @SenateGOP colleagues try to rush her through a hearing.”  Pelosi picked not only a member who has viciously attacked Republicans but one of the Republicans most needed by the House in this trial. Sending in Swalwell made the Sudfeld substitution look like sheer genius.

If this was an NFL board of inquiry, three signs of tanking would standout.

more

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 11, 2021 - 7:04pm

 steeler wrote:

I see you continue to support Trump, are not ashamed of that in the aftermath of what happened on January 6, and see him (and yourself) as the victim here. I am not surprised.

 

I am the victim of what ?  Please elaborate.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Feb 11, 2021 - 6:40pm



 steeler wrote:



I see you continue to support Trump, are not ashamed of that in the aftermath of what happened on January 6, and see him (and yourself) as the victim here. I am not surprised.

You might notice upon re-reading my posts that I did not tie them to Trump being convicted by the Senate. I do not expect that to happen. I based my comments on what has been presented during the impeachment trial. It is damning. Regardless of whether Trump is convicted, it is damning. His legacy will be what he did after losing the election on November 3, culminating with the January 6 insurrection. Of this I have no doubt.

The vast majority of the Republican Senators seemingly have made it clear that they — like you — do not believe the Senate has jurisdiction to conduct an impeachment trial of a former President. A vote based on that belief in a lack of jurisdiction means that vote is not based on the merits of the case against Trump.  Such  a vote does not equate with exoneration of Trump. In fact, it means the Senator casting that vote is not even considering the merits. 

The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the question of whether the Senate can conduct an impeachment trial if the President (or other public officer) who has been impeached is no longer in office.   It is an open question. The majority of those  legal scholars who have opined recently has weighed in on the side of the Senate having jurisdiction. The Senate did proceed with an impeachment trial of Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 even though he was no longer in office, having resigned. Right now,   it is the Senate’s call as to whether it has jurisdiction and it has made that call. The vote should be on the merits at this point.

 

He's a nazi.
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Feb 11, 2021 - 6:20pm



 kurtster wrote:
 

I'm not so sure about your historical interpretation.  Maybe if this was a real impeachment of a sitting president, but it is not.

The Chief Justice refused to participate.  The current presiding judge has already said he would vote to impeach; a private citizen over which the Senate has no jurisdiction.  Why am I thinking about Roy Bean ?  ....

Just because the Senate voted that this was impeachment is constitutional, does not make it so.  The SCOTUS is what determines what is constitutional and what is not.  Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Your party with the help of your media, has been trying to impeach Trump since the day after the 2016 election and has never stopped to this day.  Your party leaders have never stopped calling Trump an illegitimate president via a stolen election.  To think that this has no bearing on anything regarding how Trump is viewed by his supporters is your fatal error.  To think that history will not factor any of this is foolish as well.  But I know that you are not susceptible to confirmation bias so you will bet the farm that you are right.

Have a nice day and a happy impeachment !

ymwv ...

 

I see you continue to support Trump, are not ashamed of that in the aftermath of what happened on January 6, and see him (and yourself) as the victim here. I am not surprised.

You might notice upon re-reading my posts that I did not tie them to Trump being convicted by the Senate. I do not expect that to happen. I based my comments on what has been presented during the impeachment trial. It is damning. Regardless of whether Trump is convicted, it is damning. His legacy will be what he did after losing the election on November 3, culminating with the January 6 insurrection. Of this I have no doubt.

The vast majority of the Republican Senators seemingly have made it clear that they — like you — do not believe the Senate has jurisdiction to conduct an impeachment trial of a former President. A vote based on that belief in a lack of jurisdiction means that vote is not based on the merits of the case against Trump.  Such  a vote does not equate with exoneration of Trump. In fact, it means the Senator casting that vote is not even considering the merits. 

The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the question of whether the Senate can conduct an impeachment trial if the President (or other public officer) who has been impeached is no longer in office.   It is an open question. The majority of those  legal scholars who have opined recently has weighed in on the side of the Senate having jurisdiction. The Senate did proceed with an impeachment trial of Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 even though he was no longer in office, having resigned. Right now,   it is the Senate’s call as to whether it has jurisdiction and it has made that call. The vote should be on the merits at this point.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 11, 2021 - 4:25pm

 steeler wrote:
Those who continue to ardently — and blindly — support Trump after all we now know happened inside the Capitol on January 6 should be deeply ashamed.

What we are now seeing is that it could have been much, much worse. It almost is beyond comprehension. Grossly disturbing. Seeing it again, in great detail, traumatizes anew.

Trump said his speech and behavior at his  January 6 rally was ‘totally appropriate.” That tells us all we need to know about him.
 

History will not be kind to Trump nor to those who enabled him . It will be scathing.

  

I'm not so sure about your historical interpretation.  Maybe if this was a real impeachment of a sitting president, but it is not.

The Chief Justice refused to participate.  The current presiding judge has already said he would vote to impeach; a private citizen over which the Senate has no jurisdiction.  Why am I thinking about Roy Bean ?  ....

Just because the Senate voted that this was impeachment is constitutional, does not make it so.  The SCOTUS is what determines what is constitutional and what is not.  Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Your party with the help of your media, has been trying to impeach Trump since the day after the 2016 election and has never stopped to this day.  Your party leaders have never stopped calling Trump an illegitimate president via a stolen election.  To think that this has no bearing on anything regarding how Trump is viewed by his supporters is your fatal error.  To think that history will not factor any of this is foolish as well.  But I know that you are not susceptible to confirmation bias so you will bet the farm that you are right.

Have a nice day and a happy impeachment !

ymwv ...

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Feb 11, 2021 - 1:16pm



 westslope wrote:
4/10 Republicans are polled as saying that political violence may be necessary.

Trump is not the only one 'on trial' here.  

The Senate may very well let Trump walk but at least the video evidence and charge of inciting insurrection are there to allow history to decide.  The Democrats had no choice.
 
History will not be kind to Trump nor to those who enabled him . It will be scathing.

westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Feb 11, 2021 - 1:11pm

4/10 Republicans are polled as saying that political violence may be necessary.

Trump is not the only one 'on trial' here.  

The Senate may very well let Trump walk but at least the video evidence and charge of inciting insurrection are there to allow history to decide.  The Democrats had no choice.
cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 11, 2021 - 11:53am



 steeler wrote:
Those who continue to ardently — and blindly — support Trump after all we now know happened inside the Capitol on January 6 should be deeply ashamed.

What we are now seeing is that it could have been much, much worse. It almost is beyond comprehension. Grossly disturbing. Seeing it again, in great detail, traumatizes anew.

Trump said his speech and behavior at his  January 6 rally was ‘totally appropriate.” That tells us all we need to know about him.
 
He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

c.

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Feb 11, 2021 - 11:06am

Those who continue to ardently — and blindly — support Trump after all we now know happened inside the Capitol on January 6 should be deeply ashamed.

What we are now seeing is that it could have been much, much worse. It almost is beyond comprehension. Grossly disturbing. Seeing it again, in great detail, traumatizes anew.

Trump said his speech and behavior at his  January 6 rally was ‘totally appropriate.” That tells us all we need to know about him.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 57, 58, 59  Next