Impeachment Round Two (14 Viewers)

[Yggdrasill]

I am in the camp that Trump must -not should- be impeached. If not this President, for this behavior, then what bar would have to be cleared to merit impeachment?

Impeachment not only sends a signal to the country and the world that fomenting a coup is unacceptable and will be punished, but it also removes much of the threat Trump could pose going forward as, I understand it, he would lose his pension, his access to daily security briefings, free medical care and other amenities and benefits afforded to former Presidents. If impeached, he would not meet the definition of a Former President under the Former Presidents Act. I don't think it is clear whether he would continue to receive Secret Service protection.

 

[insidejob]

NYT Reports Trump Enraged at Castor's Praise of House Impeachment Managers - Second Nexus

Y'all probably posted something about this already but I was absent yesterday so here it is just in case.

 

[nolaspe]

Great job just now by House Manager Joaquin Castro...

 

[cuddlemonkey]

And bringing Rep. Neguse back to walk through the First Amendment aspects is a great move. This guy did an excellent job walking through some pretty dry and boring material on the first day.

 

[MT15]

Ah, well you've got me there. I havn't seen the 'evidence' presented in the Senate trial. I'm in the middle of moving house, but when the dust settles I'll look into it.

As for the rest of your comments; I am sorry to see that you have degenerated into snidey insults. I am not disregarding ANYTHING.. I'm actually looking at the evidence objectively. Show me where Trump encouraged any of his supporters to attack the Capitol building. You can't.. because he didn't. I'm sorry that the evidence contradicts your preferences, but that's life.

your assertion that he meant for them to stand peacefully outside in protest makes no sense. He never told them to “stay outside”, he told them to “stop” the steal, to stop the certification. They couldn’t have possibly done this from outside, Congress was already in session inside, they wouldn’t have even known the horde was there if they had stayed outside.

He repeatedly told them they had to stop what was happening inside that building, they had to be strong while doing it, they had to fight like hell to take back the stolen election or they wouldn’t have a country left.

Your position on this is just wrong. Nobody in that crowd had any doubt what Trump wanted them to do. Every single one of them knew their assignment was to get inside the Capitol and stop what was happening. Every person.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Disgraceful. Every single person with a microphone and a platform needs to demand answers from these people.

 

[MT15]

Cuddle, I can’t find any reporting on this. Are we sure it happened?

 

[Lapaz]

Cuddle, I can’t find any reporting on this. Are we sure it happened?

CNN reported it. The CSPAN cameras are off, so it can only be known by reporters. The same reporter also said that Sanders appeared to be nodding off. Sanders knows he's going to vote to convict, and he is nearly 80, but he needs to stay alert.

 

[MT15]

Are there any historical precedents...like, has anyone in history been convicted of "incitement to riot" or the equivalent charge? If so, surely there's a transcript of the speech that got them in trouble.
In how many, I wonder, did the speaker come right out and say "All right now! Let's go over to the (beerhall, convention center, etc.) and do some violence! I mean hurt people, even kill them! This very minute, on my orders alone! Chaaaarge!"

This is something that was discussed on tv. The legal bar to convict someone of incitement is really high, whereas to convict someone on an impeachment trial they don’t have to meet those high legal hurdles. Dereliction of duty, failure to uphold the Constitution, incitement all fit here IMO.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Cuddle, I can’t find any reporting on this. Are we sure it happened?

@mkraju is Manu Raju, CNN's congressional correspondent.

 

[MT15]

I don’t like this


I thought attendance was required, maybe they were up in the gallery? I read on the first day they were free to sit up there because of COVID and social distancing.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I don’t like this


I thought attendance was required, maybe they were up in the gallery? I read on the first day they were free to sit up there because of COVID and social distancing.

That could be it as well. I wish someone would ask them directly just to force them into being on the record about their attendance.

As for the rest... that's shady as hell. Especially since I think Cruz is one of those that would skip out on attending.

 

[wardorican]

Disgraceful. Every single person with a microphone and a platform needs to demand answers from these people.

Can they be fined?

Also, it would be interesting if that changed the final vote required. 2/3 of 85...

Oh sorry, you were not here, so we went ahead and did the conviction vote.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Can they be fined?

Also, it would be interesting if that changed the final vote required. 2/3 of 85...

Oh sorry, you were not here, so we went ahead and did the conviction vote.

I think that is the Sedition Caucus' plan, they will not show up for the vote if there are some R's that will vote to convict. They'll sit it out and then birch about how unfair and unconstitutional the conviction this conviction will be.

 

[Xeno]

I think that is the Sedition Caucus' plan, they will not show up for the vote if there are some R's that will vote to convict. They'll sit it out and then birch about how unfair and unconstitutional the conviction this conviction will be.

If they do then it'll only take one Republican to flip, assuming the 56-44 vote on constitutionality is indicative of how the conviction vote will go. Two-thirds of 85 is 57.

I certainly won't be getting my hopes up.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

If they do then it'll only take one Republican to flip, assuming the 56-44 vote on constitutionality is indicative of how the conviction vote will go. Two-thirds of 85 is 57.

I certainly won't be getting my hopes up.

They know no shame. They likely believe it will rid them of trump and keep his easily manipulated supporters because that sort of move will make the Sedition Caucus even more popular with those that stormed the Capitol.

 

[nolaspe]

Graham really is a piece of work... Hillary's 11 hrs of questioning about Benghazi as the gop tried in vain to convict her of any crime would like to have a word with him...

 

[GrandAdmiral]

La. GOP already starting to turn on Cassidy. Firing up the censure votes! Trump's cult-like hold on the party is astounding.

Parish party has already done it. I guess the state will follow suit next.

Cassidy Censured by Local GOP for Voting Trump's Trial Is Constitutional

Six Republican senators joined Democrats and affirmed that it was permissible to try a former president.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Here is a discussion of the political reasons both democrats and republicans have for wanting to move the impeachment trial quickly. It’s from Lawfare Blog and it was a good read, whether you agree or not.

“On this point, the sticking point may be a weird a marriage of convenience between senators resistant to witnesses for very different reasons. For Republican senators, the whole trial is embarassing; it forces them to take one bad vote after another, to wallow in Trump’s misconduct, and to live the divisions within their own party. The sooner it is done, the better. For Democratic senators, by contrast, the trial is of only limited utility if there is no chance of flipping 17 Republican colleagues. Democrats, after all, have competing priorities right now. They want to confirm cabinet and subcabinet nominees, and they have legislation they want to move too. Using up a lot of Senate energy to vindicate the principle that an impeachment trial is supposed to be, well, an actual trial is not especially high on the priority list for some of them. Each side thus has its own reasons for wanting to “move on.” “

Impeachment Trial Diary: Daily Thoughts on the Senate’s Proceedings

A summary of each day’s trial proceedings with analysis and reflections.

www.lawfareblog.com

Thank you for posting. I definitely don't agree with the part regarding the Democratic Senators. Trump and his seditious supporters committed insurrection against this country on January 6th. Dealing with this outrage and national tragedy is a hell of a lot more important than confirming freaking cabinet nominees.

This is essentially doing what the Republican Senators want, they should not be rewarded with a quick trial because they don't take their oath to the Constitution seriously. They should all be humiliated and shamed for weeks for coddling and helping Trump while he spread the "stolen election" lie. This is the exact same mistake the North made with the South after the Civil War. There can be no healing until traitors and white supremacists are finally held accountable to the damage they've caused this country during the past 160 years.