What's More Important to the Lying Thieves Anyway?

[code1211]

Actually, the trial has not yet occurred. The US Senate holds impeachment trials. The US House indicts.

Try to stay up to date and use the correct terms, even if it's a bit--how do we say it?-- challenging.

As always, when the Democrat-Socialists get involved in anything, the result is either a theft or a lynching.

This one was a lynching.

Not even one fact was presented that is supported by real world fact which will probably be established in the upcoming weeks and months.

 

[code1211]

I accept your concession

See?

 

[code1211]

Another issue is that it puts a target on the backs of future presidents. Both parties will target future presidents in tjeir first term if they think they can ise it to prevent him from running again. Pursuing Trump criminally after he gets out is another bad idea.

Holding a trial to remove a person from office AFTER he has left office seems to be a step or two past the far side of insanity.

 

[code1211]

Snoop dogg and kathy griffin. Okay. Okay.

You seemed to have missed the link to Mad Max in your response.

There are various quotes from various elected Democrat-Socialists that invoke violence and hate and that define the targets to destroy.

It has become the standard rhetoric of the Democrat-Socialists.

Lies to support hate disguised as outrage. It's what Democrat-Socialists do.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You seemed to have missed the link to Mad Max in your response.

There are various quotes from various elected Democrat-Socialists that invoke violence and hate and that define the targets to destroy.

It has become the standard rhetoric of the Democrat-Socialists.

Lies to support hate disguised as outrage. It's what Democrat-Socialists do.

Hmm... but some of them are good people.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

You seemed to have missed the link to Mad Max in your response.

There are various quotes from various elected Democrat-Socialists that invoke violence and hate and that define the targets to destroy.

It has become the standard rhetoric of the Democrat-Socialists.

Lies to support hate disguised as outrage. It's what Democrat-Socialists do.

Tell me more about Snoop Dogg.

 

[Mycroft]

So this symbolic attack by the Democrat-Socialists on this political opponent is more important to you and them than actually doing their jobs?

Of course it is. It's the direct result of TDS.

 

[code1211]

Yes, it's a waste of time to impeach a President for inciting a riot then doing nothing as his storm trooper violently occupy the U.S. Capitol. We can't hold Trump accountable for anything - that's mean and really UNFAIR I think.

And, sure, these are just like other politically motivated attacks. I mean, really, it's just as valid to conclude Trump did nothing wrong here as what he did was betray his office. Really, who can say whether lying about election fraud for months, then whipping up a crowd with more lies, throwing his VP under the bus, sending them to attack the Capitol, then waiting hours to issue a statement or to call in the NG is wrong?

The President's call to action was this:
<snip>

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capital building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

<snip>
We’re going to try to give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take our country back.
So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America.
Thank you all for being here. This is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you."

The first miscreants to entered the Capital Building were entering before the speech was finished.

It's a fairly long walk from the speech site to the Capital.

The FBI is now releasing real world evidence revealing that they were tracking the planning of the Capital Building violence BEFORE the date of the incidents.

The President gave a speech that you say motivated those that were acting BEFORE the speech occurred.

You are arguing that the future causes the past.

 

[vegas giants]

See?

Yes

 

[vegas giants]

See?

Yes

 

[Luther]

Of course it is. It's the direct result of TDS.

I see, it's the Rights turn to re name partisan politics?

 

[Vern]

The President gave a speech that you say motivated those that were acting BEFORE the speech occurred.

You are arguing that the future causes the past.

I guess you make a good point if you ignore his past calls for violence and his non-stop lies about a free and fair election. As a real American, I dont ignore trump's own words. Code, can you admit trump was lying about the election? Its relevant to you obedient defense of trump so please answer the question.

 

[Vern]

I see, it's the Rights turn to re name partisan politics?

Is that a "both sides" post? I dont want to assume you are equating democrats putting America first with the right's non stop lies to undermine democracy.

 

[JasperL]

The President's call to action was this:
<snip>

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capital building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

<snip>
We’re going to try to give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take our country back.
So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America.
Thank you all for being here. This is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you."

The first miscreants to entered the Capital Building were entering before the speech was finished.

It's a fairly long walk from the speech site to the Capital.

The FBI is now releasing real world evidence revealing that they were tracking the planning of the Capital Building violence BEFORE the date of the incidents.

The President gave a speech that you say motivated those that were acting BEFORE the speech occurred.

You are arguing that the future causes the past.

All that MIGHT work if you ignore the rest of the speech and only concentrate on a few words he was careful to say, but not when as he was watching the occupation of the U.S. Capitol by people he'd been addressing an hour earlier that Trump did.....NOTHING. We now know people close to him were desperately calling the WH to get Trump to act. When he did he told the world he loved them. He didn't condemn the violence, didn't summon the NG. He did throw Pence under the bus, again, though which is nice, and it was Pence and others by all accounts who did get the military presence there to put down the insurrection, while Trump had his fat ass glued to the TV watching it and loving what he was seeing, while everyone around him is desperately trying to get him to do his duty.

So, no, that excuse fails because of what Trump did during the insurrection. It's also a big clue in my view that those at the top of the GOP and who know all this, McCarthy, McConnell and Cheney among others, are not defending Trump. McConnell for his part says he'll never talk to Trump again and will we're told allow GOP senators to make a conscience vote on impeachment, and hasn't opposed it. Cheney voted to impeach. McCarthy said Trump was responsible. Maybe it's because they were all put at risk and KNOW Trump did nothing to help them.

 

[trouble13]

Holding a trial to remove a person from office AFTER he has left office seems to be a step or two past the far side of insanity.

The left has entered into stage 4 of TDS. Its like their addled brains dont even consider the retributions that come in response to their actions.

 

[JasperL]

Another issue is that it puts a target on the backs of future presidents. Both parties will target future presidents in tjeir first term if they think they can ise it to prevent him from running again. Pursuing Trump criminally after he gets out is another bad idea.

Right, because we cannot hold people accountable. I'm pretty sure that if it's the President, that's not allowed, and the Constitution says so. You can look it up.

FWIW, impeachment during the first term to prevent that person from running again has been a viable option since the founding. What is at issue here is if the President engaged in an impeachable act at the end of his term, and after he lost, whether or not impeachment can be pursued, even if he's out of office when the verdict is handed down. The theory the MAGA contingent are advancing is impeachment can ONLY be used against a sitting President. So if he resigns the day before a Senate conviction vote that he knows he'll lose, the Senate cannot have a vote, because he's out of office at that point.

So it removes disqualification from the list of remedies, because, the argument goes, if you cannot remove him you cannot then get to the 'and' part which is disqualification. Seems...unlikely that was what the founders intended, that they wrote into the remedies disqualification but in a way that allowed all but the biggest morons to avoid it, by resigning before a verdict, or doing the bad acts at the very end of a term.

And it's notable that we also grant former Presidents likely $10s of millions in benefits - an office, lifetime SS protection, pension. Impeachment removes those as well.

 

[JasperL]

The left has entered into stage 4 of TDS. Its like their addled brains dont even consider the retributions that come in response to their actions.

The more important consideration for me isn't the promise of more riots or killings by the MAGA thugs, but that Congress draw a line, and declare that the actions of Trump are not acceptable, and will never be acceptable. A President who spends months taking a wrecking ball to our system of government, culminated in an insurrection he built, and did nothing to stop AS THE INSURRECTION WAS HAPPENING, our U.S. Capitol was occupied by a mob while Congress was in session, will be impeached.

If we don't then shouldn't the next election loser try the same thing, with better lawyers? Why not invite a mob to the next certification and use the threat of violence to convince the VP to unilaterally throw out an election because of hunches rejected by 60 courts? Why not demand that any state controlled by friendlies, if you lose, throw out that election and anoint electors for that person. Why not get better lawyers to argue that if some state had a technical violation of the law, not contested before the election by the loser, then the remedy is to toss EVERY VOTE IN THAT STATE. The most damaging argument is the one Hawley is making for PA. The GOP changed the law to allow more mail in voting. After Trump lost the same GOP says, oops, because we screwed up, the GOP legislature that screwed up now gets to anoint the GOP candidate if they want as the winner despite losing the election held under rules established by the GOP controlled legislature.

 

[trouble13]

Right, because we cannot hold people accountable. I'm pretty sure that if it's the President, that's not allowed, and the Constitution says so. You can look it up.

FWIW, impeachment during the first term to prevent that person from running again has been a viable option since the founding. What is at issue here is if the President engaged in an impeachable act at the end of his term, and after he lost, whether or not impeachment can be pursued, even if he's out of office when the verdict is handed down. The theory the MAGA contingent are advancing is impeachment can ONLY be used against a sitting President. So if he resigns the day before a Senate conviction vote that he knows he'll lose, the Senate cannot have a vote, because he's out of office at that point.

So it removes disqualification from the list of remedies, because, the argument goes, if you cannot remove him you cannot then get to the 'and' part which is disqualification. Seems...unlikely that was what the founders intended, that they wrote into the remedies disqualification but in a way that allowed all but the biggest morons to avoid it, by resigning before a verdict, or doing the bad acts at the very end of a term.

And it's notable that we also grant former Presidents likely $10s of millions in benefits - an office, lifetime SS protection, pension. Impeachment removes those as well.

The standards set in place today will be used tomorrow as well. It has already begun, members of Congress have already announced thier intent to impeach Biden before he has even taken office. Sound familiar, it should.

 

[trouble13]

The more important consideration for me isn't the promise of more riots or killings by the MAGA thugs, but that Congress draw a line, and declare that the actions of Trump are not acceptable, and will never be acceptable. A President who spends months taking a wrecking ball to our system of government, culminated in an insurrection he built, and did nothing to stop AS THE INSURRECTION WAS HAPPENING, our U.S. Capitol was occupied by a mob while Congress was in session, will be impeached.

If we don't then shouldn't the next election loser try the same thing, with better lawyers? Why not invite a mob to the next certification and use the threat of violence to convince the VP to unilaterally throw out an election because of hunches rejected by 60 courts? Why not demand that any state controlled by friendlies, if you lose, throw out that election and anoint electors for that person. Why not get better lawyers to argue that if some state had a technical violation of the law, not contested before the election by the loser, then the remedy is to toss EVERY VOTE IN THAT STATE. The most damaging argument is the one Hawley is making for PA. The GOP changed the law to allow more mail in voting. After Trump lost the same GOP says, oops, because we screwed up, the GOP legislature that screwed up now gets to anoint the GOP candidate if they want as the winner despite losing the election held under rules established by the GOP controlled legislature.

Congress already drew the line your looking for and Trump stayed on their side of that line. He did what progressive leaders did. He exercised restraint same as they did. When can we expect all of their impeachments?

 

[JasperL]

The standards set in place today will be used tomorrow as well.

Great. I'm all for setting a standard that what Trump did was impeachable. All presidents going forward should be held to that standard, and I explained the reasons. It's telling you're not defending the actions, including doing nothing as the insurrection was happening, just telling us we cannot hold Trump accountable, cause reasons.

It has already begun, members of Congress have already announced thier intent to impeach Biden before he has even taken office. Sound familiar, it should.

Well the member, singular, that I know of who plans to impeach Biden is a Q nutjob. I do not care what Q nutjobs do. And individual congresspeople file articles of impeachment all the time, and they are ignored.

The only question that matters here is whether or not what Trump did for two months is impeachable conduct, or not. All the else is distraction from discussing that really simply question. Should the next president look at Trump's actions and know that Congress approved or disapproved of it? Can, and should, he or she expect to be impeached for similar conduct? That is the question.

 

[trouble13]

Great. I'm all for setting a standard that what Trump did was impeachable. All presidents going forward should be held to that standard, and I explained the reasons. It's telling you're not defending the actions, including doing nothing as the insurrection was happening, just telling us we cannot hold Trump accountable, cause reasons.


Well the member, singular, that I know of who plans to impeach Biden is a Q nutjob. I do not care what Q nutjobs do. And individual congresspeople file articles of impeachment all the time, and they are ignored.

The only question that matters here is whether or not what Trump did for two months is impeachable conduct, or not. All the else is distraction from discussing that really simply question. Should the next president look at Trump's actions and know that Congress approved or disapproved of it? Can, and should, he or she expect to be impeached for similar conduct? That is the question.

Why should I condemn anything? I dont feel any need to.

 

[JasperL]

Congress already drew the line your looking for and Trump stayed on their side of that line. He did what progressive leaders did. He exercised restraint same as they did. When can we expect all of their impeachments?

I'm not aware of anyone in history who sat on their fat ass watching TV while the U.S. Capitol was overtaken by a mob he'd just addressed and who did NOTHING. And that's just the last of acts over two months.

So, your BUT MOM!!! excuse fails.

 

[trouble13]

I'm not aware of anyone in history who sat on their fat ass watching TV while the U.S. Capitol was overtaken by a mob he'd just addressed and who did NOTHING. And that's just the last of acts over two months.

So, your BUT MOM!!! excuse fails.

What progressives did was even worse. They took out their anger on innocent members of their local communities. At least Trump supporters directed their anger where it belonged, at the people in charge.

 

[JasperL]

Why should I condemn anything? I dont feel any need to.

I know you don't, which is why we got Trump and why the GOP are such gutless, sniveling cowards and won't condemn his actions. The mob was Trump friendly so why do you care that they threatened members of Congress, sent them all into hiding, were roaming the halls yelling hang Pence, and Trump sat by and did nothing, and let the VP whose life he'd put at risk do the work of organizing the NG to quell the insurrection? For the MAGA crowd, if Trump did it, it's fine for the President to engage in that behavior.

 

[JasperL]

What progressives did was even worse. They took out their anger on innocent members of their local communities. At least Trump supporters directed their anger where it belonged, at the people in charge.

Yes, Trump supporters engaged in an insurrection and attacked the U.S. Capitol, while Congress was in session, and Trump did NOTHING. That's fine, since they were defending Trump. I got it - that's the standard. That is the defense. MAGA!