Author Topic: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment  (Read 52109 times)


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #301 on: February 20, 2020, 09:05:15 PM »
Not yet , , ,

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: February 27, 2020, 04:25:01 PM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Dershowitz: Flynn innocent all along
« Reply #307 on: May 08, 2020, 12:31:50 PM »
Flynn Was Innocent All Along: He Was Pressured to Plead Guilty
by Alan M. Dershowitz  •  May 8, 2020 at 8:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15997/michael-flynn-innocent
           
   From a legal and policy point of view, encouraging the FBI to misuse its legitimate authority to investigate past crimes, solely to create future crimes is both immoral and illegal.
   Let us hear now from the former civil libertarians for whom any violation of law is permissible, as long as it is directed at a Trump associate.
   Anyone who knows how the system works in practice would understand why an innocent man—or a defendant in a close case—might be coerced into pleading guilty.... in this case, it is alleged that the government threatened, if Flynn did not plead guilty, to indict his son.
   There must be a single standard of justice and civil liberties -- including the presumption of innocence -- that transcends partisan politics. This message has been forgotten by both parties.
 
The Justice Department has agreed that General Michael Flynn did not, in fact, commit any crime. Let us hear now from the former civil libertarians for whom any violation of law is permissible, as long as it is directed at a Trump associate. Pictured: Flynn, then US National Security Adviser speaks during at a press briefing at the White House in Washington, DC, on February 1, 2017. (Photo by Nicholas Kamm/AFP via Getty Images)
More than a year ago I wrote that it was clear General Michael Flynn should never have pleaded guilty because he did not commit a crime. Even if he lied to the FBI, his lie was not "material." For a lie to be a crime under federal law, it must be material to the investigation – meaning that the lies pertain to the issues being legitimately investigated. The role of the FBI is to investigate past crimes, not to create new ones. Because the FBI investigators already knew the answer to the question they asked him—whether he had spoken to the Russian Ambassador—their purpose was not to elicit new information relevant to their investigation, but rather to spring a perjury trap on him. When they asked Flynn the question, they had a recording of his conversation with the Russian, of which he was presumably unaware. So his answer was not material to the investigation because they already had the information about which they were inquiring.
Continue Reading Article

« Last Edit: May 08, 2020, 11:32:07 PM by Crafty_Dog »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
Flynn file civil liberl suit
« Reply #309 on: May 09, 2020, 07:45:06 AM »
against all these obama liars

he besmirched his reputation


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Impeachment Hoax - plot thickens - Yovanovitch lied about Burisma
« Reply #311 on: May 13, 2020, 05:38:46 AM »
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/impeachment-boomerang-contacts-exposed-between-us

uring President Trump’s impeachment, former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch testified to Congress that she knew little beyond an initial briefing and “press reports” about Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian natural gas firm that had hired Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter and was dogged by a corruption investigation.

“It just wasn’t a big deal,” she declared under oath on Oct. 11, 2019.

But newly unearthed State Department memos obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show Yovanovitch’s embassy in Kiev, including the ambassador herself, was engaged in several discussions and meetings about Burisma as the gas firm scrambled during the 2016 election and transition to settle a long-running corruption investigation and polish its image before President Trump took office.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
rick bright on sick leave for Hypertension
« Reply #314 on: May 14, 2020, 03:58:28 PM »
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2020/05/14/congressman-to-whistleblower-doctor-youre-too-sick-to-not-go-to-work-but-youre-here-testifying-n2568831

in over 30 yrs I have never written or seen HTN as a reason for sick leave.

unless an airplane pilot  but for a desk kind of guy

I suppose the lawyers told him to claim he has stress and he is danger for his health because his BP is. up.
in my experience this is almost always bullshit.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #315 on: May 14, 2020, 04:45:52 PM »
Well, isn't hypertension a comorbidity variable?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Soft Coup 1.0
« Reply #316 on: September 09, 2020, 09:18:29 AM »
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/390091.php

Done with money taken from us at gunpoint.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 4.0: Impeachment 4.0
« Reply #317 on: January 13, 2021, 08:29:15 AM »
Watching a bit of the House speechifying today (Jim Jordan spoke well) and some questions that were raised caught my attention:

Putting aside the merits and the politics, where is the Due Process?

Doesn't the impeachment process begin in the Judiciary Committee?  Instead on Day One we are on an up-or-down vote on the House floor.

If would seem that the trial in the Senate does not even begin before Trump is out of office (unless McConnell calls the Senate into session early) does the Congress have jurisdiction over an  ex-President?  If not, then he stands formally accused without a chance to defend himself.  Does this make the impeachment in the House unconstitutional?

Impeachment and Senate trial take the Congress out of its legislative role and into functions otherwise reserved to the Executive and the Legislative branches because of the political need in our Constitution for a process to remove a President.   (For example, what if we were to discover our President was being paid by the Chinese?) When Trump leave office on the 20th, that political need is over.  The idea that the Congress could continue to prosecute him after that is a violation of the Separation of Powers.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 4.0: Impeachment 4.0
« Reply #318 on: January 13, 2021, 09:39:17 AM »
Watching a bit of the House speechifying today (Jim Jordan spoke well) and some questions that were raised caught my attention:

Putting aside the merits and the politics, where is the Due Process?

Doesn't the impeachment process begin in the Judiciary Committee?  Instead on Day One we are on an up-or-down vote on the House floor.

If would seem that the trial in the Senate does not even begin before Trump is out of office (unless McConnell calls the Senate into session early) does the Congress have jurisdiction over an  ex-President?  If not, then he stands formally accused without a chance to defend himself.  Does this make the impeachment in the House unconstitutional?

Impeachment and Senate trial take the Congress out of its legislative role and into functions otherwise reserved to the Executive and the Legislative branches because of the political need in our Constitution for a process to remove a President.   (For example, what if we were to discover our President was being paid by the Chinese?) When Trump leave office on the 20th, that political need is over.  The idea that the Congress could continue to prosecute him after that is a violation of the Separation of Powers.

Right on all counts in my view.  This is unconstitutional on its face because they are performing this act for a purpose not intended by the constitution.

Looking at the images on the television, I would add the aside that the masks of our time look like muzzles, which is good.  Because of the Dems criticisms of Donald Trump not wearing one means they can't (ever) take them off.

Dem Rep:  "There is no doubt this President broke his oath and incited this insurrection."

If so, there is no doubt Bernie Sanders, AOC and all Democrats broke their oath and incited the shooting of the Republican Congressional leadership including Steve Scalise.  Not a word of blame issued in spite of the career of over the top rhetoric that incited that.  Why?  Because the shooter was accountable for his own actions.  But that obvious fact does that apply here and now because shut up.

Democrats will inaugurate one Kamala Harris who did exactly what they accuse.  After 1600 buildings were burned or destroyed in the Twin Cities and Seattle and Portland were under siege and violent, unlawful occupation, Kamala Harris said the these "protests" should continue.

Exact quote, Kamala Harris, June 18, 2020:
"They’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop,” she told him [Cobert]. “This is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop. And everyone beware because they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop before Election Day and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And everyone should take note of that. They’re not gonna let up and they should not.”

They are burning buildings, terrorizing cities and injuring police by the thousands, but they should not let up.  And she will be elevated by same voters and  politicians to Vice President and maybe President.

Donald Trump should have known that his call for a peaceful march would lead to violence, they say.

Kamala Harris knew these were laden with violence.  Democrats were universally unoffended.

Trump said "fight like hell".  That clearly means insurrection, right?

Do you remember when he said, if they bring a knife, we bring a gun?    No.

It was Obama who said that.

 “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser.

https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/

Impeached in absentia, Barack Obama, Jan 3, 2023.  And on it goes...

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #319 on: January 13, 2021, 10:27:03 AM »
I mentioned that, for many reasons, it might be in Biden's best interest to stop this. 

The other choice is let it play out.  Best estimate, the trial begins Jan 19.  Then on Jan 20 at noon the gavel goes to Chuck Schumer, after the point of removing Trump is moot.  Besides making the trial's continuation unconstitutional, the impeach side loses votes they might have otherwise won.

Joe Manchin already said No.  Many Republicans will vote no.  Once Jan 20 goes by, they might all or nearly all vote no.  But the trial may go on.  Then we will have certain Court challenges which take considerable time and energy to contest, to second guess and to criticize.

All of that IMHO favors those of us who want the ruling party distracted from enacting its radical policy agenda.  Go for it.

Also, in the impeachment debate Republicans are getting equal time to speak.  Compare that with what they get every other day, in the schools, colleges, newspapers and media coverage.  Republicans were winning nearly 50% with no voice whatsoever. 

Democrat Impeachment is the gift that keeps giving.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #320 on: January 13, 2021, 10:44:04 AM »
I would love to see Trump and his team make their case front and center on the national stage about the election fraud.

Separately, here is this:

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm?fbclid=IwAR0nD83ysiE9kXlfs5o7SA4lucnUZnKCLGy1rpCaw2OF6n2MaWrxhs2BgqM

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #321 on: January 13, 2021, 11:33:03 AM »
quote author=Crafty_Dog
I would love to see Trump and his team make their case front and center on the national stage about the election fraud.
-------------------------------

Wow. Yes.  As they say, get the popcorn, this going to be a show.  Democrats opened the door for all of that in the impeachment article and Trump has a due process right to present his side of it.  Was it a false statement when he said he won the election, won at least 3 of those 6 states and maybe all of them?  Depends on the outcome of a close examination of all the vote fraud allegations.  Was the statement known by Trump to be false when he said it?  Obviously not.  What he believed to be true was sworn to be true in numerous court documents.  No known evidence refutes that.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment, vindicated
« Reply #322 on: January 13, 2021, 11:40:26 AM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog
[url
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm?fbclid=IwAR0nD83ysiE9kXlfs5o7SA4lucnUZnKCLGy1rpCaw2OF6n2MaWrxhs2BgqM[/url]
______________________
In their relatively short table of Senate Impeachment Trials in US history at the link, it will soon read, Donald J Trump, Not Guilty, twice.  What do Democrats gain from that?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment, vindicated
« Reply #323 on: January 13, 2021, 11:58:54 AM »
The left loves their showtrials.

Quote from: Crafty_Dog
[url
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm?fbclid=IwAR0nD83ysiE9kXlfs5o7SA4lucnUZnKCLGy1rpCaw2OF6n2MaWrxhs2BgqM[/url]
______________________
In their relatively short table of Senate Impeachment Trials in US history at the link, it will soon read, Donald J Trump, Not Guilty, twice.  What do Democrats gain from that?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Impeached.
« Reply #324 on: January 13, 2021, 01:37:53 PM »
On my screen, 0:00 time remaining, one Democrat didn't vote.

The Republican vote was 197-10 against.  95% voting with the President.  That's not much when you consider all the hoopla over Liz Cheney and Mitch McConnell (Senator) giving it support.

So maybe Trump got what he wanted, an airing of the vote fraud issues and the vindication again of a not guilty vote.

Next, the traditional Pelosi slow walk over to the Senate.  Or will she tweet it over?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Impeached.
« Reply #325 on: January 13, 2021, 01:42:37 PM »
It'll be moved over in a convoy of armored vehicles, like a PSD op in Iraq.


On my screen, 0:00 time remaining, one Democrat didn't vote.

The Republican vote was 197-10 against.  95% voting with the President.  That's not much when you consider all the hoopla over Liz Cheney and Mitch McConnell (Senator) giving it support.

So maybe Trump got what he wanted, an airing of the vote fraud issues and the vindication again of a not guilty vote.

Next, the traditional Pelosi slow walk over to the Senate.  Or will she tweet it over?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #326 on: January 13, 2021, 01:51:10 PM »
If the 95% Republican support carries over to the Senate, that means the case falls 15-16 votes short of conviction.

Of the 10 defections, Liz Cheney is the only one I've heard of.  Of the remaining 9, perhaps that is a good thing for Republicans.  Perhaps they did what they needed to do to get reelected.

Next question, how many of the Dem votes were in congressional districts won by Trump?  This won't help them.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2021, 02:52:54 PM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #327 on: January 13, 2021, 01:56:49 PM »
You guys are still pretending elections matter?


If the 95% Republican support carries over to the Senate, that means the case falls 25 votes short of conviction.

Of the 10 defections, Liz Cheney is the only one I've heard of.  Of the remaining 9, perhaps that is a good thing for Republicans.  Perhaps they did what they needed to do to get reelected.

Next question, how many of the Dem votes were in congressional districts won by Trump?  This won't help them.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #328 on: January 13, 2021, 02:17:13 PM »
https://i.imgflip.com/4tq3ul.jpg




You guys are still pretending elections matter?


If the 95% Republican support carries over to the Senate, that means the case falls 25 votes short of conviction.

Of the 10 defections, Liz Cheney is the only one I've heard of.  Of the remaining 9, perhaps that is a good thing for Republicans.  Perhaps they did what they needed to do to get reelected.

Next question, how many of the Dem votes were in congressional districts won by Trump?  This won't help them.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment, Pence agenda
« Reply #329 on: January 13, 2021, 02:30:59 PM »
Pence rolls out aggressive agenda for his first 100 minutes in office.

https://babylonbee.com/news/pence-rolls-out-ambitious-agenda-for-first-100-minutes-in-office

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #330 on: January 15, 2021, 05:40:28 AM »
If we impeach and remove for bad judgment, Democrats will have very short terms.

Pelosi has signed and delivered the impeachment to the Senate. The trial is scheduled to start next Thursday, after he has left office, run by Chuck Schumer, the new, 50-50 Dem majority Senate.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-impeachment-live-updates-house-votes-send-articles/story?id=68277959

Trump will already be a private citizen.  But he is an imminent threat to the country that only conviction can stop.  What?

The fight isn't about Trump.  It's against all who supported him.  Remove their right to vote him in again, even though he isn't running.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #331 on: January 15, 2021, 06:13:25 AM »
Exactly.

If we impeach and remove for bad judgment, Democrats will have very short terms.

Pelosi has signed and delivered the impeachment to the Senate. The trial is scheduled to start next Thursday, after he has left office, run by Chuck Schumer, the new, 50-50 Dem majority Senate.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-impeachment-live-updates-house-votes-send-articles/story?id=68277959

Trump will already be a private citizen.  But he is an imminent threat to the country that only conviction can stop.  What?

The fight isn't about Trump.  It's against all who supported him.  Remove their right to vote him in again, even though he isn't running.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #332 on: January 15, 2021, 06:30:05 AM »
".The fight isn't about Trump.  It's against all who supported him.  Remove their right to vote him in again, even though he isn't running"

Biden's calls for us to unite

The entire Democrat complex agrees
they just don't mention how they are uniting us

with threat of arrest
losing jobs
losing friends
not being able to get a job in chosen field
denied education
forced to listen to their propaganda day and night
forced childhood education

*** yesterday , I think on Laura they showed a child who reported her parents on the internet  about being at Capital rally***

*** just the day before I was re watching one of the three part series on Stalin.  And it showed the reign of terror of the 1930s. where they would gather quotas of people from all sectors of Russia to be sent to gulags and many beaten and executed.  And spoke of how children were taught to even to turn their own parents in .***

We are only a step away from being sent to prisons , thrown out on the streets and everything taken away, beaten
...

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment - VDH
« Reply #333 on: January 15, 2021, 06:58:40 AM »
I should just let Prof. Hanson write my opinions for me.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/01/14/an-impeachment-incitement/
By Victor Davis Hanson

January 14, 2021
Donald Trump was impeached again on Wednesday, a week before leaving office in one of the great travesties of modern politics.

Here are reasons why the exercise proved a farce.

One, impeachment was never intended by the founders to become a serial effort to weaken a first-term president. But this latest try will mark the third failed attempt of Democrats in Congress to remove Trump before his allotted tenure.

The first Democratic impeachment effort of December 2017 fizzled. The second impeachment of December 2019 succeeded but predictably failed to obtain a Senate conviction.

This third try will likely not result in a Senate conviction, either.

But from now on, House impeachment will be used by the out-party as a periodic club to wound a first-term president. President-elect Biden should beware.

Two, the country is wracked by a pandemic, recession, a summer of Black Lives Matter and Antifa looting, arson, and violence, and the recent rogue group of Trump supporters storming the Capitol. Washington, D.C. is now militarized in a way not seen since the Civil War. Over 20,000 troops patrol the streets.

Thousands are dying from COVID-19. Politics and incompetence at the state level slow down the widespread vaccination of the vulnerable.

So the last thing Americans now needed was the distraction of virtue-signaling politicians to impeach a lame-duck president who will be gone in a week.

Three, the rushed third impeachment attempt was even sloppier than the first two. There was neither an appointment of a special counsel nor a formal case presented for illegal or improper presidential behavior. Trump’s advocates had no time to present a legal or political refutation of “incitement.”

There was no real debate, just for-show stump speeches in a rushed spasm of hatred—a circus entirely contrary to the Founders’ notion of a solemn and rare procedure.

Four, only those without the prior sin of revving up partisans should cast the first stone.

Many of the supporters of this current impeachment would themselves be impeached under their own vague definitions of “incitement” they now apply to Trump.

In March, then-Senate Minority leader Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.) riled up an angry crowd of pro-abortion protestors at the very doors of the Supreme Court—while it was in session.

To a wild crowd, he threatened individual Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch by name: “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you . . .”

In February, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) angrily tore in half the State of Union Address, after, according to custom, it was handed to her by the president on national television.

Vice President-elect Kamala Harris supported efforts to raise bail for those arrested for street violence during the Antifa and BLM rioting this past summer. She also affirmed that such protests in the streets would—and should—continue.

Candidate Joe Biden boasted he would have liked to take Trump, the sitting president, behind the gym of his youth and “beat the hell out of” him. Biden even excused the violent Antifa as a mere “idea.”

Five, the country is dangerously divided. The president will be gone in days. He has taken and given nonstop criticism—and now belatedly but unequivocally condemned the violence that took place after his rally speech. 

President-elect Joe Biden has promised unity after a contested election and nearly a year of nonstop violence. But so far, we have seen just the opposite. Biden has just compared two U.S. senators to Nazi propagandists.

Some social media have banned Donald Trump for life. Others barred thousands of his supporters. Silicon Valley has even tried to destroy Parler, a conservative alternative to left-wing Twitter.

Yet another impeachment only accentuated these divisions of an already dangerously divided country.

Robert Mueller’s 22-month investigation of the Russian “collusion” hoax sought to hound Trump out of office. Other freelancers tried to distort the 25th Amendment to declare Trump medically unfit and remove him from office.

Do we really wish to institutionalize these efforts to weaken a president? Would a President Biden want his opposition on three occasions to attempt formal impeachment proceedings?

Would Biden welcome a two-year special counsel investigation of the entire Biden family for its alleged efforts to use his name and influence to skim money from foreign governments?

Would Biden wish to face serial 25th Amendment threats to remove him from office on allegations that he frequently seems cognitively lost? 

So what, then, was this latest impeachment gambit really about? Of course, it was a Parthian shot to discredit supporters of Trump—and perhaps stop Trump from running for president again.

But it was also aimed preemptively at opponents of what will soon be the most left-wing Congress in history—one that in days will try to change the very institutions of American government in ways never tried before.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
Larry Lib on post presidency impeachment trial in Senate
« Reply #335 on: January 15, 2021, 03:57:07 PM »
I offered more colorful comment on the little big mans opinion

on Constitution thread
and I suspect the Dem party is always getting him to sign off on legal strategy

for political purposes
the legal strategist behind the scenes who always sides with the Dems

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/13/senate-impeachment-trial-constitutional-after-trump-leaves/

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
Dershowitz: you can't just pull someone off the street and impeach them
« Reply #336 on: January 16, 2021, 09:30:35 AM »
once they leave office

but  James Clyburn
thinks it just fine to do after Joe  first "100" days

(not withstanding when Dems have Senate control)

to keep Trump from being able to hold any Federal office
in future

and continue to damage the opposition party with help of MSM

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-lawyer-says-capitol-riot-154850442.html

I am not sure Dershowitz apparent reliance on Free Speech as the basis for a defense
while admitting is was politically and morally wrong
is only defense or even best defense

I still have yet to hear or see anything that shows Trump calling for anyone to attack the Capital

he just said "peacefully " march to it. 

In addition why is asking people to march towards the Capital a "moral sin?"

Have we ever heard any one criticize libs marching outside the White House as being morally sinful?

On the argument it was a political mistake -  I was dubious of the attempt in the Houses about the electoral
college votes
but thought it would make a poitical statement
but I was surely against Trump lambasting Pence
In any case , a few hundred people who bust and marched through the inside of the Capital ruined it for all of us.....

And finally the whole reason for the whole spectacle was institutional election fraud real and not rare
and its coverup denial and the rest. - will  continue to be ignored -


« Last Edit: January 16, 2021, 09:37:14 AM by ccp »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
if impeachment gets done after DJT leaves office
« Reply #337 on: January 19, 2021, 05:14:38 AM »
then Republicans should , if they EVER get power again

impeach Obama for Obama Gate
sometime in the future
and all those who enabled him.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Rally Speech Transcript
« Reply #339 on: January 19, 2021, 10:57:04 AM »
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6?fbclid=IwAR2fhQdjnHNu_fziLaK9VVD-osy5bB9Y7VQHF9JPgmt7MrOSOEuUOC8mMng


"I hope Mike is going to do the right thing."... "Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn’t, that will be a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our constitution."

   - The Left says that constitutes an assassination order made in plain sight.  That's makes no sense.  How can he hope Pence will do the right thing if he is inciting his supporters to murder him first?


"You’re the people that built this nation. You’re not the people that tore down our nation."

   - Inciteful?  Just the opposite.  He is contrasting his crowd with people who destroy things.


"You primary them."

   - Calling on his supporters to take this fight to the polling booth.  Undemocratic?  Good grief.


"They don’t go and look at the facts."

   - That is Trump's allegation.  Is it true or is it false?  Was fraud fully investigated?


"We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated."

   - Follow the constitutional process, he instructs his followers.


"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

   - Right out of a Martin Luther King civil rights speech.  Was MLK tried for treason?

This is all SO absurd.  He explicitly called on them to behave peacefully and nothing else he said contradicts that.

« Last Edit: January 19, 2021, 11:02:57 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #340 on: January 19, 2021, 11:19:50 AM »
"Was fraud fully investigated?"

Remember when the FBI seized all the voting machines and suspect ballots and subjected them to forensic examination?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #341 on: January 20, 2021, 08:13:55 AM »
FOX reported rumor that the reason Trump did not pardon Assange was that McConnell threatened to vote for impeachment.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18353
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #342 on: January 20, 2021, 08:33:06 AM »
I vehemently oppose Mc Connell's play on this

not sure if he is just sucking up to Dems trying to be able to cut deals with them in future or if he is just trying to get Trump out of the party

but he is pissing off 75 million Republicans

as for Assange  - I have mixed feelings about pardoning him

maybe Pam Anderson could visit Mitch and give him a Monica Lewinski

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Chief Justice John Roberts will not preside over "impeachment" trial
« Reply #343 on: January 20, 2021, 08:48:47 AM »
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9163665/amp/Chief-Justice-John-Roberts-does-NOT-want-preside-Donald-Trumps-second-impeachment-trial.html?__twitter_impression=true

The Constitution states that 'When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside.'
-----------
As of noon Eastern time today, there is no Presidential impeachment trial pending.

Correction: I posted a false ABC News story Jan 15 that Speaker Pelosi had delivered the Article of Impeachment to the Senate.  My understanding now is that she still has not done that.  Common sense says she won't do that now or at all.  It will fail and serve to delay confirmations and postpone legislation on the agenda.  On the plus side for them, it will further divide the country. 

The trial is now 100% in the hands of the Democrats.  They can have VP Kamala Harris preside.  What is inherently political becomes nothing but political.  They can reject all evidence and testimony that supports truth in the Trump statements they found inciteful. They are down to the argument that 'go peacefully to the Capitol' really meant break things and kill people, and that he poses an imminent threat to the country because he may run for President again in four years and Americans can't be trusted to judge him for themselves.  They will only get conviction votes from a handful of Republican votes, nothing close to conviction.  It would only be a show trial and the experience in the House was that when Trump finally got equal time to tell his side, his approval went up and theirs stayed down.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/nancy_pelosi_favorableunfavorable-6673.html#polls
« Last Edit: January 20, 2021, 10:19:47 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Well, the coup by vote/electoral fraud is complete
« Reply #344 on: January 20, 2021, 09:22:00 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Yes the Senate can try Trump
« Reply #345 on: January 23, 2021, 06:15:13 AM »



One of the first questions the Senate will face in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial is whether the chamber has jurisdiction to hear a case against a former official. The correct answer is yes.

For the Founders, it would have been obvious that the “power to impeach” included the ability to hold former officials to account. The impeachment power was imported to America from England, where Parliament impeached only two men during the 18th century, both former officers. No U.S. state constitution limited impeachments to sitting officers, and some allowed impeachment only of former officers. In 1781 the Virginia General Assembly subjected Thomas Jefferson to an impeachment inquiry after he completed his term as governor.


Why would former officers be included within the impeachment power? Impeachment trials had long served as a vehicle for exposing and formally condemning official wrongdoing, or for a former officeholder to clear his name. Disqualification from future office was also an important penalty. A former Vermont lawmaker was impeached and disqualified from future state office for leading one of the tax rebellions that spurred the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. The American founders understood the history of demagogues and dictators corrupting republics and the need to exclude them from future office. As one delegate to a state ratifying convention put it, men who held public office should be “within the reach of responsibility” so that “they cannot forget that their political existence depends upon their good behavior.”

There’s no hint in the debate over the Constitution of an exception to the impeachment power as traditionally understood. George Mason insisted at the convention that the text should be encompassing enough at least to cover a case like that of Warren Hastings, the former colonial governor then standing trial in the British House of Lords. Everyone agreed. During ratification James Madison and Alexander Hamilton emphasized that the proposed federal impeachment power was an improvement in constitutional design because, unlike in some states, even current officers could be subjected to impeachment.


The Senate shouldn’t depart from centuries of practice and understanding. Declining to try Mr. Trump would set a dangerous new precedent, denying future presidents and other officials the opportunity to clear their names if they leave office, and allowing them to escape accountability by resigning—or saving their worst acts for the end of their term.

Mr. Whittington is a professor of politics at Princeton and author of

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Yes the Senate can try Trump
« Reply #346 on: January 23, 2021, 02:10:53 PM »
I disagree. 
1. His examples all come from states and other countries.
2. Meaning there is no precedent here.
3. The trial would expose his (high) crimes.  So would a criminal trial. This extreme remedy is not the only remedy available
4. The Chief Justice has already declined to preside, downgrading this from a "Presidential" impeachment trial.
5. The process is by definition political.  All it is capable of accomplishing besides vindicating Trump is to ban him from running again.
6. Future elections are another political process available to prevent him from serving in federal office again.
7. "Mr. Whittington is a professor of politics at Princeton".  Roughly speaking, so is Paul Krugman.
8. Even wrong, he could get 3 Supreme Court votes for his view, maybe more, but likely not 5.
9. The trial would end in acquittal.  There aren't new facts to add and 95% of Republicans oppose it.
---------------------------------
The "trial" is not in Democrats best interests.  There is no way it is polling well and it will get worse if/when it happens.  Begs the question, how will \democrats get out of it.  I couldn't think of a way they could save face.  Neither could they.  So it starts with delays.
1. Pelosi did not deliver the article to [former] Majority leader McConnell.  That is her new game. Clever.
2. 2nd delay, Schumer said not until next month, Feb 8.
3.  Guess what?  By Feb 8, the country will have other, more pressing concerns.  3rd delay, indefinite?  They may never say it is dropped, just never hold it.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schumer-delay-donald-trump-impeachment-hearing
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-impeachment-republicans-seek-delay-044721520.html

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69127
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #347 on: January 23, 2021, 04:57:04 PM »
I should have prefaced my post by pointing out I disagree with it.  I posted in the spirit of "This is what their argument might look like."


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18129
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment, Leahy
« Reply #349 on: January 25, 2021, 08:26:09 PM »
Good news, Pat Leahy will preside. The senior Democrat promises to be impartial.  Because that's what old dogs do easily, learn new tricks.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2004/07/nastiest-democrat-jay-nordlinger/
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 08:29:09 PM by DougMacG »