2nd Impeachment of a US President

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Well, I do not think that they need to start doing that. After all they had that during start of the Obama's term and they were heavily criticized, especially from the left wing democrats. I mean the Reps, too, but much of it was on the ridiculous side (mostly because Obama was so moderate, it played quite into their hands).

I gotta agree...it can be tough out there in no man's land.

[CharonY]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Imagine how differently the Nuremberg trials would have gone had Nazis made up half the jury. Well, the US is about to show us what that would've looked like, so you hardly have to strain trying to visualize it

Technically, it is worse than that. It is not that they only share the same ideology and/or party affiliation. Some senators (i.e. jurors) are actively coordinating with the defense. 

[iNow]

8 hours ago, CharonY said:

Technically, it is worse than that. It is not that they only share the same ideology and/or party affiliation. Some senators (i.e. jurors) are actively coordinating with the defense. 

Alas... And some with the insurrectionists, too

[dimreepr]

I can't see that it will make much of a difference...

[Halc]

On 2/11/2021 at 10:49 AM, Phi for All said:

Instead, they felt it was more important to point out that, at this point, Dems don't have the votes so it's dumb to press on.

Like the last impeachment trial, there seemed to be a complete lack of correlation between the outcome and the evidence presented.  The crime upon which the vote was based was the crime of belonging to the minority party, and Trump was rightfully acquitted of that.  They've threatened, before the inauguration even, to impeach Biden as soon as they could, not for any crime other than again, being a member of the minority party.  Those plans have been sidelined since Biden is no longer guilty of that crime, at least not for the next 2 years.

I am crushed by the fact that such matters are not decided by fact or evidence at all.  Not a single member on either side seems to have based their vote on evidence. The country seems rightfully doomed as long as this path continues. Impeachment trials should be judged by impartial people without biased ties to one side or the other. Such people are pretty much impossible to find these days.

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, Halc said:

Not a single member on either side seems to have based their vote on evidence.

This seems unnecessarily hyperbolic and untrue. 10 House GOP members voted in favor of impeachment and likely 3-6 Senate republicans will vote to convict, as well. 

I’m certainly sympathetic to your feelings about how disheartening US politics have become, but given that this is already the most bipartisan impeachment in all US history, I cannot agree with your assessment quoted above. It’s self-evidently inaccurate. 

Edited February 13, 2021 by iNow

[iNow]

And as predicted, the senate voted to acquit Trump a second time. 

I was too conservative above in my guess of 3-6 republicans joining in the vote to convict. Turns out a total of 7 did, but that was still ten too few. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Well. At least it's over. Bad as he may be, there are more important matters for lawmakers to focus on than Tump

 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

And as predicted, the senate voted to acquit Trump a second time. 

I was too conservative above in my guess of 3-6 republicans joining in the vote to convict. Turns out a total of 7 did, but that was still ten too few. 

Well, it seems that is the most bipartisan vote for the indictment of a president then. 

34 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Well. At least it's over. Bad as he may be, there are more important matters for lawmakers to focus on than Tump

 

The issue of course being whether trying to overthrow the government is considered an important matter. As it stands it opens the door to presidents being able to threaten the other branches of the governemnt.

[MigL]

Is there no justice ?

First the sham that was the OJ trial.
Followed by the two Impeachment trials of D Trump.
And now, this new interface !

Science Forums was one of the only places where I could still use Internet Explorer.
Not any more ...
 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Well, it seems that is the most bipartisan vote for the indictment of a president then. 

The issue of course being whether trying to overthrow the government is considered an important matter. As it stands it opens the door to presidents being able to threaten the other branches of the governemnt.

It's important, no doubt, for the reason you state. That doesn't change the fact that there are more important matters currently, especially given the fact that the outcome likely wouldn't change if they dragged it out.

[MigL]

I say we storm the Science Forums headquarters where the vote was taken to change the interface.
Apparently, that ( and much worse ) is now legal.

And there's still criminal charges pending against D Trump, in New York and Georgia, that help me sleep better at night.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

I say we storm the Science Forums headquarters where the vote was taken to change the interface.
Apparently, that ( and much worse ) is now legal.

You mean of course in a civil and peaceful manner (wink wink)

We do need to fight for our rights as we choose to perceive them.

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You mean of course in a civil and peaceful manner (wink wink)

We do need to fight for our rights as we choose to perceive them.

 

Meant to edit, not quote myself...(or maybe the new interface is at fault...yeah that's it...)

[MigL]

I may have vocalized ( or typed ) that, JC, but there are at least 43 Senators who believe that isn't incitement.

That pompous ass must be feeling rather smug.
I hope his wife serves him divorce papers soon.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

I may have vocalized ( or typed ) that, JC, but there are at least 43 Senators who believe that isn't incitement.

That pompous ass must be feeling rather smug.
I hope his wife serves him divorce papers soon.

Susan Collins, again, did the right thing...

[StringJunky]

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

I may have vocalized ( or typed ) that, JC, but there are at least 43 Senators who believe that isn't incitement.

That pompous ass must be feeling rather smug.
I hope his wife serves him divorce papers soon.

... or were  just trying to save their ass.

Edit: Just read McConnell's post-trial comments about Trump: pretty damning. And he noted he's still liable as an ordinary citizen in a court.

Edited February 14, 2021 by StringJunky

[iNow]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

one of the only places where I could still use Internet Explorer.

FFS, man. Why? There’s good reason you can’t use it anywhere anymore. It’s  a poor performing and unsecured browser. /rhetorical 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Edit: Just read McConnell's post-trial comments about Trump: pretty damning. And he noted he's still liable as an ordinary citizen in a court.

Yeah. Ole’ Mitch REALLY knows how to be publicly damning of Trump, except of course when it actually matters like during an actual vote to actually convict him in his SECOND impeachment. 

He’s trying to play it both ways. He wants the Trump base to keep voting for him and his GOP colleagues, but he also needs massive corporations to keep funneling money to them despite the sour taste they currently have in their mouths about the assault on our capitol. 

[MigL]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

FFS, man. Why? There’s good reason you can’t use it anywhere anymore.

IE is like an old friend that I've known since the 90s.
I just can't bring myself to totally cast it aside.

I have to wonder, Saturday morning, the Democrats pushed to have more testimony/witnesses presented at the hearings, some of it very damning, but by Saturday afternoon that was all scrapped, and they went directly to the vote.
Why the change of plans ? 
Why the hurry ?
M McConnel made them wait until D Trump was out of office to have the Senate hearings, just so they could then all claim that the Impeachment was unconstitutional because D Trump was no longer in office.
Drag the Senate trial out, present ALL the evidence, and make the Republicans who supported ( and continue to support ) him, look like the PoS the are.

[IvoryEbony]

You use words like D Trump, Senate, Replic, that have no meaning.

 

What are we talking about here? Some random person who never sees a penny for his thoughts committing small crimes here and there as a result?

And what is impeachment to someone who has been impeached since he hit puberty?

Maybe that's why he's an asshole

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why the change of plans ? 

My guess? Pure political calculation. 

Would introducing witnesses have bolstered their already rather rock solid case? Absolutely, but it would also have both:

 1) allowed the defense to haul in a bunch of ridiculous witnesses unrelated to the case in an attempt to throw red meat to the Republican base (“kindly tell us more about your relationship with Barisma, Mr. Hunter Biden... then next we’ll move on to our 34th hearing about Benghazi and Hillary’s emails and Maxine Waters being black and having a voice....”)...

...and 2) shattered any semblance of goodwill that could help them pass Biden’s Covid and economic response and/or healthcare improvement plans in the next 1-3 weeks.

By agreeing to let everyone go home this weekend and hand deliver flowers on Valentine’s Day instead of dragging out the hearings for another 2-3 weeks to listen to witnesses and MAYBE strip off another 1 or potentially 2 additional GOP votes... when they need at least 10 to achieve a different outcome... by backing down they engendered good mojo for minimized opposition to the democratic policy agenda about to hit the floor in the rest of February and March.  
 

But your guess is as good as mine. Maybe they’re just spineless hypocrites who wish to silence conservative values. 

Comments beginning around 12min in are likely most relevant here:

 

[Phi for All]

I agree with Robert Reich. Enough is enough. Do away with the filibuster, forget the Republicans, and do the things this country has desperately needed for a LONG time. Go to war with the hypocrites and liars, because this democracy will never get better if we give them any say in leadership at all. 

[Airbrush]

Who you gonna believe, 60 courts of law, including the supreme court, that saw ALL the fake "evidence" or one con artist that lied and exaggerated for 5 years? This shows that many people are suckers who believe what they WANT to believe.  That is how religion works.  The way to lie BIG is pick a lie that many already want to believe, then keep repeating it every day for years.

Edited February 15, 2021 by Airbrush

[iNow]

On 2/13/2021 at 7:38 PM, iNow said:

Yeah. Ole’ Mitch REALLY knows how to be publicly damning of Trump, except of course when it actually matters like during an actual vote to actually convict him in his SECOND impeachment. 

He’s trying to play it both ways. He wants the Trump base to keep voting for him and his GOP colleagues, but he also needs massive corporations to keep funneling money to them despite the sour taste they currently have in their mouths about the assault on our capitol. 

Another insight I heard yesterday which makes sense to me... Mitch wanted to vote yes on the conviction, but he knew that not enough fellow republicans would've voted with him to convict. This would have shined a bright burning spotlight on his weakness as leader, so he voted to acquit so as not to be seen as weak and in a different position than most of his caucus. Basically, he did it to protect his leadership position because his leadership position is weakening... Not enough of the other GOP Senators would've supported his vote... so he changed it. 

Edited February 15, 2021 by iNow

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

Another insight I heard yesterday which makes sense to me... Mitch wanted to vote yes on the conviction, but he knew that not enough fellow republicans would've voted with him to convict. This would have shined a bright burning spotlight on his weakness as leader, so he voted to acquit so as not to be seen as weak and in a different position than most of his caucus. Basically, he did it to protect his leadership position because his leadership position is weakening... Not enough of the other GOP Senators would've supported his vote... so he changed it. 

Yes, that makes sense in the light of his post-trial comments, which seemed at odds with his voting behaviour.

Edited February 15, 2021 by StringJunky

[Halc]

On 2/13/2021 at 1:08 PM, iNow said:

This seems unnecessarily hyperbolic and untrue.

I was speaking of the first trial where the vote went straight down party lines.