ADVERTISEMENT

Impeachment Trial - 2021 Version

Yesterday was compelling TV. IMHO, today's stuff is back to boring.

This impeachment trial should be limited to four hours for the House, four hours for Trump's defense team, and then vote, period. It doesn't need to be this long and drawn out.

IMHO, by 'beating a dead horse' over and over again, you lessen the impact of the really powerful stuff.
 
DaShuckster said:
Only cares about power?

Interesting take in the wake of Day 2's stunning testimony and video in Donald Trump's impeachment trial.
Click to expand...
Oh, did a party make a convincing argument about how much they desire citizens to be free and happy? Did the video ease up on scare tactics and preach about government loosening its grip?

I know government really cares about us and would never use an event to further its own agenda. That’s probably never happened.
 
Happy Hands said:
I know government really cares about us and would never use an event to further its own agenda. That’s probably never happened.
Click to expand...
I realize that playing to your weaknesses has become a new political debating tactic. Nevertheless, I still find it bizarre to hear that the Trump's innocent, little Capitol insurrection is being maliciously mischaracterized by those evil Dems to further their own wicked agenda. Geez, how devious of those guys!!! 🙄
 
the mental gymnastics to defend that lunatic still blows me away. DJT is Jim Jones.

what I don't get is the GOP that want to keep him as the face of the party or even the nominee in 24. He lost the Popular Vote twice and downticket outperformed him in 2020. The fear to cross him is unbelievable.
 
Poolside Knight said:
the mental gymnastics to defend that lunatic still blows me away. DJT is Jim Jones.

what I don't get is the GOP that want to keep him as the face of the party or even the nominee in 24. He lost the Popular Vote twice and downticket outperformed him in 2020. The fear to cross him is unbelievable.
Click to expand...

I don't get it either. He is a political loser in every sense of the word. How he has so much influence over a good portion of the party is beyond me.
 
Boosted87 said:
The far more dangerous precedent is saying that a president can harness violence against their enemies as long as they don't actually specifically ask for said violence.
Click to expand...
what's dangerous is how close you're getting to 1st Amendment condemnation with this line of thinking. careful, friend
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
fried-chicken said:
Hillary never was president and you chuds been obsessed with her for a decade. We can take a few months to clean up his mess to set a clear boundary for future generations.
Click to expand...
it's almost like the Clintons have served in political offices for over 3 decades.

must've missed Melania's turn at Secretary of State and Senate
 
Boosted87 said:
That's what I'm surprised about - how obvious the conclusion here is.

1) Excellent evidence that the mob was heavily influenced by Trump's words, viewing them as orders. The Q-Shaman guy is on video saying they left because Trump told them to. You have people on blow-horns reciting Trump's tweet's to the crowd like real-time commands. Trump told them to march to the Capitol and they did.

2) That makes it clear that Trump had the power to de-escalate this at any time. Comparing his Tweet about Pence's lack of courage to what Trump would have been watching on TV at that moment is stark. Instead of choosing to de-escalate an obviously dangerous situation, he poured gasoline on it.

3) Total lack of remorse. A normal human being who UNINTENTIONALLY caused this would stand up and acknowledge what they'd done. They would condemn it, apologize, and seek to de-radicalize their mob. Unless of course you have no remorse because it was on purpose and you liked it.

If you combine the inflammatory rhetoric leading up to that day with the total lack of effort to de-escalate the situation, it becomes clear that Trump was more than willing to harness the violent energy of his mob to delay certification in the moment.

If you had a criminal trial where the media's anonymous sources actually testified to the reporting (that he was enjoying the riot - so assuming that's legit) I think it's a slam dunk for truly unbiased jury.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying, but it dismisses the evidence that goes against it. This impeachment is about what happened on January 6th and what he did on that day to incite it. Yes, he made a provocative political speech, but didn't direct people to act violently, much less to break into the capitol. That can be inferred, but inference is subjective and therefore isn't evidence. I think it sets a dangerous precedent here because political speech needs to be protected. If this becomes the standard, any time a politician says something like "we have to stop them" and some crazy person goes and commits a crime that is a supporter then the politician is accountable for that crime.
 
_glaciers said:
what's dangerous is how close you're getting to 1st Amendment condemnation with this line of thinking. careful, friend
Click to expand...
The obvious example for how this would work in reverse is the congressional baseball team shooter. He heard Bernie say that those Republicans want people to die and they must be stopped. Should Bernie be held accountable for his actions? Of course not, but under this precedent he could be.

I also think going after political opponents after they have been voted out is not something we want to see happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _glaciers
Crazyhole said:
I know what you're saying, but it dismisses the evidence that goes against it. This impeachment is about what happened on January 6th and what he did on that day to incite it.
Click to expand...
Trump to followers after the election: My landslide victory was stolen from us!!!
Trump to followers in January: Come to DC on January 6th to protest Congress blessing the EC vote!!!
Trump to followers on January 6th: Go to Capitol!!! Don't let those bastards take away your country!!! Fight like hell!!!
Trump to supporters after they stormed the Capitol building: *crickets*

What, pray tell, is the evidence that goes against this?
 
DaShuckster said:
Trump to followers after the election: My landslide victory was stolen from us!!!
Trump to followers in January: Come to DC on January 6th to protest Congress blessing the EC vote!!!
Trump to followers on January 6th: Go to Capitol!!! Don't let those bastards take away your country!!! Fight like hell!!!
Trump to supporters after they stormed the Capitol building: *crickets*

What, pray tell, is the evidence that goes against this?
Click to expand...
maybe the fact that he never said any of that?

don't let those bastards take away your country - Google Search

www.google.com
 
Crazyhole said:
I know what you're saying, but it dismisses the evidence that goes against it. This impeachment is about what happened on January 6th and what he did on that day to incite it. Yes, he made a provocative political speech, but didn't direct people to act violently, much less to break into the capitol. That can be inferred, but inference is subjective and therefore isn't evidence. I think it sets a dangerous precedent here because political speech needs to be protected. If this becomes the standard, any time a politician says something like "we have to stop them" and some crazy person goes and commits a crime that is a supporter then the politician is accountable for that crime.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true at all. The Article mentions things Trump did prior to Jan 6th as well. I'm not one that subscribes to the idea that impeachment is something that is based on word parsing or legal technicalities. This is a political event not a legal one. There is no judicial review and no court can overturn this on a technicality. It is what the Senators decide it is.

Slippery slopes go both ways. Failing to hold people accountable means it's more likely to occur in the future. And then you have precedent that says "if it wasn't incitement when Trump did it, why is it this time?"
 
Boosted87 said:
Slippery slopes go both ways. Failing to hold people accountable means it's more likely to occur in the future. And then you have precedent that says "if it wasn't incitement when Trump did it, why is it this time?"
Click to expand...
I'm sure it's not lost on GOP Senators that they are in another impeachment trial because they refused to hold Trump accountable the first time around.
 
Boosted87 said:
I don't think that's true at all. The Article mentions things Trump did prior to Jan 6th as well. I'm not one that subscribes to the idea that impeachment is something that is based on word parsing or legal technicalities. This is a political event not a legal one. There is no judicial review and no court can overturn this on a technicality. It is what the Senators decide it is.

Slippery slopes go both ways. Failing to hold people accountable means it's more likely to occur in the future. And then you have precedent that says "if it wasn't incitement when Trump did it, why is it this time?"
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a political event, not a legal one. Thats part of why I'm concerned about the precedent that it sets. When the only accountability lays at the feet of politicians........

This won't be the last time this happens. When Republicans take the house and senate again, what's to keep them from impeaching and barring someone like Kamala Harris from running again for her role in bailing out criminals this summer?
 
Crazyhole said:
I know what you're saying, but it dismisses the evidence that goes against it. This impeachment is about what happened on January 6th and what he did on that day to incite it. Yes, he made a provocative political speech, but didn't direct people to act violently, much less to break into the capitol. That can be inferred, but inference is subjective and therefore isn't evidence. I think it sets a dangerous precedent here because political speech needs to be protected. If this becomes the standard, any time a politician says something like "we have to stop them" and some crazy person goes and commits a crime that is a supporter then the politician is accountable for that crime.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you that it is difficult to establish that Trump was the direct cause and the riot itself was intent. The part I find most troubling is what happened after it started and I found the timeline presented by House Impeachment Manager David Cicilline quite compelling. I mean, Trump clearly knew the riot was happening and, whether he directly caused it or not, he was the only one that could stop it - either by sending out a tweet or by deploying the National Guard (multiple Senators contacted him to request that he do so). But he did neither and his first communication outside of the White House was a phone call to Tommy Tuberville to ask that he try to further delay the vote - which was over two hours after the riot started.

So if the Presidential oath is this: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. "

How could refusing to intervene on an attack on the United States congress during a constitutionally required vote not constitute a dereliction of his oath?
 
Crazyhole said:
The obvious example for how this would work in reverse is the congressional baseball team shooter. He heard Bernie say that those Republicans want people to die and they must be stopped. Should Bernie be held accountable for his actions? Of course not, but under this precedent he could be.

I also think going after political opponents after they have been voted out is not something we want to see happen.
Click to expand...

He was still in office when this happened. I also don't think we need to be in a place where presidents can do whatever they wish with no consequences, as long as they don't it January of their last term.
 
RobUCF said:
I tend to agree with you that it is difficult to establish that Trump was the direct cause and the riot itself was intent. The part I find most troubling is what happened after it started and I found the timeline presented by House Impeachment Manager David Cicilline quite compelling. I mean, Trump clearly knew the riot was happening and, whether he directly caused it or not, he was the only one that could stop it - either by sending out a tweet or by deploying the National Guard (multiple Senators contacted him to request that he do so). But he did neither and his first communication outside of the White House was a phone call to Tommy Tuberville to ask that he try to further delay the vote - which was over two hours after the riot started.

So if the Presidential oath is this: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. "

How could refusing to intervene on an attack on the United States congress during a constitutionally required vote not constitute a dereliction of his oath?
Click to expand...

I can't disagree with any of that. The only problem with it is that when he wanted to bring in the National guard in other circumstances, governors threatened to sue him. It's almost like this was an "ok, you guys wanted chaos for the last 8 months, here's what you get". It's hard to deny that he was damned if you do, damned if you don't, for the last 4 years.
 
Cubs79 said:
I also don't think we need to be in a place where presidents can do whatever they wish with no consequences, as long as they don't it January of their last term.
Click to expand...
Screw the January part. As we've all witnessed, a President can do whatever he wishes with no consequences as long as his party controls the Senate and the Senators in his party are gutless cowards.
 
I'll ask again: if this happened at the end of Trumps 2nd term instead of his 1st, would the left still want this to go forward?
 
Crazyhole said:
Yes, it's a political event, not a legal one. Thats part of why I'm concerned about the precedent that it sets. When the only accountability lays at the feet of politicians........

This won't be the last time this happens. When Republicans take the house and senate again, what's to keep them from impeaching and barring someone like Kamala Harris from running again for her role in bailing out criminals this summer?
Click to expand...

Nothing. Nothing has stopped any Congress from impeaching any official for the last 250 years, Despite that, it's happened a total of 21 times.

Conviction is harder with zero precedent in 250 years for a POTUS. Probably won't happen this time. If the stars aligned and you got 17 Republicans in this one instance - how on earth does that make it more likely to happen in the future? It would be a once-in-250 year event. Doesn't mean it happens more often going forward.

Democrats took a large political risk impeaching Trump the first time (less so this time). If a future Republican House decided to what you describe, they would do so at their own political peril. I don't think the 250 year old calculus has changed.
 
Crazyhole said:
I'll ask again: if this happened at the end of Trumps 2nd term instead of his 1st, would the left still want this to go forward?
Click to expand...

It's not just the left. Non MAGA conservatives are at least open to this if not calling for it. So yea I think they would. The argument would be less centered on a ban from office and more focused on setting a precedent that it's not OK. But in that case I think Censure would probably have more momentum.

Of course if this happened after 8 years what would the riot have been over? Trying to claim a 3rd term?
 
Boosted87 said:
It's not just the left. Non MAGA conservatives are at least open to this if not calling for it. So yea I think they would. The argument would be less centered on a ban from office and more focused on setting a precedent that it's not OK. But in that case I think Censure would probably have more momentum.

Of course if this happened after 8 years what would the riot have been over? Trying to claim a 3rd term?
Click to expand...
Could be over anything. The case being made is that he incited an insurrection. That could happen at the end of a 2nd term as well. Of course at that point there would be no remediation so it would be an exercise in futility, which makes it interesting that people think it would still be an appropriate action.
 
Crazyhole said:
Could be over anything. The case being made is that he incited an insurrection. That could happen at the end of a 2nd term as well. Of course at that point there would be no remediation so it would be an exercise in futility, which makes it interesting that people think it would still be an appropriate action.
Click to expand...

Stated in my post above that this isn’t just about just whether or not he started it. What did he do after?

Also, as an independent voter the whole excuse of “the libs are bad” as a defense does not fly in any way. Stop deflecting.
 
Last edited:
RobUCF said:
Stated in my post above that this isn’t just about just whether or not he started it. What did he do after?

Also, as an independent voter the whole excuse of “the libs are bad” as a defense does not fly in any way. Stop deflecting.
Click to expand...
Did I say "the libs are bad"?
 
I had to stop listening. Much like someone else we know on this board. They made their point. Not exactly how wise it was to continue to repeat and repeat and repeat. I found my self saying Yeah, I get it. Eventually got tired of being hit over the head with a blunt object. His lawyers are not good. But it actually does not matter.
 
DaShuckster said:
Trump to followers after the election: My landslide victory was stolen from us!!!
Trump to followers in January: Come to DC on January 6th to protest Congress blessing the EC vote!!!
Trump to followers on January 6th: Go to Capitol!!! Don't let those bastards take away your country!!! Fight like hell!!!
Trump to supporters after they stormed the Capitol building: *crickets*

What, pray tell, is the evidence that goes against this?
Click to expand...
Well first off we now know the attack was being planned 2 + weeks before the rally, 2nd the attack started 20 minutes before his speech finished, Lastly every politician for years has used the phrase fight like hell. There were 100,000 plus people at the rally and only 100 to 150 were involved. 99.9 to 99.85% did nothing wrong. Trump must really be bad at rallying the troops.
 
Thought the Dems did a good job of showing that Trump is an a-hole. Trump’s lawyer did a good job of showing the Dems are hypocrites. If the Dems really had a case, they wouldn’t need to edit videos and quote Trump out of context. Again, the guy is an a-hole, but he didn’t incite “insurrection.” That self guided tour of the Capital building was someone else’s plan......probably.
 
Oh well. The predicted waste of time and money impeachment trial turned out to be a waste of time and money impeachment trial. Yawn
 
I thought Former Senate Leader, Mitch McConnell's approach was particularly interesting today. First off, he votes to acquit. Then, after the vote, he makes a presentation in the Senate chamber BLASTING Trump and basically said he deserved to have been convicted. However, Mitch said he voted to acquit because -- alas -- he felt that the impeachment of a former president wasn't constitutional. (Ignoring the role he, himself, played in why the trial took place after Trump left office because HE refused to take it on until the next Senate.)

Despite the strange hypocrisy of that development, Mitch was trying his best to play both sides. He gave himself and his homies in the Senate a 'safe' way to vote to acquit while using his condemnation speech to play to the Republican Party's big donors who've been freaking out about how crazy the party has become. Whether it works for him -- and the GOP -- remains to be seen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poolside Knight
DaShuckster said:
I thought Former Senate Leader, Mitch McConnell's approach was particularly interesting today. First off, he votes to acquit. Then, after the vote, he makes a presentation in the Senate chamber BLASTING Trump and basically said he deserved to have been convicted. However, Mitch said he voted to acquit because -- alas -- he felt that the impeachment of a former president wasn't constitutional. (Ignoring the role he, himself, played in why the trial took place after Trump left office because HE refused to take it on until the next Senate.)

Despite the strange hypocrisy of that development, Mitch was trying his best to play both sides. He gave himself and his homies in the Senate a 'safe' way to vote to acquit while using his condemnation speech to play to the Republican Party's big donors who've been freaking out about how crazy the party has become. Whether it works for him -- and the GOP -- remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

He wants Trump to go away, but doesnt want to hurt his own political career in the process. He is a coward and no better than any of the other cult members.
 
DaShuckster said:
I thought Former Senate Leader, Mitch McConnell's approach was particularly interesting today. First off, he votes to acquit. Then, after the vote, he makes a presentation in the Senate chamber BLASTING Trump and basically said he deserved to have been convicted. However, Mitch said he voted to acquit because -- alas -- he felt that the impeachment of a former president wasn't constitutional. (Ignoring the role he, himself, played in why the trial took place after Trump left office because HE refused to take it on until the next Senate.)

Despite the strange hypocrisy of that development, Mitch was trying his best to play both sides. He gave himself and his homies in the Senate a 'safe' way to vote to acquit while using his condemnation speech to play to the Republican Party's big donors who've been freaking out about how crazy the party has become. Whether it works for him -- and the GOP -- remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
He has to stay faithful to his party, but he also has to keep his father-in-law and the CCP happy.
 
KNIGHTTIME^ said:
the impeachment trial is a side show
Click to expand...
WAS a side show. Thank God, it's over and we can move on.

Since we're allowed to say the same things here ad nauseum, I'll say it again, the failure to convict Trump will hurt the Republican Party more than anything. No amount of gerrymandering is going to make the party viable again if the voters leave them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ucf1

The Sons talk UCF Football with Jeremy Tache

Replies
1
Views
205
UCF Fan Forum
ucf1
ucf1
ucf1

The Sons talk UCF Football with Jeremy Tache

Replies
2
Views
223
The Dungeon - Knights Only
ucf1
ucf1
btbones

ChrisKnight06 needs our help

Replies
86
Views
4K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
Knightsweat
Knightsweat
Brandon

***UCF OC Tim Harris Jr. Press Conference - TCU Week ⚔️🏈

Replies
8
Views
701
The Dungeon - Knights Only
ucfclay
ucfclay
DaShuckster

A Shoutout to Speaker Johnson

Replies
2
Views
330
The Water Cooler
DaShuckster
DaShuckster
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back