The Lead-Up to 2024: Law & Order - The POTUS Edition

[DaShuckster]

I'm alway amazed at the various ways Trumpsters try to shrug off the January 6th hearings as political theatre.

I expect most of you will ignore hearings on Biden next year after republicans take over as well. As you should, everything in the swamp is political theater.

Looking into my crystal ball, here are a few things you can bet the farm on:

1. Trump will get indicted later this year. After the January 6th Hearings conclude, the DOJ will have no choice but to indict Donald Trump for the Coup he attempted after the 2020 election.
2. Trump will run for President again. Donald Trump will announce this year he's running for President again in 2024. Given what's come out since he left office, there's a snowball's chance in hell he'd ever get elected again. But as with everything Donald does, there's a method to his madness. He'll use his candidacy to sway public opinion about his trial. He'll tell his followers (and trust me, there will still be plenty of them) that he's been indicted for "no reason whatsoever" and will tell his Trumpsters that Biden and his leftie Justice Department just wants him out of the way because Biden knows he'll get his butt kicked by Trump (yet again.)
3. Biden will be impeached in 2023. goodknightfl is right: If the House goes Republican after the Midterms this fall, McCarthy will try to help Trump obfuscate his indictment and color the whole legal process as "political" by impeaching Biden (on what exactly - to be determined.) Then we'll hear the refrain that goodknightfl said: "everything in the swamp is political theater."

I never thought our government could fall so far and become so dysfunctional over the course of my lifetime.

 

[goodknightfl]

I am not sure on #3. I am not sure Biden can hang on long enough for the Republicans to impeach him. His dementia has progressed considerably in the last 30 to 45 days. Though as we learned with Trump you no longer need to be in office to get impeached.

 

[DaShuckster]

I am not sure Biden can hang on long enough for the Republicans to impeach him. His dementia has progressed considerably in the last 30 to 45 days.

I'm guessing you heard that from the same 'news' network that told you the Jan. 6th hearings were political theatre.

 

[goodknightfl]

I'm guessing you heard that from the same 'news' network that told you the Jan. 6th hearings were political theatre.

No, I watch the cuts of him getting off planes and pointing to and trying to shake hands of people who are not there, He is directed and led just about everywhere he goes, 1/2 the time he rambles on with incoherent speech.

He has been that way since being elected, but it is and has been getting worse. Dementia starts off slow but gains momentum. I watched 3 of 4 grandparents go thru dementia, the signs are so clear you have to be blind not to see them. Hate to burst your balloon, but I don't watch right wing media, I cut the cord before it became popular. Watching 2 impeachments told me all I needed to know about Jan 6 hearings, they are run by the same cabal.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

No, I watch the cuts of him getting off planes and pointing to and trying to shake hands of people who are not there, He is directed and led just about everywhere he goes, 1/2 the time he rambles on with incoherent speech.

He has been that way since being elected, but it is and has been getting worse. Dementia starts off slow but gains momentum. I watched 3 of 4 grandparents go thru dementia, the signs are so clear you have to be blind not to see them. Hate to burst your balloon, but I don't watch right wing media, I cut the cord before it became popular. Watching 2 impeachments told me all I needed to know about Jan 6 hearings, they are run by the same cabal.

Cabal is an absolute cop out. I’d respect it more if you simply said you don’t care what Trump did. And you don’t.

 

[Ucfmikes]

Neither of these imbeciles should ever be allowed to lead this country again. There’s no argument. They are too old and are total failures. Embarrassments to this country. Trump had some good policies and did a few good things, but January 6th was the last straw.

 

[goodknightfl]

I am ok with them charging Trump, I have said that a # of times. If you have the goods prosecute. I feel that way with any and all politicians. I am sorry you don't like the cabal description. If you have a better one to describe them fine. If the republicans do impeach Biden that will be a cabal of swamp dwellers as well.

Cabal

l group of secret plotters, as against a government or person in authority.
the plots and schemes of such a group; intrigue.
a clique, as in artistic, literary, or theatrical circles.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

I am ok with them charging Trump, I have said that a # of times. If you have the goods prosecute. I feel that way with any and all politicians. I am sorry you don't like the cabal description. If you have a better one to describe them fine. If the republicans do impeach Biden that will be a cabal of swamp dwellers as well.

Cabal

l group of secret plotters, as against a government or person in authority.
the plots and schemes of such a group; intrigue.
a clique, as in artistic, literary, or theatrical circles.

You didn’t “watch” the two impeachments just like you’re not “watching” this. You’re sitting on the sidelines autistically screeching CABAL!!!!!!!!!! and rambling on like a fool because this isn’t a court of law. You aren’t “watching” it—-but you bellyache about testimony that’s given. You know, kind of like what you you did for the impeachments that you also didn't “watch.”

Just face it: you don’t care about 6 January but it’s not because you aren’t “watching” it. It’s because you very easily want to look past the reasons why they are there.

 

[goodknightfl]

I am ok with having a hearing looking into everything that happened that day. I am ok with prosecuting those involved, including Trump. I watched the first day of this and have followed much of what has been said. That said you are right I am not watching most of it, but I don't watch most hearings on the hill. They are 80% political theater and 20% doing the job at hand. Same is true of Supreme court judge confirmation hearings. You have one party on one side and the other fighting the first group. K.B. Jackson perfect example it was a useless cat fight, I disagree with her on everything, but she is qualified. Just like Trumps picks were. I am over gotcha the BS that is the swamp.

As for the impeachments I watched quite a bit of the first one, I was still working and no I wasn't taking off from my business to watch monkey business. The 2nd impeachment was not legit, it was so bad Justice Roberts wouldn't even sit in on it. Once you had a senator Socialist acting a supreme court justice I tuned out.

 

[DaShuckster]

The 2nd impeachment was not legit

Not "legit"? What do you think the January 6th hearings are all about?

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

I am ok with having a hearing looking into everything that happened that day. I am ok with prosecuting those involved, including Trump.

As for the impeachments...The 2nd impeachment was not legit

This is what you would call a massive contradiction.

 

[sk8knight]

You didn’t “watch” the two impeachments just like you’re not “watching” this. You’re sitting on the sidelines autistically screeching CABAL!!!!!!!!!! and rambling on like a fool because this isn’t a court of law. You aren’t “watching” it—-but you bellyache about testimony that’s given. You know, kind of like what you you did for the impeachments that you also didn't “watch.”

Just face it: you don’t care about 6 January but it’s not because you aren’t “watching” it. It’s because you very easily want to look past the reasons why they are there.

The biggest problem with the hearings is that they are only presenting a heavily-selected prosecution narrative. There’s no opposition challenging assertions, there’s no discovery process, there’s no requirement on the members of Congress to make their own statements within the boundaries of the facts, nor are any of the members of Congress under any oath to be truthful. The committee was selected by the Democrats explicitly to prevent any dissent from the narrative that they want to put forth and anyone that was offered by Republicans that would not be in lockstep was rejected.

The committee people aren’t idiots, they are going to be able to create a compelling narrative by taking a bunch of things that may or may not be related, controlling the context so that it looks like causation is the only option, and then pushing that forward. Any competent prosecutor can do that with even the barest of circumstantial evidence. But that isn’t a good method to get to the truth and that is why our legal system is adversarial.

When they took it to the next step and threw office gossip out as substantial fact, the committee lost any credibility they might’ve had. So, no, the hearings don’t deserve attention and we don’t need to be distracted from the failures of the Administration and Democrats in Congress by this show about a jackass that many of us would rather never see again.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

The biggest problem with the hearings is that they are only presenting a heavily-selected prosecution narrative. There’s no opposition challenging assertions, there’s no discovery process, there’s no requirement on the members of Congress to make their own statements within the boundaries of the facts, nor are any of the members of Congress under any oath to be truthful. The committee was selected by the Democrats explicitly to prevent any dissent from the narrative that they want to put forth and anyone that was offered by Republicans that would not be in lockstep was rejected.

The committee people aren’t idiots, they are going to be able to create a compelling narrative by taking a bunch of things that may or may not be related, controlling the context so that it looks like causation is the only option, and then pushing that forward. Any competent prosecutor can do that with even the barest of circumstantial evidence. But that isn’t a good method to get to the truth and that is why our legal system is adversarial.

When they took it to the next step and threw office gossip out as substantial fact, the committee lost any credibility they might’ve had. So, no, the hearings don’t deserve attention and we don’t need to be distracted from the failures of the Administration and Democrats in Congress by this show about a jackass that many of us would rather never see again.

I understand all of this but it's been very well established that this isn't a court of law. And in terms of the office gossip losing credibility for the whole---are you kidding me? Sure, let's just pretend the whole thing didn't happen then. By all means, bring in the people who there in the first person but you are, per usual, picking fly shit out of the pepper. On top of the mountain of shit that has been presented, you decide to stick your fat fingers in your ears over that one.

Please save yourself the diatribe that is bound to follow. It's cool. You don't care. It's cool. Really.

 

[Cubs79]

The biggest problem with the hearings is that they are only presenting a heavily-selected prosecution narrative. There’s no opposition challenging assertions, there’s no discovery process, there’s no requirement on the members of Congress to make their own statements within the boundaries of the facts, nor are any of the members of Congress under any oath to be truthful. The committee was selected by the Democrats explicitly to prevent any dissent from the narrative that they want to put forth and anyone that was offered by Republicans that would not be in lockstep was rejected.

The committee people aren’t idiots, they are going to be able to create a compelling narrative by taking a bunch of things that may or may not be related, controlling the context so that it looks like causation is the only option, and then pushing that forward. Any competent prosecutor can do that with even the barest of circumstantial evidence. But that isn’t a good method to get to the truth and that is why our legal system is adversarial.

When they took it to the next step and threw office gossip out as substantial fact, the committee lost any credibility they might’ve had. So, no, the hearings don’t deserve attention and we don’t need to be distracted from the failures of the Administration and Democrats in Congress by this show about a jackass that many of us would rather never see again.

This is on McCarthy. He was the one trying to put people like Jim Jordan on the committee, knowing damn well he would likely be implicated to at least some degree. When that was rejected, he was the one who pulled all of his selections. That was his choice. If you dont like the make up of the committee then blame McCarthy, because it is 100% his fault. Also, many of the people testifying worked directly with Trump (and others have been asked and refused). It is a weird angle to basically downplay the whole thing because you dont like what the people who worked with Trump, including his own daughter, are saying.

 

[DaShuckster]

The biggest problem with the hearings is that they are only presenting a heavily-selected prosecution narrative.

Yeah, a "heavily-selected prosecution" narrative that's been provided by Trump's own inner circle of people.

The committee was selected by the Democrats explicitly to prevent any dissent from the narrative that they want to put forth and anyone that was offered by Republicans that would not be in lockstep was rejected.

Even before McCarthy offered sham picks (Jim Jordan on the Committee??!? REALLY???) only to pull them all in a huff, he had been given the opportunity to join Pelosi in a true BIPARTISAN Committee that would have had equal R/D representation and equal subpeona powers, etc.

Earlier McCarthy had been quoted as saying that was the only legit way to do it -- but when just such a scenario was actually presented to him, he declined. What does THAT tell you?

 

[goodknightfl]

Not "legit"? What do you think the January 6th hearings are all about?

Who else was ever impeached when not in office? The DOJ has a Democrat in charge, Charge the man. The constitution has no reference of impeaching someone not in office. There are proper hoops to be jumped thru, and that wasn't one of them.

 

[Cubs79]

Who else was ever impeached when not in office? The DOJ has a Democrat in charge, Charge the man.

It's not an impeachment.

 

[goodknightfl]

he was referring to my statement the 2nd impeachment was not legit. The hearings are a different thing. I never said having hearings was not legit. I have said they are a dog n pony show. Until they look at everything that happened that day, I stand by that.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

Who else was ever impeached when not in office? The DOJ has a Democrat in charge, Charge the man. The constitution has no reference of impeaching someone not in office. There are proper hoops to be jumped thru, and that wasn't one of them.

Wrong, yet again.

Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, was impeached for the second time on January 13, 2021, one week before his term expired.

Hope this helps, even though I know you'll move the goalposts in some completely asinine way.

Second impeachment of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DaShuckster]

Who else was ever impeached when not in office?

Yes, his impeachment trial took place after he was out.

It might have something to do with the fact Trump's impeachable offense took place less than two weeks prior to him leaving office.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

Yes, his impeachment trial took place after he was out.

It might have something to do with the fact Trump's impeachable offense took place less than two weeks prior to him leaving office.

He was already Impeached in the House before he left office.

 

[DaShuckster]

Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, was impeached for the second time on January 13, 2021, one week before his term expired.

True. And this is also true...
The second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, began on February 9, 2021, and concluded with his acquittal on February 13.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

True. And this is also true...
The second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, began on February 9, 2021, and concluded with his acquittal on February 13.

100%. My response was more toward our resident history revisor who loves to live in an alternate universe when it comes to Trump.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

Yeah, a "heavily-selected prosecution" narrative that's been provided by Trump's own inner circle of people.

Even before McCarthy offered sham picks (Jim Jordan on the Committee??!? REALLY???) only to pull them all in a huff, he had been given the opportunity to join Pelosi in a true BIPARTISAN Committee that would have had equal R/D representation and equal subpeona powers, etc.

Earlier McCarthy had been quoted as saying that was the only legit way to do it -- but when just such a scenario was actually presented to him, he declined. What does THAT tell you?

He declined so that people like @sk8knight and the pool cleaner could justify putting their fingers in their ears. Because putting people who actively tried to undermine the election process on the committee was the absolute key to fairness.

 

[DaShuckster]

... putting people who actively tried to undermine the election process on the committee was the absolute key to fairness.

As the hearings have proceeded, it has become obvious that Jim Jordan was working directly with WH Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows throughout the lead-up to the attack on the Capitol.

Yet McCarthy selected HIM to be on the Committee to investigate January 6th??!? That'd have been like the Mayor of Chicago naming Al Capone to be on a committee to investigate the Chicago Mobster scene.

 

[NinjaKnight]

It's year 7 of having actual and literal cult members support a political party in the US and y'all still think you can debate them using reason and facts 🤣😂

 

[goodknightfl]

Yes, his impeachment trial took place after he was out.

It might have something to do with the fact Trump's impeachable offense took place less than two weeks prior to him leaving office.

All they could have done was ban him from holding office ever again. Let the justice system work and charge him, They were never going to get an conviction in the Senate and they knew that. It was simply a huge waste of money. I am not defending Trump nor any of his actions here. Simply the process. If they had been successful, I would be ok with it. I don't want Trump to run.

 

[hemightbejeremy]

All they could have done was ban him from holding office ever again. Let the justice system work and charge him, They were never going to get an conviction in the Senate and they knew that. It was simply a huge waste of money. I am not defending Trump nor any of his actions here. Simply the process. If they had been successful, I would be ok with it. I don't want Trump to run.

It was good to get those who support the traitor on public record with an impeachment vote.

 

[DaShuckster]

All they could have done was ban him from holding office ever again.

And that effort was a waste of time?

They were never going to get an conviction in the Senate and they knew that. It was simply a huge waste of money.

A President who caused an insurrection in a last-ditch effort to stay in office is impeached for high crimes against this country.....and it's somehow the Democrats' fault that it was a huge waste of money? God forbid, Senate Republicans do the right thing!

I am not defending Trump nor any of his actions here. Simply the process.

Sooooooooo, it's just The Process for holding Trump accountable for his actions that you take issue with?

ok.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

And that effort was a waste of time?

A President who caused an insurrection in a last-ditch effort to stay in office is impeached for high crimes against this country.....and it's somehow the Democrats' fault that it was a huge waste of money? God forbid, Senate Republicans do the right thing!

Sooooooooo, it's just The Process for holding Trump accountable for his actions that you take issue with?

ok.

You just wasted your time breaking down his gibberish when you could have summed it up as:

 

[goodknightfl]

Wrong, yet again.

Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, was impeached for the second time on January 13, 2021, one week before his term expired.

Hope this helps, even though I know you'll move the goalposts in some completely asinine way.

Second impeachment of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I stand corrected. The Trial was after he left office, the charges filed 6 days before. That doesn't change there was nothing in the constitution that allows a Senator to head the trial. Roberts is the only person allowed to do that. For me personally it would have been better if he did and if it was a conviction. I still don't want Trump to run again.