The second impeachment of Donald Trump thread

[Orangesapples 1,954]

22 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Complicating the "incitement" allegation is that the timeline doesn't fit.  Many or most of those who entered the Capitol building were already over there before Pres. Trump nearly finished his speech and mentioned the "peacefully and patriotically..." desire to march over.

They were there as a result of previous speeches and tweets by the Dear Leader 

[Crazy Cat 39,658]

3 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

I think we're all sick of Trump dominating the news cycle. I don't want to have to hear about him running again. I don't want to hear any more if his sometimes entertaining but also frightening ramblings. 

Can't argue with that.......

[Orangesapples 1,954]

3 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

Can't argue with that.......

Also, I saw on the news that he could be prevented from running again because of the 14th amendment:

 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

 

Trump told the insurgents "we love you". This is giving them comfort. 

[Crazy Cat 39,658]

1 minute ago, Orangesapples said:

Also, I saw on the news that he could be prevented from running again because of the 14th amendment:

 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

 

Trump told the insurgents "we love you". This is giving them comfort. 

You could be correct.  At this point, I wouldn't rule out anything.  

[Boiler 43,746]

I find find this very interesting

 

Too soon to start The First Impeachment of Kamala Harris thread?

 

There seems a much stronger case.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

 

18 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

Also, I saw on the news that he could be prevented from running again because of the 14th amendment:

 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

 

Trump told the insurgents "we love you". This is giving them comfort. 

"Fine people" v2.0

 

Joke of the year, not going to happen.

[PhillyNatz 39]

5 hours ago, Lucky Cat said:

So, they just voted to impeach Trump again.......exactly how does this, in any way, help the Democrats?????  These people are nuts.....

 

Given that there were also 10 republicans who voted for it, no, it doesn't help the democrats in any way. But I suppose the deep state "got to them". Edit : The deep state or whatever deranged theory people have to rationalize things these days.

Edited January 14, 2021 by PhillyNatz

[Boiler 43,746]

2 minutes ago, PhillyNatz said:

Given that there were also 10 republicans who voted for it, no, it doesn't help the democrats in any way. But I suppose the deep state "got to them"

As has been mentioned Kamala is in deep doodoo

 

 

[PhillyNatz 39]

5 minutes ago, Boiler said:

As has been mentioned Kamala is in deep doodoo

 

 

Absolutely no relevance to 10 republicans voting to impeach him, but OK. And have fun watching her be VP for the next 4 years.

Edited January 14, 2021 by PhillyNatz

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

3 minutes ago, PhillyNatz said:

Absolutely no relevance to 10 republicans voting to impeach him, but OK. And have fun watching her be VP for the next 4 years.

10 voting Republicans out of 207 (5%) means what?

[Orangesapples 1,954]

34 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I find find this very interesting

 

Too soon to start The First Impeachment of Kamala Harris thread?

 

There seems a much stronger case.

What case? 

[Boiler 43,746]

2 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

What case? 

She has actually done what Trump is accused of, how will she be able to take the oath?

[PhillyNatz 39]

BTW What happened to the Kracken? Has it been released?

[Orangesapples 1,954]

16 minutes ago, Boiler said:

She has actually done what Trump is accused of, how will she be able to take the oath?

She's not even vice president yet, how can you impeach her? 

 

And Trump did do the thing he's accused of. What exactly has Kamala done? 

[Dashinka 23,377]

9 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Mitch is ruling out a trial before the 20th, and certainly if that is the case any trial occurring would absolutely result in a conviction, and a vote to bar him from any further office. And you know what? I actually think that's what Mitch really wants. He's a vindictive/manipulative guy, and rather devious. All accounts is he's had it with Trump. He'd be thrilled to see him gone, right at this very moment I think, but he doesn't want to 'appear' like the person that's done it. Just like the House, there will be a majority of votes to convict, and plenty of R's will go along. Doing it after the new makeup of the Senate arrives will give them cover. I've seen a few options that could be used besides Roberts, but this is speculative atm.

I also listened to it today. There were a few really earnest speakers, and that did include Republicans too. The rest was pretty trashy. To me... it's kind of clear. It's not necessarily an incitement issue. It's a dereliction of duty issue. There could eventually be evidence of sedition, but that would be pretty shocking.

There were Republicans that voted too. Their reasoning made sense. The impeachment process is there for a reason. It is never likely that if you support a president during an impeachment process, that you would agree with it.

I should think so. It's ultimately meaningless to do so, but sure, why not?

Why would Trump give it the time of day.  If as you opined it is a forgone conclusion that a conviction would take place, why even put up a defense, it is not a criminal trial, and it is even very questionable if it is constitutional.  So that goes back to my other question would Roberts participate if the trial occurred after Biden's inauguration with the potential that any legal fight of the potential outcome would end up back at SCOTUS.