Impeachment Round Two (1 Viewer)

[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.

 

[FullMonte]

One big lie I heard Trump’s attorney say, and I only listed very briefly, was that if they convict it will set a precedent whereby any previous federal official could be impeached years after they served and the Senate would have to try each one. They keep ignoring the fact that Trump was still in office when he was impeached. This sets no precedent to impeach anyone after their service has concluded.

Yeah...but, wouldn't that also require said federal official to have done something bad enough, while in office, to justify being impeached? And wouldn't it also need to be something so bad that they need to go through the process to show future officials that you can't do that?

 

[Lapaz]

Yeah...but, wouldn't that also require said federal official to have done something bad enough, while in office, to justify being impeached? And wouldn't it also need to be something so bad that they need to go through the process to show future officials that you can't do that?

That’s what impeachments should be for, but it doesn’t matter, because impeachments will be abused by Republicans if they get the house back. It will become frivolous.

 

[B4YOU]

Here may be another lie by Trump’s legal team

You don’t need a “source”. Tuberville confirmed he was on the phone with Trump and told him Pence was being evacuated. Shortly after the call, while insurgents were inside the Capitol Trump tweeted,

"Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving states a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify."

Sen. Tommy Tuberville stands by account of Jan. 6 Trump phone call after lawyers say it's 'hearsay' — USA TODAY

"Obviously it wasn't hearsay. Tuberville was right there," Sen. Bill Cassidy told reporters.

apple.news

 

[V Chip]

Why are some people still stubbornly holding on to the notion that most BLM protests last summer were peaceful and non-violent.

Because 93% of BLM protests were.

INRATS if your first point is so gloriously wrong.

 

[MT15]

So Sen. Lee’s office (note that it isn’t him saying it) has released an “update” on the timeline. They say the phone call from Trump to his phone came two minutes after the tweet about Mike Pence.

I say prove it. Provide the phone to the trial and let everyone verify the time. Lee’s credibility here is close to zero.

 

[brandon]

From little I read from the defense team, Trump didn't need any lawyers. They just kept up some of the same ploys we've heard over his term as president - "It was a monstrous lie because it was pre-planned."
 Called the impeachment process an "unjust and blatantly unconstitutional act of political vengeance" and a "politically motivated witch hunt." Ah, the ever-reliable witch hunt.
 Dems didn't denounce the other riots (they did including Biden), Ah, the ever-reliable whataboutism.
 The insurrectionists were mixed political backgrounds (the Antifa disguised as MAGAs). there has been no evidence thus far of any significant presence of far-leftwing instigators, and an NPR assessment of arrests of Capitol insurrectionists shows clear ties to the far right. Ah, the ever-reliable it wasn't me, it was you comback.
 The "Charlotteville Lie" selective MSM cherry picking. Ah, the ever-reliable fake news retort.
 The phone call to Georgia was taken out of context, when he said "find just over 11,000 votes" he didn't really mean "find." He used that word but he doesn't think it means what we think it means. Ah, the ever-reliable Inigo Montoya argument.

Only thing I can see of semi-substance was the playing of videos of Dems using terms like "fight" in it.

Oh, you mean the ever-reliable both sides argument?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So Sen. Lee’s office (note that it isn’t him saying it) has released an “update” on the timeline. They say the phone call from Trump to his phone came two minutes after the tweet about Mike Pence.

I say prove it. Provide the phone to the trial and let everyone verify the time. Lee’s credibility here is close to zero.

Sounds like a perfect reason to call witnesses to me and subpoena his phone records and the WH call logs.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

The Senate has voted to call witnesses. I think I'm a little shcked that one of the Rs voting for it is Graham.

Trump acquitted for second time following historic Senate impeachment trial | CNN Politics

The Senate acquitted former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial Saturday, voting that Trump was not guilty of inciting the deadly January 6 riot at the US Capitol – but the verdict amounted to a bipartisan rebuke of the former President with seven Republicans finding him guilty.

www.cnn.com

 

[Dragon]

The Senate has voted to call witnesses. I think I'm a little shcked that one of the Rs voting for it is Graham.

Trump acquitted for second time following historic Senate impeachment trial | CNN Politics

The Senate acquitted former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial Saturday, voting that Trump was not guilty of inciting the deadly January 6 riot at the US Capitol – but the verdict amounted to a bipartisan rebuke of the former President with seven Republicans finding him guilty.

www.cnn.com

It is one way for Trump to stay in the medias spotlight. And with his defense team talking about needing 100 depositions it is going to be quite a show I'm affraid. They are going to continue with their election fraud claim for months in prime time...

 

[Saintman2884]

Okay, this is a big "What if" and maybe its highly unlikely but let's suppose, when it comes time for Republican senators to cast their votes to convict or acquit Trump at the end of this second impeachment trial proceedings, if Mitch McConnell decides to vote to convict Trump, how many other Republican senators who owe allegiance to him and largely follow his orders, would follow suit?

The MSM has consistently reported McConnell has said he hasn't decided yet and probably most MAP posters on here might think or presume he'll vote to acquit Trump once the final vote comes around. Their probably right, but if he doesn't how much influence among those he still has under his sway could lead to maybe 15-20 votes to convict Trump and forever bar him from running for political office again. Or would his vote just be his vote alone and maybe it swings 4-5 more GOP senators to similarly cast their votes but it wouldn't pass the 67 vote threshold needed to convict a sitting or former U.S. President for high crimes and misdemeanors, or "inciting a dangerous insurrectionist mob or action to disrupt or prevent the lawful certification of a presidential election".

Right now, Dems have maybe 55 or 56 senators to convict Trump. Could McConnell's convict decision vote be enough to bring that extra 12-13 senators on board?

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this possibility.

 

[JRad]

Okay, this is a big "What if" and maybe its highly unlikely but let's suppose, when it comes time for Republican senators to cast their votes to convict or acquit Trump at the end of this second impeachment trial proceedings, if Mitch McConnell decides to vote to convict Trump, how many other Republican senators who owe allegiance to him and largely follow his orders, would follow suit?

<snip>

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this possibility.

I have actually been wondering the exact same thing, so I imagine we find it equally plausible. If anyone in that chamber has the clout, it has to be Mitch, right? I think it’s also a combination of finding the right number of senators who are either close enough to retirement to not care, or don’t have to worry so much about getting primaried by the Trump base vote.

 

[JRad]

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this possibility.

Can I change my reply haha

McConnell reveals he will vote to acquit Trump

His announcement ends a long period of silence over whether he would consider convicting Trump.

www.politico.com

 

[UriUT]

It's not a TDS argument. It's contrasting the language the Democrats (and really, any politician) using figurative language in their rhetoric. Essentially showing they all use the same language.

Regardless, what I've always had an issue with is that Trump never conceded, and misled his followers into believing the outcome was in doubt and that they were still fighting to change the outcome of the election. It's a cumulative thing, and largely due to the President's rhetoric between election day and Jan 6.

His speech that day only tangentially impacted the mob attack. It had already clearly been planned and orchestrated prior to Jan 6. Just a massive failure on the part of intelligence agencies not being prepared for this event happening. The warning signs were there.

Fair enough. We shouldn’t use in incendiary language. However, I fail to see how it was a good argument by his lawyers. His words directly led to a bunch of insurrectionists towards the Capitol. I don’t see dems standing on that stage. Seems like a look at the speeding car over there while a police officer caught one driving 100 in a school zone.

 

[DaveXA]

Fair enough. We shouldn’t use in incendiary language. However, I fail to see how it was a good argument by his lawyers. His words directly led to a bunch of insurrectionists towards the Capitol. I don’t see dems standing on that stage. Seems like a look at the speeding car over there while a police officer caught one driving 100 in a school zone.

Oh I agree, but a lot of people will feel there was merit in that argument. I mean, it's really a whataboutism argument, but it's effective, even if it's a false equivalency. The point isn't to convince the public anyway, or even Democrat Senators. To the defense team, the only relevant people they need to convince are forty something Republican Senators.

 

[UriUT]

Oh I agree, but a lot of people will feel there was merit in that argument. I mean, it's really a whataboutism argument, but it's effective, even if it's a false equivalency. The point isn't to convince the public anyway, or even Democrat Senators. To the defense team, the only relevant people they need to convince are forty something Republican Senators.

to be fair, it’s not trying to convince those republicans but rather giving them cover for a way out.

 

[DaveXA]

to be fair, it’s not trying to convince those republicans but rather giving them cover for a way out.

True. I suspect at least 35 of them already have their minds made up. Maybe even more. And apparently ole Mitch has said he'll acquit. So the rest of the trial is essentially a messaging exercise.

 

[MT15]

Did Mitch say that before the vote to call witnesses?

Its hard to see how the Dems can lose, if they voted today, they would acquit anyway, so nothing is lost and the Senate wasn’t in session next week anyway, so they can depose the witnesses next week.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Did Mitch say that before the vote to call witnesses?

Its hard to see how the Dems can lose, if they voted today, they would acquit anyway, so nothing is lost and the Senate wasn’t in session next week anyway, so they can depose the witnesses next week.

Yep