- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
- Messages
- 8,529
- Reaction score
- 3,422
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The problem you have there pallie is he's been impeached. The trial can happen as soon as practical.Which was my precisely my point: since you cannot remove someone from an office which they no longer hold (via impeachment ‘conviction’) then nothing can be additionally done (via impeachment ‘conviction’).
No, Bennidict Donald provided all that proof.You seem to be missing the point. The Capitol having been attacked does not prove Trump’s causing it any more than Russian election interference being found proves Trump’s collusion caused it.
The problem you have there pallie is he's been impeached. The trial can happen as soon as practical.
I made no such acknowledgment other than to laugh at your example of flags and point out that you were wrong even within a ridiculous example you yourself created. That you have to pretend I was talking about your interpretation of impeachment results is both hilarious and sad. Like throwing yourself your own retirement party sad. As for the other thing people can certainly bear arms without keeping arms, I see them renting guns at the gun range all the time. Just because you want to imply keep in the context of the 2nd means hold instead of own doesn't make it so. Unless of course you're telling me you think the 2nd amendment gives you the right to hold guns but not to own guns. Is that what you're arguing? How far do you want travel down this rickety bridge of an argument you're building?At least you (finally) acknowledge that my interpretation is as valid as yours is. BTW, how could one carry a gun which they do not yet possess?
Yep, that's good.Of course that trail can happen, the constitution requires it. I’m simply stating that you can’t fire (remove) someone from a job which they no longer have. Trump will not remain in office as POTUS after next week regardless of whether or not he is convicted on impeachment charges (articles?).
Michael Cohen said it very clearly when he testified.You seem to be missing the point. The Capitol having been attacked does not prove Trump’s causing it any more than Russian election interference being found proves Trump’s collusion caused it.
All you're arguing is Trump built the bonfire and doused it with gasoline, but we cannot show him lighting the match, then waiting hours to call the fire department while Congress is burning, despite desperate pleas from all his staff and outsiders to make the call.You seem to be missing the point. The Capitol having been attacked does not prove Trump’s causing it any more than Russian election interference being found proves Trump’s collusion caused it.
Basically we know he wanted the mob to attack the Capitol because when it happened he told them he loved them and did......NOTHING for hours until someone finally got through to him. Just think about that - POTUS having to be convinced to issue a statement condemning the insurrection, an attack on the U.S. Capitol, while in session, and to summon the NG to quell the insurrection.Michael Cohen said it very clearly when he testified.
Trump does not say things up front but you always know what he wants. Cohen worked as the right hand man of Trump for over 10 years and he knows Trumps way of doing things.
Let be honest ttwtt, Trump did not outright say he wanted the Capitol attacked but he certainly gave his supporters a lot of reasons for trying to do "something" to upend the injustice he felt was done to HIM.
1) We need to make our thoughts known
2) We have to be strong
3) It was an injustice that we can let stand
4) etc. etc. etc.
It would take a really dumb person to not interpret that as support for doing anything and everything possible to do what he thought was right and that certainly was not through legal means as he tried that and failed legally repeatedly and it was also not to generate a peaceful protest as that too had been done before. Letting people know it was unjust? He had done that over and over and over again before the election and repeatedly thereafter, meaning there was nothing new to talk about. Action was what he wanted to get done.
What was left? a show of force, an insurgency of note, a statement that nothing was sacred if the election results were not overturned.
As such, this post of yours makes me believe that you believe we are all naive and can be convinced that Trump did not support and in many ways generate an insurrection and an attack on our sacred institution........the Capitol.
I have to turn around and ask you.............are you the one that is naive? or simply defending your idol no matter what, as you have done a thousand times before. Will you finally be honest, or try to con us like Trump cons us?
Michael Cohen said it very clearly when he testified.
Trump does not say things up front but you always know what he wants. Cohen worked as the right hand man of Trump for over 10 years and he knows Trumps way of doing things.
Let be honest ttwtt, Trump did not outright say he wanted the Capitol attacked but he certainly gave his supporters a lot of reasons for trying to do "something" to upend the injustice he felt was done to HIM.
1) We need to make our thoughts known
2) We have to be strong
3) It was an injustice that we can let stand
4) I, and all of you, were robbed
5) etc. etc. etc.
It would take a really dumb person to not interpret that as support for doing anything and everything possible to do what he thought was right and that certainly was not through legal means as he tried that and failed legally repeatedly and it was also not to generate a peaceful protest as that too had been done before. Letting people know it was unjust? He had done that over and over and over again before the election and repeatedly thereafter, meaning there was nothing new to talk about. Action was what he wanted to get done.
What was left? a show of force, an insurgency of note, a statement that nothing was sacred if the election results were not overturned.
As such, this post of yours makes me believe that you believe we are all naive and can be convinced that Trump did not support and in many ways generate an insurrection and an attack on our sacred institution........the Capitol.
I have to turn around and ask you.............are you the one that is naive? or simply defending your idol no matter what, as you have done a thousand times before. Will you finally be honest, or try to con us like Trump cons us?
Basically we know he wanted the mob to attack the Capitol because when it happened he told them he loved them and did......NOTHING for hours until someone finally got through to him. Just think about that - POTUS having to be convinced to issue a statement condemning the insurrection, an attack on the U.S. Capitol, while in session, and to summon the NG to quell the insurrection.
One concern, that seems not to be addressed much, is that there seems to be evidence of others pre-planning the US Capitol riots. That makes it quite a bit harder to prove that Trump’s speech on 1/6/21 was primarily responsible for them.
Capitol Attack Was Planned Openly Online For Weeks—Police Still Weren’t Ready
Explicit plans for violence were made in plain sight on multiple corners of the internet.www.forbes.com
The public is getting sick and tired of (alleged) crimes (committed by police officers) being dealt with using an HR process (the “just us” system?). Keep in mind that the POTUS is the top law enforcement officer in the nation.
If not his speech before the riot at the capitol, the lack of engagement during the insurrection as many people were calling and begging for help. He ignored the calls.
That is clearly a violation of his oath. He was enjoying it. He's a traitor.
Or the Senate can dismiss the case because thy ahve no jurisdiction. Under your guy's theory, when the repubs take back the House, they can impeach Obama or FDR. That make senses sense to you?If the senate does convict and then disqualifies him from further office, he can take it to court...
Oh, yes, BUT MOM THEY DID IT TOO!!! Good stuff.Yep, next we might have mayors issuing stand down orders to police during riots.
This is bad faith semantics. Trump has been insisting the election was stolen from him for two months. He has accused everyone from his own appointed judges in fed courts to the SC being in on it, along with such notable lefties like Brian Kemp. He retweeted the worst conspiracy theories, which in turn gave those arguments oxygen. That crowd showed up in fatigues, camo, with weapons, zip tie handcuffs, and the DESIRE to overturn an election they believed was stolen from them because the sitting potus *told them it was literally rigged*.
The act of Trump, after doing all of that, having them gather on Jan 6 to march on the capitol, is nothing but an attempt at insurrection. He knew legally there was no means that day to change the outcome, so he wanted brute force - either projection of power or literal use of power by that crowd.
Oh, yes, BUT MOM THEY DID IT TOO!!! Good stuff.
I see the emoji, but this is still pretty weak. Trump's duty here was clear, before and after the insurrection, and he failed it. If we can't or shouldn't hold Presidents accountable for such things, we might as well just strip impeachment from the Constitution. If this doesn't qualify, I cannot imagine what will.
Now you know how I (and every other Trump hater) feels after 4 years of this kind of BS being fed to us. When are you going to realize that this is no longer about the laws technically being broken but about all the hate, disunity, chaos, incompetence, egoism, uncaring and BS that he has handed out every day during 1450 days of office.It is my position that Trump should face criminal charges if evidence of his inciting a riot exists. I am tired of the “just us” system using non-judicial processes to deal with (alleged) criminal acts committed by government personnel.
Now you know how I (and every other Trump hater) feels after 4 years of this kind of BS being fed to us. When are you going to realize that this is no longer about the laws technically being broken but about all the hate, disunity, chaos, incompetence, egoism, uncaring and BS that he has handed out every day during 1450 days of office.
We are not only tired but exhausted.
In your opinion “red and white flags” (which I take to mean as flags which contain both red and white) is no different than “red flags and white flags” (which you then equate to meaning “red flags or white flags”).
This also applies to the 2A which is a right of the people to keep and bear arms - which is different from a right of the people to keep or bear arms.
The problem you have there pallie is he's been impeached. The trial can happen as soon as practical.
What? Trump is out of office in 6 days. How is that enough time to do anything credible? And, as you said, impeaching a president after he leaves office is dubious at best. Of course it is nothing but a show. And, it is hypocrisy. The left had said they wanted to heal the country, that Trump was a divider and they were not. Well, impeaching Trump isn't going to heal the country. It will lead to more division. And, Biden said from day one in office, Covid will be job #1. Now impeaching Trump is job #1. TDS is more important than COVID.It's taken me awhile to sort out what I think the right thing to do about Trump is. And my thoughts are these:
- Based on what we know right now, my opinion is that Trump's offenses are impeachable, and unless new facts are found the Senate should vote to convict.
- The impeachment process now underway is not a credible process. No matter how much one may be disgusted by Trump's actions, he is still the President of the United States. To run an impeachment through in a rush, without hearings, without witnesses, without Q&A, without giving the President a chance to make his case makes this process a sham. A parade of reps talking in soundbites for the prosecution and for the defense is a political show, and not anything like a credible grand jury, on which the impeachment process is modeled.
- I have my doubts about whether a President can be impeached and convicted after he or she leaves office, and I suspect the House does as well; that's why they're rushing.
In short, Trump's recklessness has, IMO, risen to the standard of being a high crime, but it's too late in his term to do a credible job of removing him from office.
What was divisive about my post? Or do you need me to post a definition of the word before you answer. And 'talking down to the level of your competition' is not something you should be bragging about. lolJust talking apples to apples. Your post was just as divisive. I always talk/get down to the level of my competition.
I've been making a similar case in post after post. What happened on Wednesday is just a small part of a Trump's months long effort to take a wrecking ball to our system of government. And as important as inciting the mob was that he clearly loved what they did, and we know that because he did NOTHING until his staff finally convinced him to issue a pathetic statement that told the insurrectionists he loved them, and from what we know it was the VP and others that worked to get the NG involved to quell the insurrection, not Trump, who was MIA from his duties all day.Please see post #116.
You've just demonstrated the problem with the argument against a post-presidency impeachment. If we accept it, then so long as the President engages in impeachable acts close to the end, it's impossible to legitimately hold him accountable. For that matter, if he sees the writing on the wall, he can resign just before the trial in the Senate or just before the vote, and then keep his post-office taxpayer funded perks and try again in 4 years. Seems absurd to me.What? Trump is out of office in 6 days. How is that enough time to do anything credible? And, as you said, impeaching a president after he leaves office is dubious at best. Of course it is nothing but a show. And, it is hypocrisy. The left had said they wanted to heal the country, that Trump was a divider and they were not. Well, impeaching Trump isn't going to heal the country. It will lead to more division. And, Biden said from day one in office, Covid will be job #1. Now impeaching Trump is job #1. TDS is more important than COVID.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?