Impeachment Round Two (2 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.

 

[Xeno]

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.

Considering this was all predetermined (we knew Republicans would use any or even no excuse to acquit) I'm perfectly fine with House managers effectively telling them, "You want to eschew impartiality? Okay, kiss your week off goodbye. Bring in the witnesses."

 

[Lapaz]

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

McConnell is claiming that since criminal prosecution can address criminal conduct in January, then that alleviates the January exception, but that doesn’t account for impeachable offenses that are not criminal. For example, pressuring Ukraine to dig up dirt on his opponent isn’t criminal, but clearly impeachable. Colluding, but not conspiring, to affect an election is not criminal, but is impeachable. Not calling for aid to quell an insurrection is impeachable, but not criminal. Firing everyone who doesn’t do your bidding, even if your bidding is unethical, but not illegal, is impeachable. There are too many inappropriate and impeachable offenses that wouldn’t be criminal to expect criminal prosecution to adequately redress impeachable offenses in January.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

 

[Lapaz]

Councils have agreed to stipulate that Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler’s would testify to her reported statements and notes if called. While that’s good, it eliminates the option to cross-examine her to learn more, and McCarthy and others. I think this is a mistake. Witnesses would be bad for the defense, and another factor is that it would increase Trump’s defense Bill. I think it would’ve been possible to move more minds with witnesses that stipulating won’t do. The managers have given away one of the only chances they had.

 

[First Time Poster]

So if I have the details right....

The Ds were prepared to have witnesses called. However, Angus King and Joe Manchin said they would only agree to vote with Ds to have their witnesses called if they agreed to allow Rs/Former POTUS' lawyers to call their witnesses. Hence, Phillydelphia (LOL, what a clown!). So, without the guarantee of a majority vote to get their witnesses, they compromised with Rs to allow the stipulation of the evidence/statement be presented and no witnesses.

 

[Optimus Prime]

It's not interesting, it is very much "calculated"....Nikki Haley can go....somewhere....

But after seeing the hate that Lindsey Graham got in that airport and what happened to Liz Chaney I'm curious how this calculation was come to

 

[Taurus]

MAYBE 75-80% were peaceful and non-violent. I'll concede at least that but if some of these same protests had people screaming, yelling violent threats and inflammatory language and a few of them may have tried to cause trouble or tear down statues because that, dc.d happen.

I'd love to know what the interpretations these researchers used in defining non-violent or peaceful. Even if there's no physical violence or injuries or deaths, if I'm a cop and I am trying to keep order and leaving people alone and exercise their Constitutional rights and some hot heads want to deliberately fork with me and threaten to kill me, and members of my family, thats in a way trying to incite violence. If we were co-workers and had this personal, bitter rivalry at our firm and I made veiled threats of physical harm or death threats to you or your family, that's perpetuating violence, IMHO, and not non-violent even if I didnt attack you or leave behind any significant damage to our shared office where we work and you would be perfectly within your rights to have me arrested and convicted and sentenced to maximum sentencing guidelines allowed under British criminal law, which I believe, still does issue life sentences in some cases, although recently they've moved away from such sentences in these types of criminal cases. Even though the UK outlawed the death penalty in 1963, a life sentence with no parole is essentially a death sentence in of itself just no state-sanctioned death penalty.

You have to factor in the many, many times that violence was perpetrated by Boogaloos and Bois. From the BLM perspective it was a peaceful protest even if the overall event wasn't peaceful.
How do we know these things? Because Boogs&Bois were arrested for it.

 

[Taurus]

Pretty much this. This is why he should be impeached. He never conceded, and urged people to continue to fight even after the outcome of the election had become clear. He certainly led people to believe they could somehow influence Congressmen during what is normally a purely ceremonial process.

So his defense is "I didn't incite a riot on the 6th, those people were already incited. I just gathered them into one spot."

Really?

 

[First Time Poster]

Councils have agreed to stipulate that Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler’s would testify to her reported statements and notes if called. While that’s good, it eliminates the option to cross-examine her to learn more, and McCarthy and others. I think this is a mistake. Witnesses would be bad for the defense, and another factor is that it would increase Trump’s defense Bill. I think it would’ve been possible to move more minds with witnesses that stipulating won’t do. The managers have given away one of the only chances they had.

Yeah, it feels like Ds blinked. My post just now explains why though. Without King & Manchin's vote to keep the majority, unless they allow Rs equal opportunity to call witnesses, that means to get depositions done, first, and then possibly call witnesses later, we were looking at a 2-3 week delay in the trial where Ds are deposing key witnesses for trial and Rs (Trump's lawyers) are busy deposing Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris

I'm sure the Ds received council from the White House that they were not interested in such a delay if it meant that. It puts Biden's Admin in a hard spot.

 

[DaveXA]

So his defense is "I didn't incite a riot on the 6th, those people were already incited. I just gathered them into one spot."

Really?

Yeah, it's crazy, but they're going with it apparently.

 

[DaveXA]

Yeah, it feels like Ds blinked. My post just now explains why though. Without King & Manchin's vote to keep the majority, unless they allow Rs equal opportunity to call witnesses, that means to get depositions done, first, and then possibly call witnesses later, we were looking at a 2-3 week delay in the trial where Ds are deposing key witnesses for trial and Rs (Trump's lawyers) are busy deposing Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris

I'm sure the Ds received council from the White House that they were not interested in such a delay if it meant that. It puts Biden's Admin in a hard spot.

It indeed is a hard spot. If this extends several weeks, this could torpedo Biden's desire to get legislation and his agenda passed quickly.

I mean, imo this is already a forgone conclusion. Just end the trial because no one's mind is getting changed at this point despite the mountain of evidence against Trump.

At some point you gotta cut bait and move on to things that actually can get done.

 

[DaveXA]

Well, apparently, they decided not to call witnesses after all? These are closing arguments now? I'm confused. What was the point of voting for witnesses if they're not actually going to do it?

 

[Nebaghead]

Well, apparently, they decided not to call witnesses after all? These are closing arguments now? I'm confused. What was the point of voting for witnesses if they're not actually going to do it?

They were able to include as evidence the testimony from the witness who heard call between McCarthy and Trump. I am sure they will harp on that as fact throughout the closing arguments. It makes it that much harder for republicans to acquit or good fodder for the Dems to say you said that was entered as evidence and didn’t dispute it but still voted to acquit.

 

[DaveXA]

They were able to include as evidence the testimony from the witness who heard call between McCarthy and Trump. I am sure they will harp on that as fact throughout the closing arguments. It makes it that much harder for republicans to acquit or good fodder for the Dems to say you said that was entered as evidence and didn’t dispute it but still voted to acquit.

Yeah, now it seems they're arguing over what can be presented in closing arguments. The rules are that you're not supposed to introduce new evidence in closing arguments and there are questions about whether what's being presented was actually in the record.

 

[Lapaz]

It indeed is a hard spot. If this extends several weeks, this could torpedo Biden's desire to get legislation and his agenda passed quickly.

I mean, imo this is already a forgone conclusion. Just end the trial because no one's mind is getting changed at this point despite the mountain of evidence against Trump.

At some point you gotta cut bait and move on to things that actually can get done.

I think the Senate could’ve agreed to continue legislation during depositions.

 

[DaveXA]

Looks like there will be a vote to conclude trial tonight.

 

[DaveXA]

I think the Senate could’ve agreed to continue legislation during depositions.

I'm pretty sure they can't. The House can, but the Senate can't until the trial is concluded. Anyway, it's moot now because the trial is ending tonight unless something unexpected happens after the closing arguments.

 

[Lapaz]

They were able to include as evidence the testimony from the witness who heard call between McCarthy and Trump. I am sure they will harp on that as fact throughout the closing arguments. It makes it that much harder for republicans to acquit or good fodder for the Dems to say you said that was entered as evidence and didn’t dispute it but still voted to acquit.

Did Beutler hear what Trump was saying or just what McCarthy was saying?