Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread***


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1347651809746116608?s=20

 

NBC News obtained a draft of the article of impeachment against Trump, just read on

@MSNBC

. It's one article: "ARTICLE I: INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION."

Did any Republicans use the word "Insurrection" to describe it? I'm wondering if they are using wording for this impeachment that they can then point to Republicans already saying the same thing. For example, if McConnell argues against it, can they counter with, "But you said on the Wednesday...". I mean, clearly politicians go against what they said all the time, but just curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 34.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • timschochet

    2277

  • SaintsInDome2006

    1831

  • Henry Ford

    1367

  • Sinn Fein

    1171

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The quid pro quo discussion is a red herring. Sondland’s statement and testimony is proof that the President was running a shadow diplomacy operation using his private attorney outside of normal execu

This is no longer something worth arguing about for the time being.  Until the administration puts forth some compelling evidence or allows some witness to testify as to its side of the story, there i

You know, one of the things that really irritates me right now - when people say an impeachment will be too divisive.

 

This is a man who instigated an attack on the Capitol of the country.  If impeaching that conduct is divisive, then we need to be divided.  I don't want to be part of any group that thinks this is OK, let alone supporting it.

 

If you want to raise your hand, and say, "I stand with Trump" - I want to see it.  And I want to be divided from it.

Many people who stand with Trump will be the same people who were aghast at athletes kneeling during the national anthem - as disrespectful of the county.  If you are against kneeling, but for attacking the Capitol - I want to know it, and want to be divided.  

I don't want a compromise here. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just going to leave this here with no comment (full letter in link):

 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene @RepMTG · 14m

Congressional Democrats are threatening yet another coup attempt on President @realDonaldTrump with Impeachment.

Here is my statement.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Legitimate reason for waiting until Monday:

 

Christine Pelosi @sfpelosi · 1h

Why tweet snark when you can read the House Rules?

The House meets Monday; to do so otherwise needs unanimous consent and McCarthy objects.

 

:shrug:

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Per WaPo:

On the cusp of the second impeachment battle in just over a year, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is circulating a memo to Republican senators that outlines how a potential Senate trial would work for President Trump — proceedings that would all but certainly occur after he leaves the White House.

In the memo, obtained by The Washington Post, McConnell’s office notes that the Senate will not reconvene for substantive business until Jan. 19, which means the earliest possible date that impeachment trial proceedings can begin in the Senate is the day before President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated.

Although the Senate will hold two pro forma sessions next week, on Jan. 12 and Jan. 15, it is barred from conducting any kind of business during those days — including “beginning to act on received articles of impeachment from the House” — without agreement from all 100 senators. With a cadre of Trump-allied senators in the Republican conference, that unanimous consent is highly unlikely.

“Again, it would require the consent of all 100 Senators to conduct any business of any kind during the scheduled pro forma sessions prior to January 19, and therefore the consent of all 100 Senators to begin acting on any articles of impeachment during those sessions,” the memo from McConnell emphasized.

In effect, that makes the matter of an impeachment trial an issue that will need to be taken up by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the incoming majority leader, in the first days of the Biden presidency — a move that would almost certainly distract from the president-elect’s immediate agenda to battle the coronavirus pandemic and ensure that his Cabinet nominees get confirmed.

Absent a unanimous agreement before Jan. 19 to formally begin acting on any articles of impeachment, the McConnell memo outlines an expected scenario should the House impeach Trump in the coming days:

●On Jan. 19, the Senate would receive a message from the House that it has appointed impeachment managers, and that the Senate would be ready to receive it.

●On Jan. 19 or 20, the House impeachment managers would exhibit the articles.

●On Jan. 20 or 21, the Senate would proceed to consideration of the impeachment articles at 1 p.m., and officially begin the trial. McConnell’s memo noted that the “Senate trial would therefore begin after President Trump’s term has expired — either one hour after its expiration on January 20, or twenty-five hours after its expiration on January 21.”

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very informative last post @Sinn FeinFein. I'd be fine with Schumer waiting a few weeks to focus on Biden's immediate agenda and then attempt the impeachment trial. The goal of doing it post inauguration is to eliminate Trump's ability to ever hold office again, something that may be appealing to many 2024 hopefuls. A few weeks or more shouldn't matter much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Courtjester said:

Agreed and if we had a month or two for this happen, I would say go for it. We have 8 days once the bill is introduced. It is political theater at best. 

With almost 4k dying in this country a day due to a virus, efforts are better spent elsewhere. Get together and focus on DAY ONE--what we are going to introduce and get passed. DAY TWO--we are going to do this. The Dems have a real opportunity here to get some things done, but if they get sidetracked trying to advance an agenda or grind axes, they are going to blow it,

Condemn him, isolate him and ignore him and let him be judged by the history books. But that is just my opinion. 

 

:goodposting:

This is a great post you nail it. Unfortunately the left can never pass up an opportunity to waste time and money on the bolded. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Per WaPo:

On the cusp of the second impeachment battle in just over a year, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is circulating a memo to Republican senators that outlines how a potential Senate trial would work for President Trump — proceedings that would all but certainly occur after he leaves the White House.

In the memo, obtained by The Washington Post, McConnell’s office notes that the Senate will not reconvene for substantive business until Jan. 19, which means the earliest possible date that impeachment trial proceedings can begin in the Senate is the day before President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated.

Although the Senate will hold two pro forma sessions next week, on Jan. 12 and Jan. 15, it is barred from conducting any kind of business during those days — including “beginning to act on received articles of impeachment from the House” — without agreement from all 100 senators. With a cadre of Trump-allied senators in the Republican conference, that unanimous consent is highly unlikely.

“Again, it would require the consent of all 100 Senators to conduct any business of any kind during the scheduled pro forma sessions prior to January 19, and therefore the consent of all 100 Senators to begin acting on any articles of impeachment during those sessions,” the memo from McConnell emphasized.

In effect, that makes the matter of an impeachment trial an issue that will need to be taken up by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the incoming majority leader, in the first days of the Biden presidency — a move that would almost certainly distract from the president-elect’s immediate agenda to battle the coronavirus pandemic and ensure that his Cabinet nominees get confirmed.

Absent a unanimous agreement before Jan. 19 to formally begin acting on any articles of impeachment, the McConnell memo outlines an expected scenario should the House impeach Trump in the coming days:

●On Jan. 19, the Senate would receive a message from the House that it has appointed impeachment managers, and that the Senate would be ready to receive it.

●On Jan. 19 or 20, the House impeachment managers would exhibit the articles.

●On Jan. 20 or 21, the Senate would proceed to consideration of the impeachment articles at 1 p.m., and officially begin the trial. McConnell’s memo noted that the “Senate trial would therefore begin after President Trump’s term has expired — either one hour after its expiration on January 20, or twenty-five hours after its expiration on January 21.”

 

 

 

 

Lame. So if Articles of War were needed immediately, and Bernie Sanders disagreed, the Senate couldn't vote on those Articles until January 19?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea this will help mend the country. I fully expect this to happen and be a cornerstone of Bidens speech. We are ALL going to pay for the Jan 6 riot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Insein said:

Yea this will help mend the country. I fully expect this to happen and be a cornerstone of Bidens speech. We are ALL going to pay for the Jan 6 riot. 

What do you suggest, then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

What do you suggest, then?

You don't go for impeachment because he clearly was not inciting violence. How many tweets (that we can't see now) or videos (that are also blocked) has he made calling for peaceful protests and no violence. They took down his video urging everyone to go home once things escalated. All that will do is fan the flames more. It will set a precedent alright. That any time Congress is in opposition to a sitting president, impeachment is necessary. 

They want a pound of flesh to justify their hatred for the last 4 years and they've been given the perfect opportunity to do so. The sad thing is that was just the fringe benefit. We're getting a new Patriot Act to "protect american citizens and prevent anything like this from ever happening again." Guaranteed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Insein said:
13 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

What do you suggest, then?

You don't go for impeachment because he clearly was not inciting violence.

On a purely literal and technical level, I might agree with this.

The problem with Trump is that he was also responsible for weakening Capitol security, and he was also responsible for holding back the National Guard while his supporters attacked the police, killing one. And he waited hours before telling them to "Go home" (while simultaneously winking at them with "You're very special"), not once condemning their criminal behavior.

So, yeah -- he didn't actually say "Let's go do violence!" He just made sure that security would fail and then sat back and basked while Rome burned.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

On a purely literal and technical level, I might agree with this.

The problem with Trump is that he was also responsible for weakening Capitol security, and he was also responsible for holding back the National Guard while his supporters attacked the police, killing one. And he waited hours before telling them to "Go home" (while simultaneously winking at them with "You're very special"), not once condemning their criminal behavior.

So, yeah -- he didn't actually say "Let's go do violence!" He just made sure that security would fail and then sat back and basked while Rome burned.

I was a big fan of saying he will march down to the Capitol with them, then getting in a car and leaving

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

On a purely literal and technical level, I might agree with this.

The problem with Trump is that he was also responsible for weakening Capitol security, and he was also responsible for holding back the National Guard while his supporters attacked the police, killing one. And he waited hours before telling them to "Go home" (while simultaneously winking at them with "You're very special"), not once condemning their criminal behavior.

So, yeah -- he didn't actually say "Let's go do violence!" He just made sure that security would fail and then sat back and basked while Rome burned.

So basically what has happened in every major city over the last 8 months then. I guess we're going to have quite the backlog of officials to prosecute. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Insein said:
10 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

On a purely literal and technical level, I might agree with this.

The problem with Trump is that he was also responsible for weakening Capitol security, and he was also responsible for holding back the National Guard while his supporters attacked the police, killing one. And he waited hours before telling them to "Go home" (while simultaneously winking at them with "You're very special"), not once condemning their criminal behavior.

So, yeah -- he didn't actually say "Let's go do violence!" He just made sure that security would fail and then sat back and basked while Rome burned.

So basically what has happened in every major city over the last 8 months then. I guess we're going to have quite the backlog of officials to prosecute. 

This would be an apt comparison if a mayor had 1) failed to arrange for security at City Hall, 2) encouraged protesters to march on City Hall, AND 3) refused to send more police after City Hall was breached.

You gotta have all 3 of those elements to match what Trump did on Wednesday.

This is why the BLM/antifa whataboutisms fail. None of those protesters overran the seat of government.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, urbanhack said:

It wasn't just Trump questioning things. When you have people demanding answers for things that were directly witnessed, video evidence and extreme outlying of data, you don't tell them to suck it up you lost. You do a full audit and prove them wrong. With so many changes thrown in last minute for Covid and otherwise, they should have done that at a minimum. Courts rejecting evidence because of procedural mistakes and not the nature of the findings is not dismissal. 

The government failed to give any answer to the people. They just ignored them and said deal with it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

This would be an apt comparison if a mayor had 1) failed to arrange for security at City Hall, 2) encouraged protesters to march on City Hall, AND 3) refused to send more police after City Hall was breached.

You gotta have all 3 of those elements to match what Trump did on Wednesday.

This is why the BLM/antifa whataboutisms fail. None of those protesters overran the seat of government.

Portland

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/portland-city-commissioners-home-city-hall-fire-targeted/

Seattle

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/06/10/seattle-protesters-take-over-city-hall-demand-mayors-resignation/amp/

Minneapolis

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/us/minneapolis-government-george-floyd.amp.html

 

Edited by Insein
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Insein said:
28 minutes ago, urbanhack said:

It wasn't just Trump questioning things. When you have people demanding answers for things that were directly witnessed, video evidence and extreme outlying of data, you don't tell them to suck it up you lost. You do a full audit and prove them wrong.

No. That's not how it should ever work in America. And you think I'm wrong, just imagine how you'd feel if your guys won and then the other side started throwing up an endless series of hoops that you need to jump through before your guys are allowed to take office.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Insein said:
17 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

This would be an apt comparison if a mayor had 1) failed to arrange for security at City Hall, 2) encouraged protesters to march on City Hall, AND 3) refused to send more police after City Hall was breached.

You gotta have all 3 of those elements to match what Trump did on Wednesday.

This is why the BLM/antifa whataboutisms fail. None of those protesters overran the seat of government.

Portland

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/portland-city-commissioners-home-city-hall-fire-targeted/

Seattle

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/06/10/seattle-protesters-take-over-city-hall-demand-mayors-resignation/amp/

Minneapolis

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/us/minneapolis-government-george-floyd.amp.html

Did you read my post at all? None of those examples contain all 3 of the elements matching what Trump did.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2015: Biden threatens to withhold a billion dollars from Ukraine (on video) unless they fire the prosecutor investigating the company that pays his son millions of dollars while smoking crack and getting footjobs from prostitutes (plenty of records verifying the payments, never denied by Biden, videos of the drugs and prostitutes)

2019: Trump impeached for quid pro quo

2020: Democrats encourage 100 days of Burning, Looting, and Murdering ($2billion in insurance claims, half a dozen political assassinations/attempts) including defunding the police, All Cops Are Bad, destruction of federal property, violence and murder against law enforcement officers

2021: Trump impeached for inciting violence against the country

 

🤡

 

 

Edited by Bozeman Bruiser
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will just leave at this--the Dems have everything to lose by pressing this and nothing to gain. There is no time to get this accomplished. As Dems your last gasp effort is going to end up with yet another effort to remove Donald Trump and failing. Why give him that? He can run on that issue in the next election and will be completely correct. 

I feel a lot of the resignation/impeachment narrative  is just being driven by the media and no one wants to seriously go down this road again with so few days remaining. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Courtjester said:

I will just leave at this--the Dems have everything to lose by pressing this and nothing to gain. There is no time to get this accomplished. As Dems your last gasp effort is going to end up with yet another effort to remove Donald Trump and failing. Why give him that? He can run on that issue in the next election and will be completely correct. 

I feel a lot of the resignation/impeachment narrative  is just being driven by the media and no one wants to seriously go down this road again with so few days remaining. 

Donald W Obama @DonaldWObama

Democrats won't impeach Trump. Instead, they'll continue using what happened at the Capitol to fundraise while simultaneously backing down on promises they made to voters, like healthcare and $2k stimulus checks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

No. That's not how it should ever work in America. And you think I'm wrong, just imagine how you'd feel if your guys won and then the other side started throwing up an endless series of hoops that you need to jump through before your guys are allowed to take office.

 

If an official audit was done and the proof was shown, what recourse would there be? You'd have to accept it at that point. Only the hardliners that would never accept anything would remain. There were tens of millions of people that have completely lost faith in our election process during this cycle because the government told them to sit down and shut up. You don't deserve and answer. 

And there is no "my guys". They're all politicians. It's all lesser evil. But we used to be able to have some faith that our vote would be counted equally. I have no faith in that anymore.

Edited by Insein
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

Did you read my post at all? None of those examples contain all 3 of the elements matching what Trump did.

All 3 of them did. All of them. Stop moving these imaginary goalposts. You want the president's head on a platter? Don't drag the rest of the country down with you. We're all going to pay for this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Insein said:

If an official audit was done and the proof was shown, what recourse would there be? You'd have to accept it at that point. Only the hardliners that would never accept anything would remain. There were tens of millions of people that have completely lost faith in our election process during this cycle because the government told them to sit down and shut up. You don't deserve and answer. 

And there is no "my guys". They're all politicians. It's all lesser evil. But we used to be able to have some faith that our vote would be counted equally. I have no faith in that anymore.

The bolded is where we've been for months.  It's all been investigated and it's all been debunked.  All of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Insein said:

It wasn't just Trump questioning things. When you have people demanding answers for things that were directly witnessed, video evidence and extreme outlying of data, you don't tell them to suck it up you lost. You do a full audit and prove them wrong. With so many changes thrown in last minute for Covid and otherwise, they should have done that at a minimum. Courts rejecting evidence because of procedural mistakes and not the nature of the findings is not dismissal. 

The government failed to give any answer to the people. They just ignored them and said deal with it. 

This is a lie - you and others just don’t like the answer you were given.

Edited by AAABatteries
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

Per WaPo:

On the cusp of the second impeachment battle in just over a year, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is circulating a memo to Republican senators that outlines how a potential Senate trial would work for President Trump — proceedings that would all but certainly occur after he leaves the White House.

In the memo, obtained by The Washington Post, McConnell’s office notes that the Senate will not reconvene for substantive business until Jan. 19, which means the earliest possible date that impeachment trial proceedings can begin in the Senate is the day before President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated.

Although the Senate will hold two pro forma sessions next week, on Jan. 12 and Jan. 15, it is barred from conducting any kind of business during those days — including “beginning to act on received articles of impeachment from the House” — without agreement from all 100 senators. With a cadre of Trump-allied senators in the Republican conference, that unanimous consent is highly unlikely.

“Again, it would require the consent of all 100 Senators to conduct any business of any kind during the scheduled pro forma sessions prior to January 19, and therefore the consent of all 100 Senators to begin acting on any articles of impeachment during those sessions,” the memo from McConnell emphasized.

In effect, that makes the matter of an impeachment trial an issue that will need to be taken up by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the incoming majority leader, in the first days of the Biden presidency — a move that would almost certainly distract from the president-elect’s immediate agenda to battle the coronavirus pandemic and ensure that his Cabinet nominees get confirmed.

Absent a unanimous agreement before Jan. 19 to formally begin acting on any articles of impeachment, the McConnell memo outlines an expected scenario should the House impeach Trump in the coming days:

●On Jan. 19, the Senate would receive a message from the House that it has appointed impeachment managers, and that the Senate would be ready to receive it.

●On Jan. 19 or 20, the House impeachment managers would exhibit the articles.

●On Jan. 20 or 21, the Senate would proceed to consideration of the impeachment articles at 1 p.m., and officially begin the trial. McConnell’s memo noted that the “Senate trial would therefore begin after President Trump’s term has expired — either one hour after its expiration on January 20, or twenty-five hours after its expiration on January 21.”

 

 

 

 

Do it anyway. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Courtjester said:

I will just leave at this--the Dems have everything to lose by pressing this and nothing to gain. There is no time to get this accomplished. As Dems your last gasp effort is going to end up with yet another effort to remove Donald Trump and failing. Why give him that? He can run on that issue in the next election and will be completely correct. 

I feel a lot of the resignation/impeachment narrative  is just being driven by the media and no one wants to seriously go down this road again with so few days remaining. 

 

Often doing the right thing has this as a side effect.  Just to make sure I understand if something “equally as bad” had happened 6 months ago would you be in favor of Impeachment?  If it’s just the timing then who cares - it’s not like they will get much done with Mitch as majority leader anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Insein said:

All 3 of them did. All of them. Stop moving these imaginary goalposts. You want the president's head on a platter? Don't drag the rest of the country down with you. We're all going to pay for this. 

That's a strawman argument. 

The truth is many Americans want the act to be punished, so that future presidents don't do it too because they saw that Trump wasn't punished for doing it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Insein said:

It wasn't just Trump questioning things. When you have people demanding answers for things that were directly witnessed, video evidence and extreme outlying of data, you don't tell them to suck it up you lost. You do a full audit and prove them wrong. With so many changes thrown in last minute for Covid and otherwise, they should have done that at a minimum. Courts rejecting evidence because of procedural mistakes and not the nature of the findings is not dismissal. 

The government failed to give any answer to the people. They just ignored them and said deal with it. 

Trumpists went 1 for 62 in their election lawsuits. That’s a pretty definitive answer.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The government, Trump’s government, said it was the most secure election ever.  The courts, an uninterested body in regards to politics, reviewed “evidence” of fraud and declared it not so.  The states, in their own and individual capacity, checked, verified, and certified the results of their citizens; even the states in question, many of which led by Republicans.

Honestly, how have the American people, and more specifically those with concerns of fraud, been ignored and told to deal with it?

The source of their doubt and so-called loss in faith of our election cycle lays at the feet of one individual, President Trump.  His tweet on Nov 13 started this snowball:  “For years the Dems have been preaching how unsafe and rigged our elections have been. Now they are saying what a wonderful job the Trump Administration did in making 2020 the most secure election ever. Actually this is true, except for what the Democrats did. Rigged Election!”.  He’s to blame, he’s the instigator, he’s the pusher.  This isn’t “anti-Trump”, this is simply the truth; it’s his doing.

 

  • Like 10
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Insein said:

It wasn't just Trump questioning things. When you have people demanding answers for things that were directly witnessed, video evidence and extreme outlying of data, you don't tell them to suck it up you lost. You do a full audit and prove them wrong. With so many changes thrown in last minute for Covid and otherwise, they should have done that at a minimum. Courts rejecting evidence because of procedural mistakes and not the nature of the findings is not dismissal. 

The government failed to give any answer to the people. They just ignored them and said deal with it. 

This is the kind of stuff I don't understand.   And maybe its because I've never identified myself with any political party or anything like that.

But, just as an example, if someone at work were to accuse me of stealing things, I would hope that the burden of proof would first be on my accuser to show that I actually stole anything at all.  And I would hope that my company would follow the standard procedures for an inquiry into this kind of incident rather than threaten to fire me merely based on allegations.   If my accuser brought forth over 60 examples, and my company shot down each one, some of them because the accuser had procedural flaws, that should be the accuser's problem, not mine.  It shouldn't shift the burden of proof to me, and we shouldn't have to deliberate on a flawed argument.   

If the affidavits were true, the video evidence was legitimate, and the data was undeniable, then you should blame the Trump Campaign's legal team for not finding a way to have them deliberated on in court instead of blaming the government for ignoring it.   Had any of the many alleged cases of fraud won in court, there might have been grounds for a broader inquiry, investigation, and more audits.  But that didn't happen, and it's not the government's fault that Trump's lawyers weren't able to get past that first step.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Insein said:

It wasn't just Trump questioning things. When you have people demanding answers for things that were directly witnessed, video evidence and extreme outlying of data, you don't tell them to suck it up you lost. You do a full audit and prove them wrong. With so many changes thrown in last minute for Covid and otherwise, they should have done that at a minimum. Courts rejecting evidence because of procedural mistakes and not the nature of the findings is not dismissal. 

The government failed to give any answer to the people. They just ignored them and said deal with it. 

There were several recounts that showed an accurate initial result. Clear certification of accurate results was provided by officials of all political stripes and at many levels. This election got heavy scrutiny, way more than usual. The government gave the people a very clear answer, consistently,  over several weeks of detailed scrutiny. 

The heart of the confusion is that the President has perpetrated a dangerous lie onto his supporters. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kwille said:

There were several recounts that showed an accurate initial result. Clear certification of accurate results was provided by officials of all political stripes and at many levels. This election got heavy scrutiny, way more than usual. The government gave the people a very clear answer, consistently,  over several weeks of detailed scrutiny. 

The heart of the confusion is that the President has perpetrated a dangerous lie onto his supporters. 

These folks would watch this

https://youtu.be/Za7bHIKsxc4

and say “could somebody please provide evidence that penis pump was Austin’s?  That’s all we want” 

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Insein said:
11 hours ago, Sea Duck said:

Did you read my post at all? None of those examples contain all 3 of the elements matching what Trump did.

All 3 of them did.

Portland: outer door of City Hall vandalized.
Seattle: council member invited protesters into the lobby of City Hall after hours.
Minneapolis: um...doesn't look like protesters went to City Hall at all.

Again, not the same. Seattle comes close, I suppose -- but it happened after hours, in the public part of the building, and the protesters didn't attempt to stop active government business. (And, at any rate, I think that council member should be fired.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

Portland: outer door of City Hall vandalized.
Seattle: council member invited protesters into the lobby of City Hall after hours.
Minneapolis: um...doesn't look like protesters went to City Hall at all.

Again, not the same. Seattle comes close, I suppose -- but it happened after hours, in the public part of the building, and the protesters didn't attempt to stop active government business. (And, at any rate, I think that council member should be fired.)

Personally, I don't think he's grasping the conflict of interest of the person whose job it is to protect the government building is also the same guy the revolutionaries are fighting for.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

President Trump is expected to be represented by his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, in the event of an impeachment trial, two sources said, and is also considering hiring controversial attorney Alan Dershowitz for his impeachment defense team.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/09/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-lawyers-dershowitz-giuliani/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twCNN&utm_term=link&utm_content=2021-01-09T23%3A14%3A05

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course he needs to be impeached.  Has a president ever committed a greater offense than this?  If this action isn't impeached, what would be the standard?  Bill Clinton got impeached for a BJ.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Film of the assault. I watched the policeman screaming for the first time. It really hit me how serious this was. 

Yeah, I t was incredibly serious.  But I thought you weren’t convinced that he had incited them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

Yeah, I t was incredibly serious.  But I thought you weren’t convinced that he had incited them.

I am now. I hadn’t heard some of the things he said. Plus, I wasn’t taking into account what he’s been saying for over a month now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2021 at 6:01 PM, Sinn Fein said:

Per WaPo:

On the cusp of the second impeachment battle in just over a year, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is circulating a memo to Republican senators that outlines how a potential Senate trial would work for President Trump — proceedings that would all but certainly occur after he leaves the White House.

In the memo, obtained by The Washington Post, McConnell’s office notes that the Senate will not reconvene for substantive business until Jan. 19, which means the earliest possible date that impeachment trial proceedings can begin in the Senate is the day before President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated.

Although the Senate will hold two pro forma sessions next week, on Jan. 12 and Jan. 15, it is barred from conducting any kind of business during those days — including “beginning to act on received articles of impeachment from the House” — without agreement from all 100 senators. With a cadre of Trump-allied senators in the Republican conference, that unanimous consent is highly unlikely.

“Again, it would require the consent of all 100 Senators to conduct any business of any kind during the scheduled pro forma sessions prior to January 19, and therefore the consent of all 100 Senators to begin acting on any articles of impeachment during those sessions,” the memo from McConnell emphasized.

In effect, that makes the matter of an impeachment trial an issue that will need to be taken up by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the incoming majority leader, in the first days of the Biden presidency — a move that would almost certainly distract from the president-elect’s immediate agenda to battle the coronavirus pandemic and ensure that his Cabinet nominees get confirmed.

Absent a unanimous agreement before Jan. 19 to formally begin acting on any articles of impeachment, the McConnell memo outlines an expected scenario should the House impeach Trump in the coming days:

●On Jan. 19, the Senate would receive a message from the House that it has appointed impeachment managers, and that the Senate would be ready to receive it.

●On Jan. 19 or 20, the House impeachment managers would exhibit the articles.

●On Jan. 20 or 21, the Senate would proceed to consideration of the impeachment articles at 1 p.m., and officially begin the trial. McConnell’s memo noted that the “Senate trial would therefore begin after President Trump’s term has expired — either one hour after its expiration on January 20, or twenty-five hours after its expiration on January 21.”

Mitch McConnell: "We really shouldn't move forward on impeachment proceedings -- not enough time, it's too distracting for a new president taking office."

Also Mitch McConnell: "Getting a SCOTUS confirmed 8 days before an election? No probs!"

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Long.... but this was probably the best read I've seen about how this happened: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55592332

 

Quote

The 65 days that led to chaos at the Capitol

By Shayan Sardarizadeh and Jessica Lussenhop
BBC Monitoring and BBC News Washington

Published

2 hours ago

 

It ends with this: 

Quote

Arrests of those who stormed the Capitol continue. But most of the rioters still live in a parallel online universe - a subterranean world filled with alternative facts.

They have already come up with fanciful explanations to dismiss Mr Trump's video statement, posted on Twitter the day after the riots, in which he acknowledged for the first time that "a new administration will be inaugurated on 20 January".

He can't possibly be giving up, they contend. Among their new theories - it's not really him in the video but a computer-generated "deep fake". Or perhaps the president is being held hostage.

Many still believe Mr Trump will prevail.

There's no evidence behind any of this, but it does prove one thing.

No matter what happens to Donald Trump, the rioters who stormed the US Capitol are not backing down anytime soon.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ShamrockPride said:

Donald W Obama @DonaldWObama

Democrats won't impeach Trump. Instead, they'll continue using what happened at the Capitol to fundraise while simultaneously backing down on promises they made to voters, like healthcare and $2k stimulus checks.

The political move here is not to impeach him, so he can run again in 2024 and further split/decimate the Republican party.  

The "I care about America move" is to impeach him and make it so the he can't run again.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...