Impeachment II -- It's On

ConversesPro and Con

Afegeix-te a LibraryThing per participar.

Impeachment II -- It's On

1Limelite
gen. 10, 9:05pm

Pelosi: Democrats Will Move To Ipeach Trump

This story is only an hour old. I don't know if this conflicts with earlier story she and Schumer intended to formally call on Pence to invoke the 25th, it could be they always intended to do both.
(Pelosi said,) “In protecting our Constitution and our Democracy, we will act with urgency, because this President represents an imminent threat to both,” in the letter to rank-and-file colleagues. “As the days go by, the horror of the ongoing assault on our democracy perpetrated by this President is intensified and so is the immediate need for action.”

Pelosi, who was personally targeted by some members of the pro-Trump mob in Wednesday’s insurrection, laid out the Democrats’ strategy for the days ahead.
Here's the timeline so far:

Monday Ask for unanimous consent calling for Vice President Mike Pence and President Donald Trump's Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump from office

Tuesday Barring unanimous consent, Pelosi intends to call for a roll-call vote on Tuesday on the demand, forcing individual members' votes to be recorded for history -- who supports their oath to the Constitution or who supports the Traitor.

Tuesday Proceed with bringing impeachment legislation to the Floor.

Wednesday Vote to impeach President Trump for encouraging mob violence at the Capitol.

If my memory serves, that's half the time it takes Mitch McConnell to shove an unqualified SCOTUS nominee down the throats of the Senate. Nancy Pelosi is the Elizabeth Warren of the House, "I have a plan for that!"

2lriley
gen. 10, 11:43pm

I'm for it.

3davidgn
gen. 10, 11:44pm

I'm for accelerating.

4proximity1
Editat: gen. 11, 8:52am

LOL!!!!

Your delusions continue apace. Hilarious. You people learn nothing and
apparently can't learn.

How long do you expect to be able to go on getting away with rigging elections? Indefinitely?

Election laws concerning ballot-use, voter-ID and vote-counting are going to be toughened to prevent the kind of flagrant fraud we've recently witnessed ignored by you and your fellow anti-democrats.

What's your plan for the time when only legitimate voters are once more allowed to have a determining role in electoral outcomes?

Fucking pathetic.

5lriley
gen. 11, 8:27am

#4---Hey, I get it. These last 8 days are all you got left and you want to enjoy them.

6John5918
gen. 11, 8:32am

>4 proximity1:

I'm trying to work out to which delusion you are referring. With the Democrats' majority in the House, surely there is no delusion about their ability to impeach the outgoing president if they so wish?

7Molly3028
Editat: gen. 11, 8:48am

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-kilmeade-rips-pelosi-over-embarrassing-intervie...
Fox’s Kilmeade Rips Pelosi Over ‘Embarrassing’ Interview, Call to Remove Trump For Inciting an Insurrectionist Mob: ‘Never Gonna Happen’

This lunatic ~ a Murdoch stooge ~ doesn't appear to
understand that getting everything on record in the
Congressional Record (and in the history books going
forward) is more important than getting Trump out one
week before Biden takes the oath.

8Molly3028
gen. 11, 8:50am

The GOP cult has three major things working against it
in this sedition-era. People are starting to contemplate
leaving the party. The stream of big bucks flowing to
reps from large donors is most likely going to be
slowing down. The brown demographic wave is
climbing the voting-age brackets.

9Molly3028
gen. 11, 8:54am

Was Prox at the Capitol last Wednesday??????????

10kiparsky
gen. 11, 9:57am

>4 proximity1: By "legitimate voters", you mean, people who vote the approved party line?

11JGL53
gen. 11, 3:13pm

Prox1 apparently is the champion of all conspiracy-theorists as he must think over 60 courts, many controlled by not only republican but tRUMP-appointed judges have conspired to overlook blatant and widespread Democrat/Chinese election fraud, throwing the election to Biden and that is was actually tRUMP that won in a landslide.

Christ on a Crutch. I would aver that such a conspiracy is less likely than the idea that the flat-earthers will eventually prove to be right and that us spherical-earthers are fucked in the head.

Uh, lol.

12DugsBooks
gen. 11, 6:43pm

I am in favor of a second impeachment but if that prevents the orange one from running again is that using “strategery” as Bush would say?

With Trump in the race next time that would insure either a split Republican Party as rational members ignore Trump or also diminish the party as they become independents.

13MsMixte
gen. 11, 8:00pm

>12 DugsBooks: The Republicans don't want to admit it, but that's actually something in their favour (having him not able to run).

14Molly3028
Editat: gen. 12, 6:51pm

Low-life GOPers didn't do themselves or our nation any
favor when they kept whipping up the base with fraud
lies in order to gain votes in Georgia and collect money
for their coffers ~ on January 6 they found out that it is
now impossible to stop the nationwide threats of many
MAGA lunatics living around the country ~ that is the
reason why GOPers are very leery about calling Trump
a seditionist (which he is) and impeaching him ~ they
set a trap for themselves, and us, in the process.

15lriley
gen. 12, 6:53am

Over and over again Trump and his friends pushed state vote counts to the courts--whether with democratic or republican judges presiding and the courts squashed these cases every time. Donald's insistence that he won the election was never evidentiary based......and then the states certified and still we had Donald and the bulk of republican lawmakers continuing to make claims that were never evidentiary based. Those republican lawmakers who stood with Donald now have a lot to answer for after they voted to unvote the voters.

16davidgn
gen. 12, 6:57am

Colbert was on point tonight.
https://youtu.be/Bds-DQlZvVs
More specifically to >14 Molly3028:
https://youtu.be/Bds-DQlZvVs?t=188
Quoting Rep. Meijer here in Michigan (district just to my east):
"And then one of the saddest things is I had colleagues who, when it came time to recognize reality and vote to certify Arizona and Pennsylvania in the Electoral College, they knew in their heart of hearts that they should've voted to certify, but some had legitimate concerns about the safety of their families. They felt that that vote would put their families in danger."
https://reason.com/2021/01/08/amash-successor-peter-meijer-trumps-deceptions-are...

So basically, capitulation.

17Limelite
gen. 12, 5:05pm

Mitch McConnell Now Says He Favors Impeachment

His reason? "It makes it considerably easier to purge him fro the Republican Party."

Why? Did Trump suddenly lose 150 lbs?

For your country, in order to abide by your Constitutional oath, you should have voted to convict in Impeachment I. You could then have purged him from the GOP. And none of the fake election fraud kabuki would have caused the attempted ECV steal and the following attempt at a bloody coup by Trump's supporters. No murders, no attempted kidnapping, no threats to assassinate Pelosi and hang Pence, no beatings, no bombs, guns, and destruction. And no threats against Acting President Biden and Acting VP Harris and their inauguration.

Instead, you have done nothing but protect the TV-Watcher-in-Chief and Let-Them-All-Die-in Chief and Appropriate-Inciter-in-Chief.

You could have prevented hundreds of thousands of unnecessary Covid-19 deaths had you done what any honorable Majority Leader would have done in your place after learning your party leader attempted to bribe a foreign head of state to concoct a case and frame your opponent so that you could steal the election. But no.

You're a few years and too damn many lives short of approaching honorable. You're Deplorable. Get back in the basket where your infamy designates you belong.

18Limelite
gen. 12, 5:18pm

Republican Rep. Will Vote for Impeachment

Rep. John Katko becomes first House Republican to back Trump impeachment.
Katko, R-Camillus, is the first House Republican to acknowledge that he will join at least 218 House Democrats who signed onto an impeachment resolution. A vote is expected Wednesday.
I haven't got the time to research this, but I wonder what his voting record has been during his career. Just how many of his other votes "supported" the Constitution rather than opposing or supporting a president, according to the man's political party. Asking for myself.

20Molly3028
Editat: gen. 12, 6:50pm

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/liz-cheney-support-trump-impeachment_n_5ffe25acc5...
Liz Cheney, Third-Ranking House Republican, Backs Trump Impeachment

"A violent mob attacked the United States Capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop the counting of presidential electoral votes,” Cheney said in a statement Tuesday. “The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President.”

21Limelite
Editat: gen. 12, 9:20pm

Enough Senate Impeachment Votes To Convict -- If. . .

Mitch McConnell stands by his earlier statement.
McConnell has made no commitments on voting to convict Trump, and wants to see the article itself before voting.
Several GOP sources said on Tuesday that if McConnell supports conviction, Trump almost certainly will be convicted by 67 senators in the impeachment trial.
"If Mitch is a yes, he's done," said one Senate GOP source who asked not to be named.

Many Republican senators are staying quiet about whether they'll back conviction -- a sign that they, too, could support conviction in an effort to rid Trump from their party.
The news today has many stories about Republicans fearing for their lives if they vote yes, which could explain their reluctance to make a public announcement of their intentions. However, they've sullied that possible excuse by using it to defend their votes Wednesday to overturn the election by stealing ECVs from Biden.

If they didn't know beforehand that the Trump supporters rallying at Donald Trump's rant fest outside the Capitol intended violence toward them if they didn't vote to uphold the objections to the validated election of Joe Bide, then how could they apply that excuse?

But if they did know and that's why they used that excuse of private fear for their and their families' lives and didn't warn their Democratic colleagues, they're complicit with the insurgents and part of a conspiracy to overthrow the US government.

Then, Lock. Them. Up.

22MsMixte
gen. 12, 8:54pm

I'd be much more inclined to be lenient with that excuse if it wasn't for the fact that the same people didn't think it was important to listen to the mothers and fathers of school age children.

23margd
gen. 13, 9:16am

Remembering:

Justice Department Fires Embattled FBI Deputy Director Just Short Of Retirement
Philip Ewing & Carrie Johnson | March 16, 2018

Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired outgoing FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe on Friday even though he was on the doorstep of retiring and receiving his pension after two decades of service to the bureau.

President Trump responded on Twitter just after midnight Saturday, calling McCabe's firing "a great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI - A great day for Democracy."...

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/16/571671917/justice-department-fires-embattled-fbi-...

26kiparsky
gen. 13, 6:05pm

Well, it's official. Trump is now in the record books as the only president to be impeached twice.

27Limelite
gen. 14, 12:03pm

It's Done

10 Republicans, including the #3, Liz Cheney; two freshmen back benchers; others; and a shocker -- Rep. Tom Rice, of Myrtle Beach, who earlier had declared he would vote 'no,' voted 'yes.'
Tom Rice stunned the South Carolina political universe by voting to impeach President Donald Trump, a move destined to spark outrage in his home district where support for Trump runs high and to the extreme.

In a pivot that came without a hint to his constituents or the media, Rice was one of 10 Republicans who voted in favor the Democratic-led impeachment naming Trump for inciting last week’s riot where supporters stormed the Capitol Building.

Heading into the debate, Rice hoped the Democrats wouldn’t bring articles of impeachment to the floor. While he didn’t exactly agree with every part of their document, he said what happened just a week earlier swayed his mind.
(SNIP)
After the protests, Rice still objected to the election results.
(SNIP)
Just last week, the entire S.C. GOP congressional delegation, except for (Charleston Rep. Nancy) Mace, voted to object to certifying the Electoral College results that secured President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.
Yet, today, Rep. Mace voted against the Articles, as did most Republicans. But Rice saw Truth and knew he and his colleagues had survived a war on Congress launched by the Executive in the WH. And that it was a planned attack. Now the truth-tellers are buying body armor because the anti-democracy wackos are promising to kill them for daring to adhere to it.

28davidgn
gen. 14, 12:16pm

>27 Limelite: I think these guys should get cut some slack when it comes to actually living in their districts...

29Limelite
gen. 14, 1:59pm

>28 davidgn:

Fed. legis. that provides temp. housing for threatened Congress critters? Say, an apartment in the Watergate?

30mamzel
gen. 14, 2:14pm

>26 kiparsky: Let's notify Guinness'.

312wonderY
gen. 14, 2:25pm

He’s legally liable for what he failed to do after the riot began:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/01/trump-failure-to-act-prosecution.htm...

32margd
Editat: gen. 22, 6:28am

Legal scholars, including at Federalist Society, say Trump can be convicted
Some Republicans (Sen Cotton) have argued a former president can't be the target of an impeachment trial.
NATASHA BERTRAND | 01/21/2021

Former President Donald Trump can be convicted in an impeachment trial for his role in inciting the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6 even though he is no longer in office, a bipartisan group of constitutional law scholars wrote in a letter*Thursday.

“We differ from one another in our politics, and we also differ from one another on issues of constitutional interpretation...But despite our differences, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former officers, including presidents...(Impeachment is the exclusive constitutional means for removing a president (or other officer) before his or her term expires...But nothing in the provision authorizing impeachment-for-removal limits impeachment to situations where it accomplishes removal from office. Indeed, such a reading would thwart and potentially nullify a vital aspect of the impeachment power: the power of the Senate to impose disqualification from future office as a penalty for conviction...an important deterrent against future misconduct...If an official could only be disqualified while he or she still held office, then an official who betrayed the public trust and was impeached could avoid accountability simply by resigning one minute before the Senate’s final conviction vote...The Framers did not design the Constitution’s checks and balances to be so easily undermined.”

More than 150 legal scholars signed on to the letter...includ(ing) Steven Calabresi, the co-founder of the Federalist Society; Charles Fried, who served as solicitor general under Ronald Reagan and is now an adviser to the Harvard chapter of the Federalist Society; Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute; and Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University and leading scholar on the specific question of whether former officials can be impeached...

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/21/legal-scholars-federalist-society-trump...

--------------------------------------------------​

Constitutional Law Scholars on Impeaching Former Officers
January 21, 2021
7 p
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-2646-de27-a5f7-3fe714ac0000

_____________________________________________

Senate Republicans uniting behind impeachment defense
ANDREW DESIDERIO |

...Interviews with more than a dozen GOP senators revealed broad support for the claim that the Senate has no constitutional authority to put a private citizen on trial, which could translate into a substantial number of votes to scrap the trial altogether (even as they signal increased hostility toward Trump over the attack on the Capitol)...

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/21/senate-republicans-uniting-impeachment-...

33Molly3028
gen. 22, 3:57pm

Impeachment II continued ~ Senate Trial

The Dems appear to be giving the GOPers another opportunity to break the
stranglehold that Trump has on their party. The wingnut radio and TV hosts will
never allow them to take advantage of this generous gift, however.

34Limelite
Editat: gen. 22, 5:11pm

>32 margd:

Interesting to see this in light of reporting that Republican senators are scurrying to hide behind the very skirt that the Constitution doesn't say that a Senate trial is perfectly OK after the accused leaves office.

There goes an honest "conservative" excuse out the window.

That means a "not guilty" vote by a Republican is craven cowardice because of their fear for their own reelection chances if they vote "guilty." I suspect those terrified snowflakes will argue that using Trump's irate base as their excuse will be increasingly inflated to "death threats against my family" status when no such threats are made.

Reality says that a NG vote is appeasement and a G vote is duty. Republicans hate reality so much that they created fake alternative facts to hide their fear and loathing or having to do what's right in the real world.
__________________________________
P.S.

To borrow from Neal Katyal*, MSNBC legal contributor, to say you cant try and convict Trump in the Senate now that he's no longer in office is tantamount to arguing in court that the accused murderer can't be tried and found guilty because his victim is already dead.

*Katyal has argued more Supreme Court cases than any other minority lawyer in American history. -- Wikipedia

35Limelite
gen. 22, 4:54pm

Pelosi Will Deliver Impeachment Docs To Senate Monday

And I doubt the Majority Leader will allow a trial to be postponed until mid-February. McConnell may try to argue that a power sharing agreement hasn't been settled (over the filibuster), and no trial should be permitted until its is. Schumer should counter with, then I'll withdraw from any power sharing discussions immediately and let the chips fall where they may.

McConnell is going to have to hold a meeting with himself and decide whether he thinks prohibiting Trump from running for office and remaining in the Republican Party, thus possibly saving his Party, is more or less important than the perceived humiliation of the Republican Party that will become the sole possessor of a record of shame (twice impeached, once convicted president) and his own determined backing of that record holder is the lesser of two "weevils."

Sort of a death or destruction choice for Mitch.

36Limelite
gen. 22, 10:28pm

Trump and DOJ Lawyer Plotted To Oust Acting AG

BREAKING New York Times story by Katie Benner, "Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney General," and MSNBC.

Un. b. leev. a. bull.

A quiet and unassuming Justice Dept. attorney named Jeffrey Clark believed Trump's lies that the GA presidential was rife with corruption. He determined to draft a letter that he asked the acting AG, Rosen to send to GA legislators informing them the DOJ was investigating the corruption and that the legislators must overturn the results and declare Trump the winner.

Undeterred by Rosen's refusal, he went to Trump who invited Clark to meet with him the weekend after New Year's Day. On Sunday, Clark returned to DOJ and told Rosen that Trump intended to remove him (Rosen) and put Clark in his place. The object being to force the GA legislators to withdraw their slate of electors and prevent the election results from being confirmed by the Senate June 6th.

When the other heads of various DOJ departments were informed of the scheme, they unanimously decided they would resign en masse if that came to pass. It was only their threat of mass resignation that put an end to what must honestly be described as a plot between the president and DOJ to overthrow the government. A Sunday Night Massacre, that would of that magnitude would be so stunning as to shift the story from the receptive "ground" of corrupt elections to why all the DOJ heads had resigned. Consequently, the plot would be exposed.

So it was called off, and the DOJ figuratively heaved a breath of relief because Trump's last ditch effort had died a-borning. Their relief was short-lived when they received the news, only days later, that the Capitol had been breached just when the joint session had got underway.

Of course all this is pure MADNESS because GA didn't decide the election and Biden would have won anyway.

But the plan might have resulted in disrupting the certification process and created the delay that some Republican Congress members wanted to conduct a "thorough investigation" into election fraud. In the meantime, Trump would simultaneously have his appointed usurper, Clark, to open a concurrent investigation by the DOJ into Trump's unfounded claims -- or just say there was an investigation. Very like Trump's Administration just "said" there was a stockpile of Covid-19 vaccines when there was none.

So, there would have been two specious investigations into a non-existent crime. Also so, now we know that Barr probably assumed Trump was up to something in spite of his pronouncement that there was no and was in a hurry to get out of the pressure cooker. So (yet again), Rosen was left to bear the brunt of Trump's continuous pounding on the door with demands that he (Rosen) issue the "Letter of Intimidation" and pretend to investigate massive pipe-dream fraud.

This is undeniable evidence of election interference/fraud and conspiracy to commit election interference/fraud by then President Trump. No doubt, these revelations will support the GA AG case to proceed with bringing a charge of voter fraud against Donald J. Trump. Federal charges could also be brought.

No, you're not experiencing deja-vu, these intimidation and "just say that you are investigating" tactics are precisely what Impeachment I was over. Trump in 2020-21 dethroned "I am not a crook," crooked Nixon by out-crooking him. Twice.

February 8th can't come soon enough.

Unbelievable.

37Molly3028
Editat: gen. 23, 11:21am

https://www.mediamatters.org/mark-levin/fox-news-host-mark-levin-launches-vulgar...
Fox News host Mark Levin launches vulgar, sexist attack at Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Mark had a meltdown ~ I gather the boy genius is finally realizing that the GOP's goose is cooked because the lunatic fringe in America has found a safe harbor in the GOP. GOPers have won battles along the way, but they are going to be losing the war during the 2020s and beyond. The four-year Trump detour was a major mistake.

38margd
gen. 23, 12:40pm

Organizers of Trump Rally Had Been on Campaign’s Payroll
Bill Allison | January 22, 2021

Former President Donald Trump’s campaign paid more than $2.7 million over two years to individuals and firms that organized the Jan. 6 rally that led to rioters storming the U.S. Capitol, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The payments, which span Trump’s re-election campaign, show an ongoing financial relationship between the rally’s organizers and Trump’s political operation. They were all made through Nov. 23, the most recent date covered by Federal Election Commission filings, which is before the rally was publicly announced.

Eight paid Trump campaign officials were named on the permit issued on by the National Park Service for the rally, including Maggie Mulvaney, the niece of Mick Mulvaney,...paid $138,000 by the campaign through Nov. 23.

...Megan Powers, listed as one of two operations managers on the permit, was paid $290,000 by the Trump campaign from February 2019 through the most recent filing period. She served as director of operations for Trump’s campaign.

Caroline Wren, a top GOP fundraiser who was listed on the permit as an adviser to the rally and Ronald Holden, the backstage manager, were also paid by the campaign.

The biggest recipient of campaign funds according to the report, was Event Strategies Inc., which was paid more than $1.7 million by Trump’s campaign and joint fundraising committee. The firm’s owners, Justin Caporale and Tim Unes, served as rally production manager and stage manager, respectively.

Women for America First, the nonprofit organization that requested the permit on Nov. 24, originally for an event to be held on Jan. 23, had a financial relationship with America First Policies, the pro-Trump nonprofit formed to advance his agenda shortly after he took office, according to the report. America First Policies made a $25,000 grant to Women for America First in 2019...

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2021-01-22/trump-campaign-paid-organ...

39margd
gen. 24, 7:10am

House Judiciary Dems @HouseJudiciary | 11:16 AM · Jan 21, 2021

The Senate must convict Donald Trump and defend our democracy.
Convict
1:19 ( https://twitter.com/HouseJudiciary/status/1352288924035641345 )

40Limelite
gen. 24, 1:13pm

Setting the Record Straight

Trying Donald Trump for inciting the overthrow of a legally elected government is not a separate, free-standing Congressional undertaking. It is the second, finishing step of Impeachment II begun while he was a sitting president in the House, while the horror of the attack by Trump's Executive Branch on the Legislative Branch was fresh in their minds.

Idiot Trumpty-Dumbpty Republicans are trying to sell another (surprise!) Big Lie that trying Trump in the Senate is a 'waste of time." It is not. It is the completion of a legal undertaking to hold a criminal president who defied and betrayed his oath made to the Constitution in his attempt to become Ruler for Life responsible and -- more importantly -- purging him from the Republican Party -- and most importantly -- barring him from ever holding public office again.

Without a conviction by the Senate, Donald Trump is effectively a co-president to Biden, who will continue to campaign for reelection the next four years. By making it impossible for him to hold elected office, he can't become the figurehead of a co-existing political alternative to Biden since Trump will not have the possibility of becoming the leader of any alt-Republican organization.

A guilty verdict precludes monetary donations to the guilty Citizen Trump to fund his and his followers political fantasies; a guilty verdict assures the American people to have confidence in their elections, that elections do result in change, and that sane professional politicians, when elected, are capable of administering a functioning government that makes their lives better. A guilty verdict upholds the Rule of Law, and undermines the current Republican operating system of "anything goes and "it's OK if you're a Republican" (IOKIYAR); it reinforces honesty in politics by making an "I Am Not Responsible" rogue responsible and accountable for what he did.

All of these points strengthen our democracy; all of these points uphold American values; all of these points are absolutely within Constitutional norms and defend the Constitution against enemies domestic; all of these points, if upheld and executed, unite us.

Appeasement is not unity. Appeasement is not lawful in this case. Appeasement legitimizes corruption. Appeasement is cowardly. Appeasement allows unfounded conspiracies and the Big Lie to live on. Appeasement is tantamount to not treating a slow growing cancer, simply because it hasn't caused you any pain -- yet.

Call your Senator make it clear to them that you expect him or her to finish the job and cut the cancer out of the American body politic. And if they make appeasing noises, understand them for what they are -- cowardice. Remind your senator that a secret ballot is a good skirt to hide behind when the Rule of Law, the Constitution, American values, and plain but rare common decency demand a vote of GUILTY.

41Limelite
Editat: gen. 24, 2:08pm

When the Senate trial of Donald Trump on the charges in Impeachment II Articles begins, it is imperative that Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri, Ted Cruz of Texas, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Roger Marshall of Kansas and John Kennedy of Louisiana not be allowed to sit in judgment.

Those 6 are also seditionists and co-conspirators. They should be impeached. They are as guilty as Trump and do not qualify to judge him by virtue of their votes to steal the ballots of legitimate electors and nullify the votes and decision of the people.

42Limelite
gen. 25, 7:25pm

House Delivers Article of Impeachment to Senate

Sen. Leahy admits the delegation of House Impeachment Committee to present the article, which is read by the head of the team, Rep. Jamie Ruskin (D-MD).

https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20449065-house-impeachment-resolution-f...

43Limelite
gen. 25, 7:27pm

Article of Impeachment January 2021 Pg.2

44Limelite
gen. 25, 7:30pm

Article of Impeachment January 2021 Pg. 3

45Limelite
gen. 25, 7:33pm

Article of Impeachment January 2021 Pg. 4

46Limelite
gen. 25, 7:35pm

Article of Impeachment January 2021 Pg. 5

47Molly3028
gen. 26, 6:46am

https://www.mediaite.com/donald-trump/nikki-haley-dismisses-impeachment-calls-tr...
Nikki Haley Dismisses Impeachment, Calls Trump’s Actions ‘Not Great’ in Lead Up to Capitol Insurrection: ‘Give the Man a Break’

Does this gal care about our democracy at all? If Trump were a Dem, the heads of GOPers would be exploding!

48MsMixte
gen. 26, 7:16am

>47 Molly3028: Ms Haley is positioning herself to be the front leader in what is sure to be a crowded field in 2024.

49proximity1
Editat: gen. 26, 8:12am


This is "great news" whichever way it may go.

Think about it: if Trump's impeachment moves to conviction, we cross a fateful line in sheer national insanity. It then means that even a former-president of the United States may be impeached. Now, then, just because Trump's tenure has recently ended (in a blatantly stolen election), that's by no means an assurance that, in the future, other former-presidents shall find themselves in jeopardy, liable to be impeached, only within that short time-frame. For why should there be any such "safe-harbor" of statutory limitations on a House and a Senate hell-bent for revenge by impeachment? The climate in such ferocious times shall always be, by necessity and by definition exactly such as should reliably preclude such self-restraint. Unless the Constitution's institutional safe-guards are respected and left in place, there is no reason to expect that in such hotly divided times "cooler heads" ever again prevail.

Soon, if this goes ahead and is not overturned by a case in the federal courts ruling on this as-yet untested matter, it shall be a confirmed possibility to impeach that Mother Fucking Shit-for-Brains asshole and conniving son-of-a-bitch, Barack Hussein Obama. The grounds are not only ample, they're now irrelevant, really. If Trump's case shows us that "incitement to insurrection" is valid--a charge which, by the way, should never stand up to scrutiny in a federal or state criminal court, for the elements required to show guilt on that charge are not there--then this charge may be easily manipulated at will. Any time there's even a mild motivation for impeachment, people may assemble and, fairly or utterly fraudulently, run riot on the pretext and pretense that the president's words or deeds moved them to it. Whether or not there is any sane validity to that allegation is completely beside the point.

The point is, the president's opponents now have no need to wait upon nature and dementia to avail themselves of the 25th Amendment. They may simply gin up an unruly mob---easily done---and place the blame at the president's door-step. This is made-to-order scapegoating. The Founders tried to vouchsafe the Republic against this sort of folly but there is only so much their wisdom can have done to ensure and to protect us, their descendants, from our own fatal political stupidity.

They foresaw people as hopelessly stupid as are we but they had no stronger means to put a bulwark between us and our capacity to bring ruin upon ourselves. And so we are doing that, egged on by a cynical and corrupt professional press which they counted on as a back-stop to general insanity.
Now, this press has a privileged seat at power's table and is no longer seriously interested in checking and questioning the abuse of power as had previously been the case.

In such cases, the last resort was the ballot-box. Trump, duly re-elected, should have and would have interposed himself in this mad rush to ruin. But the ballot-box was defrauded, the vote made into a farce, and the courts proved themselves of no avail in the search for justice and a redress of this outrage.

So we are now well and truly in for what comes next.

(unending) Open-season via impeachment on former presidents of the United States---all of them, to the end of their natural lives.

As long as the partisan cards are properly aligned, there shall be nothing to stop serial at-will impeachments. And voters have shown themselves quite capable of electing a House and Senate of one party and an Executive branch presiding officer of a different party. That fulfills the requirements for impeachment-driven grid-lock on steroids.

If the Russians or any other foreign power, for that matter, had tried to dream up a means to bring the Constitutional integrity of the dis-unified United States to wreck and ruin, they could not have done more or better than to have set the Democrats off on their present course.

If the impeachment effort fails, if it ends in a second acquittal, the inter-party hatred is going to burn hotter, with even greater intensity and ferocity. This score-settling shall go back and forth until--apparently, the hard way, through great and untold misery and hardship--the country's mutually-hating two main parties either succeed in destroying their foes (and, with them, the nation's capacity to function politically) or somehow they run out of ideas for it before they succeed.

That would be sheer dumb luck. We may now be out of that kind of luck.

This is a form of Russian-roulette in which, after each two rounds, another of the revolver's chambers is loaded and the trigger-pulling resumes.

Do not for a moment doubt Americans' capacity to commit what constitutes effectively blowing the nation's political brains out. Trump, in his entire one-term tenure, never seriously posed that danger--though his political foes insisted in their insanity that he would do so.

They are the ones now so bent on getting their revenge on Trump that they'll double down upon any risk, take up the revolver, put it to the nation's figurative head, and with fierce determination, pull the trigger--over and over, for as long as it takes.

So, one way or another, this present nightmare is bound to end.

50Molly3028
Editat: gen. 26, 10:35am

>48 MsMixte:

The good news is that they are all positioning themselves to take over the helm of a party which is shrinking in size on a daily basis. The lunatic fringe is running the party into the ground.

51kiparsky
gen. 26, 12:55pm

>49 proximity1: Do not for a moment doubt Americans' capacity to commit what constitutes effectively blowing the nation's political brains out.
After January 6, I think we know that there are quite a few Americans who are willing to do this.

And we also know that America can and will stop you them.

52Molly3028
gen. 26, 7:18pm

https://www.rawstory.com/republican-party-afraid-trump/
Republicans are too afraid of the mob they created to vote their conscience on impeachment

On MSNBC, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) suggested far more Republicans would be on board with trial and conviction — if not for fear of their own voters.

"You know, we're in a situation where they participated in the creation of a mob, and then suddenly, they go, well, if I stand in front of that mob, that mob's going to run right over the top of me, and I'm afraid of that mob," said Merkley. "That's the way they feel about their Trump base. They essentially participated in the lies by not calling them out, day after day, year after year for four years, and Trump has Trump media, and so their base is listening to that Trump media on radio, on television, on cable, on every other direction that social media can reach them."

53Limelite
gen. 26, 11:18pm

>47 Molly3028:

Haley was defended by Trump's impeachment defense lawyer, Butch Bowers, when she got into ethics trouble as governor of SC. Butch defended Mark "Hiking-the-AT-Cheater" Sanford when he, too, was governor of SC and needed defending. Lindsey Graham facilitated the hire.

Today we learn Trump has hired a second attorney from South Carolina, Deborah Barbie, who has "a reputation for tackling high-profile, controversial clients."
Major law firms have also turned down the former president because of the stigma of the insurrection and out of concern they would lose clients, several lawyers told CNN.

"The big firms have too many clients who would say, 'We're going to take our business away from you.' I don't think Butch Bowers or Debbie Barbier have that concern," said Robert Foster, a partner with Nelson Mullins in Columbia, where Bowers was a former partner.
Is it just me, or did that sound like damnation with faint praise?

54margd
gen. 28, 4:41am

MeidasTouch.com @MeidasTouch | 6:33 PM · Jan 27, 2021:
Look at this jumbotron* we put outside of the United States Senate for the next eight days
MeidasTouch Jumbotron at the United States Senate...

0:30 ( https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1354573211392856070 )

*excerpts of footage from invasion of Capitol

55Molly3028
Editat: gen. 29, 7:47am

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/536424-paul-says-robertss-absence-crystalize...
Paul says Roberts's absence 'crystalized' argument against Trump impeachment

GOPers were looking for any excuse to dismiss the importance of this second impeachment and John Roberts handed it to them on a silver platter. JR gave the GOP and Trump a major political gift, and he gave our democracy the middle finger.

56Molly3028
Editat: gen. 29, 12:52pm

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/axios-jim-vandehei-congressional-republicans-forced-...
‘The Party is On Fire’: Jim Vandehei Says Republicans Have to ‘Act Crazy, Tolerate Crazy, Be Crazy or Get Crushed’

The party of the 2020's lunatic fringe in a nutshell ~ this is what can happen when a party hitches its wagon to a life-long con man and cult personality. Lincoln must be spinning in his grave.

57Limelite
gen. 29, 5:20pm

QAnon Shaman To Be Impeachment II Witness

Al Watkins, the lawyer for Jacob Chansley, also known as the "QAnon Shaman," has offered to have his client testify at Donald Trump's upcoming impeachment trial.

For the defense? Let the circus begin. Damn! I'm out of popcorn since election night. BWAHAHAHAHA!

WHAT's THIS?!?!? Lady Lindsey says. . .
"I cannot think of a better way to turn the upcoming impeachment trial into a complete circus than to call the QAnon Shaman as a witness on anything."
On that we agree, Senator.

58Limelite
gen. 29, 5:36pm

File Under: 'It Takes One To Defend One' -- Racist Trump & His Lawyer

Trump impeachment lawyer removed a Black juror he said ‘Shucked And Jived’ and the South Carolina Supreme Court called attorney Greg Harris’ use of the racial stereotype “troublesome.”
Harris will defend a former president who regularly appealed to racists and inspired a deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob that included a significant contingent of outright white supremacists.

Back in 1989, the South Carolina Supreme Court found that Harris had used racial stereotypes to strike two Black jurors during a DUI trial while he served as an assistant solicitor in South Carolina’s 5th Judicial Circuit Solicitor’s Office.
Imagine, if you will, a scene during the impeachment trial when the QAnon Shaman in full regalia and make-up is being questioned by Mr. Greg "Shuck and Jive" Harris on the floor of the Senate. Circus, indeed.

59Limelite
Editat: gen. 29, 10:42pm

Democrats Have 'Fresh Evidence' of Trump Inciting Insurrection

"House Democrats have sought out new cellphone footage of the Capitol siege as well as updated details about injured police officers as they seek to build an emotionally compelling impeachment case against former president Donald Trump.
(SNIP)
Democrats won't just be prosecuting Trump in hopes of GOP senators voting to convict, but will also be focused on trying the case for voters watching the proceedings on television.

"The effort to present new video evidence and witness testimony appears designed to make Republican senators as uncomfortable as possible. . . The prospect of injured police officers describing the brutality of pro-Trump rioters to Republicans who regularly present themselves as advocates of law enforcement could make for an extraordinary, nationally televised scene. . ."
WaPo reported.
"The House impeachment managers are determined to present as much evidence as senators allow, to ensure a permanent record of Trump's role in the riots — and to force Republicans to witness the chaos and carnage one more time before they vote against conviction."
Count on video playing a central role in the Democrats prosecution. Trump should admire their strategy. It's intended to play to a television audience while damaging Republicans who vote to acquit, knowing their constituents who are watching will be a heck of a lot more than just the Anonynuts who attended their rallies.

If Republicans are watching the party registration demographics across the country, they'll have to weigh how many of the 10s of thousands of voters who have left the GOP since January 6th vs. their cowardly desire to appease the smaller numbers of violent extremists who make them feel popular, if fearful for their own and their families' lives.

60margd
gen. 30, 9:36am

Impeaching Officials While They're in Office, but Trying Them After They Leave
Eugene Volokh | 1.28.2021 11:36 AM

From Prof. Michael McConnell (Stanford), a leading constitutional scholar and legal historian:

Much of the discussion of the constitutionality of trying Former President Trump on impeachment charges after he has left office consists of motivated reasoning on both sides that no doubt would be the opposite if partisan roles were reversed. Not enough attention has been paid to the constitutional text, or the timing of this particular impeachment.

Whether a former officer can be impeached is beside the point. Donald Trump was President of the United States at the time he was impeached by the House of Representatives. The impeachment was therefore unquestionably permissible (putting aside any disagreements over the nature of the charges).

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6, states: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." The key word is "all." This clause contains no reservation or limitation. It does not say "the Senate has power to try impeachments against sitting officers." Given that the impeachment of Mr. Trump was legitimate, the text makes clear that the Senate has power to try that impeachment.

Article II, Section 4, states: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This provision does appear applicable only to sitting officers. But it does not limit the power of the Senate to try, which comes from Article I, Section 3, Clause 6. It merely states that removal from office is mandatory upon conviction of any sitting officer. No lesser sanction will suffice.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, states: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." Read together with Article II, Section 4, this means that the consequence of conviction on impeachment must include removal from office, may include disqualification from future office, and may not include any other sanction. The first sanction is limited to sitting officers, which makes sense. The second sanction is not so limited.

Some argue that the conjunction "and" in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, implies that the sanction must include both removal and disqualification, and that because removal of a former officer is not possible, disqualification must also not be allowed. But the clause does not say that both sanctions are required; it says that the judgment may not go beyond imposition of both sanctions.

I have not seen any answer to this textual point from those who think the trial of Mr. Trump would be unconstitutional. They ignore the fact that he was properly impeached (at least, insofar as timing is the issue), and they ignore the text of Article I, Section 3, Clause 6, which states that the Senate may try "all" impeachments. They conjure up a limitation on the Senate's power by a misconstruction of the sanctions limitation of Article I, Section 3, Clause 7. And, of course, they bolster their argument with motivated reasoning about consequences for the republic, which are no more persuasive than the motivated arguments coming from the other side.

I suppose that if there were powerful historical evidence that this was not the understanding of the founders, we might have a debate between text and historical understanding. But the historical evidence supports the text. The two British impeachment trials prior to the Constitution both involved former officers, and the first impeachment trial under the new Constitution involved a former Senator. The only respect in which history may clash with text is that history does not support the conclusion that only a sitting officer may be impeached—an issue distinct from the question of trial, and not relevant to the current situation.

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/28/impeaching-officials-while-theyre-in-office...

61Limelite
Editat: gen. 30, 10:26pm

BREAKING: Trump Impeachment Defense Team Crumbling, 60% Abandon Their Client

Five of Trump's impeachment defense attorneys leave team less than two weeks before trial.
Butch Bowers and Deborah Barbier, who were expected to be two of the lead attorneys, are no longer on the team. A source familiar with the changes said it was a mutual decision for both to leave the legal team. As the lead attorney, Bowers assembled the team.

Josh Howard, a North Carolina attorney who was recently added to the team, has also left, according to another source familiar with the changes. Johnny Gasser and Greg Harris, also from South Carolina, are no longer involved with the case, either.

A person familiar with the departures told CNN that Trump wanted the attorneys to argue there was mass election fraud and that the election was stolen from him rather than focus on the legality of convicting a president after he's left office. Trump was not receptive to the discussions about how they should proceed in that regard.

The attorneys had not yet been paid any advance fees and a letter of intent was never signed.
Looks to me like Trump wanted his lawyers to argue that he was still president, which would have made the entire reason Republicans want to acquit him for no longer being president a hell of a lot harder. The lawyers, realizing they had a fool for a client chose the highway instead of Trump's "my way." If they left money on the table, their recourse will be to get to the back of the line of people and government prosecutors filing charges and lawsuits already.

But don't worry, Trump still has hope!

Since Rudy Julie Annie can't be on the defense team, Trump still has two other choices who will be willing to defend him on the grounds he wishes -- Attorney Sidney "Kraken" Powell and Attorney Lin "Batshit Crazy" Wood.

At this rate, Lindsey Graham is definitely going to get his circus, as predicted.

62proximity1
gen. 31, 2:13pm



"Caught with Their Hands in the Cookie Jar " | The Democrats stole the election, and it’s critically important we keep saying it. | By Jeremy Carl | January 29, 2021

____________________



... "As commentator Glenn Greenwald recently told Tucker Carlson, 'They’re trying to harness corporate and monopoly power to silence everyone who disagrees with them, the very hallmark, the epitome of the fascism they claim to be fighting, but which in reality they embody.'

The Depressing Truth

"Given our current strategic situation, the fact that this election was rigged is the core message we need to proclaim, and that is—not coincidentally—why it is the one thing social media and the powers that be will not allow us to say. The reign of terror they are unleashing upon the Right is really a demand that we accept their false narrative.

"And here’s an uglier and more depressing truth we need to embrace: They rigged the election in front of our very eyes because we weren’t smart enough, tough enough, and most importantly, not powerful enough to stop them. That’s something we desperately need to fix before 2024, and election integrity efforts led by Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.)—not coincidentally three of the top targets of the left-wing mob—are a vital part of that effort.

"To be clear, there are some important ways in which I differ from Trump and some of his supporters on the nature of the election-rigging that took place. While I have not reviewed every detail of each claim, reports that I have examined of hacked Dominion machines, mass-switched votes, or other overt fraud at the level to have changed the election results ranges from the somewhat unlikely to the outlandish. President Trump did not help his own case by amplifying some of the more implausible of these theories. But direct fraud is mostly for amateurs. The Democrats were pros, stacking the deck so heavily in advance that they could be virtually certain the cards would play out in their favor.

"In this context, it is important to note the closeness of the race: just 44,000 votes in three states, a total of 0.013 percent of the total votes cast nationwide, would have needed to be switched from Biden to Trump to have handed President Trump a victory. In a free and fair U.S. election, Donald Trump would have certainly been reelected, and probably reelected easily." ...



63kiparsky
gen. 31, 3:39pm

>62 proximity1: the fact that this election was rigged

Gonna stop you there... this is not a fact. Anything that presumes this is nonsense.

64Limelite
feb. 1, 5:27pm

Trump Impeachment II Defense Switcheroo

After the canny lawyers who made a career of successfully defending SC politicians from all sorts of corruption and criminal charges quit on Donald because he insisted on his defense being based on the 2020 election having been stolen from him by election fraud was unacceptable to them, Donald to hunt up new lawyers to replace them.

He found David Schoen and Bruce Castor, two figures involved in controversial cases in the past. According to Schoen and Castor, they will steer clear of claims there was widespread election fraud last November. Instead, Schoen says, “I think the proceedings are unconstitutional.”

That could be a tough defense to mount because there's no evidence to support his contention and a heavy preponderance of legal opinion from prominent Constitutional law experts that the trial portion of Trump's impeachment II is just a continuation of the indictment (part I) submitted by the House, and an accident of time expiring on Trump's term has nothing to do with guilt or innocence of the charge of "incitement," but is simply a trial scheduling consequence due to time's passage.

Seems to me, the only semi-serious defense that is available to this pair of legal eagles is to argue what the definition of of "incitement" is -- echoing Clinton's famous defense that it depends on what the definition of "is" is. And that will require additional lawyers to Trump's defense -- ones versed in making a Constitutional argument that incitement is neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor even when it leads to a failed coup attempt; and if Trump's actual words were actual incitement.

Anyway, Trump's new crack team is being headed by two lawyers who aren't what he needs for a Constitutional defense.
Schoen represented Trump ally Roger Stone when he appealed his conviction for lying to Congress and witness tampering in connection to the probe into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia during the 2016 election. Stone later received a pardon from Trump. He also discussed taking over as counsel for financier Jeffrey Epstein just days before the convicted sex offender was found dead in his New York jail cell.

Castor gained notoriety for his decision in 2005 not to charge Bill Cosby with sexual misconduct after allegations from a Temple University employee surfaced. Cosby was convicted 13 years later of drugging and raping his accuser.

66margd
feb. 8, 5:36am

Breaking With G.O.P., Top Conservative Lawyer Says Trump Can Stand Trial
Michael S. Schmidt | Feb. 7, 2021

...In an opinion piece posted on The Wall Street Journal’s website, the lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, who is closely allied with top Republicans in Congress, dismissed as illogical the claim that it is unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial for a former president. The piece came two days before the Senate was set to start the proceeding, in which Mr. Trump is charged with “incitement of insurrection” in connection with the deadly assault on the Capitol by his supporters on Jan. 6.

...Mr. Cooper’s decision to take on the argument was particularly significant because of his standing in conservative legal circles. He was a close confidant and adviser to Senate Republicans, like Ted Cruz of Texas when he ran for president, and represented House Republicans — including the minority leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California — in a lawsuit against Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He is also the lawyer for conservative stalwarts like John R. Bolton and Jeff Sessions, and over his career defended California’s same-sex marriage ban and had been a top outside lawyer for the National Rifle Association.

But Mr. Cooper, who is said to be dismayed by the unwillingness of House and Senate Republicans to hold Mr. Trump accountable, took on the main claim made by his own confidants and clients, offering a series of scholarly and technical arguments for why the Constitution allows for a former president to stand trial.

It was unclear whether Mr. Cooper’s opinion would have any influence on the outcome of the trial. It could provide cover to Republican senators open to convicting Mr. Trump who were caught off guard by last month’s vote, forced by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, to effectively dismiss the case as unconstitutional. Some Republicans have since said they did not necessarily mean to signal that they were opposed to hearing the case, or had made up their minds about Mr. Trump’s guilt...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/07/us/politics/charles-cooper-trump-impeachment....

67Molly3028
feb. 8, 8:15am

Trump never has, and never will, win the popular vote in any election. That indicates the wisdom of the majority of American voters. The Electoral College flip canceled out that wisdom in 2016. And, now the final step in a second impeachment process is making its way into the history books for eternity.

Trump has no plans to actually take on another election run. He just wants the money of his clueless, gullible voters to move from their pockets into his debt-ridden empire.

68margd
feb. 8, 10:13am

The Lincoln Project @ProjectLincoln | 9:00 AM · Feb 8, 2021:

Convict Trump.
#SaveAmerica.
1:00 ( https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1358777607723118612 )

69Molly3028
Editat: feb. 8, 12:26pm

https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/the-conservative-case-for-trumps-impeachment-co...
The ‘Conservative’ Case for Trump’s Impeachment Conviction — And Why He’ll Be Acquitted

". . . Like the cowards they are, Republicans seem destined to die slowly of a thousand cuts, rather than risk a hero’s death by trying to kill the Trump monster now, enduring the short-term pain which would surely come with such an effort.

It seems like the easier path for Republicans in the Senate to simply avoid the wrath of some of their political base and perhaps a future primary challenge by giving Trump yet another pass. However, years from now, they will rue the day they had this golden opportunity to do both the right thing for the country, and for their political survival, but lacked the nerve and the foresight to do so."

70Limelite
feb. 8, 2:37pm

Day Before Trial Begins, Debate Is on Whether or Not to Call Witnesses

Commentators are urging Democrats to call witnesses to testify against DJT in hopes of wooing more Republicans to vote to convict. It's well known, though, that Pres. Biden wants the trial to be done with ASAP in order to proceed with Covid-19 relief legislation, the keystone to his campaign. But Democrats in the Senate are also reluctant, beyond just general delay. They don't want a subpoena fight that might end up like the John Bolton incident in Impeachment Trial I. They also maintain they have an open and shut case for conviction (assuming Constitution abiding impartial Republican Senator jury/judges, of course) without the need for witnesses.

Former federal prosecutor, Renato Mariotti, went so far to argue in a Politico article that Dems should fight to get Trump to testify in his own defense despite his and his lawyers refusals to do so. He suggests that, barring success there, Dems call GA Sec'y of State, Brad Raffensperger and one of the 140 injured Capitol Police officers who survived Jan. 6 be subpoenaed. The idea being since Raffensperger is going forward with an investigation into Trump's attempted election fraud and the Republican history of "law & order" as one of its so-called values, that such witnesses might compel enough Republicans to change their minds about Trump's "innocence" and vote for a conviction.

GOP election attorney Ben Ginsberg is of the same opinion. He told CNN on Monday that two witnesses could possibly pull off such a conversion, while video evidence, impartial and strong as it is probably isn't enough.
"The first would be someone who could testify that Donald Trump actually told them to go break into the Capitol or was part of that planning," he said. "And number two, if I had a witness who was with Donald Trump on the afternoon of January 6th, who actually had his state of mind, saw his reactions to the rioting, knows what he did when the request for additional aid came in and he delayed it a great deal, I think those would be the witnesses that I would want."
He didn't provide any specific individuals.

Where do Democrats stand now with less than 24 hours to go?
Senate leaders are closing in on an agreement that would give each side up to 16 hours to present their cases and the potential for a debate and voting on calling witnesses. . .
Seems we're not to know. Should it come to a Senate vote, VP Harris might have to cast the deciding aye or nay on the question of witnesses. If the Senate produces a yes vote over 58, I'm betting Dems will subpoena Trump to appear, in spite of their distaste for a long trial delayed by a man who loves courtroom antics.

71Limelite
feb. 8, 5:16pm

Seattle Proud Boy: Witness for the Prosecution?

Referencing the above debate, a prominent member of the far-right extremist group the Proud Boys, who was captured on video leading a pro-Trump mob to the U.S. Capitol just before it was breached and ransacked, was arrested and charged Wednesday for his alleged role in planning and participating in last month’s deadly insurrection.
Ethan Nordean, a 30-year-old bodybuilder known in right-wing circles by his alias, Rufio Panman, faces four federal criminal counts in the District of Columbia, including obstructing an official proceeding, aiding and abetting injury to government property, disorderly conduct and knowingly and violently entering a restricted building, according to a criminal complaint.

Nordean faces more than 30 years in prison if convicted on all counts.
(SNIP)
Charging documents identify Nordean as the self-described “Sergeant of Arms” of the Seattle chapter of the Proud Boys, a group that often wears yellow and black clothing, prohibits women from joining its ranks and is known in the Northwest for street brawls and violent clashes with antifascist activists.
(SNIP)
One video taken by Eddie Block, a Proud Boys livestreamer, featured Nordean at various times speaking through a bullhorn and leading a large group to the Capitol, just before the mob broke through a police line and breached the building.
(SNIP)
. . .Nordean also wrote a post under his alias on Parler, the social-media platform widely used by Trump supporters and right-leaning groups, that indicated “he and other Proud Boys members were planning in advance to organize a group that would attempt to overwhelm police barricades and enter the United States Capitol building.”
(SNIP)
(The) family said: “We have tried for a long while to get our son off the path which led to his arrest today — to no avail. Ethan will be held accountable for his actions.”
In court, Ethan Nordean said that Trump "egged on" those that were present into attacking the Capitol.

This could be the family's chance to help this man begin self-redemption, if he'll testify to that last statement at Trump's trial.

72Molly3028
feb. 8, 6:42pm

GOP leaders ~

Stick with the party come hell or high water. Follow the Germans' 1930's/40's example.

73lriley
feb. 8, 9:33pm

They need to call witnesses.

74Limelite
feb. 9, 2:46pm

Impeachment II Opening Video Makes the Case

The direct evidence linking Trump's remarks to violent mob action is there for all to see. And that is but a snapshot of his incitement. To see the full extent of his incitement in the form of a complete timeline, see here.

The video also proves Trump issued statements during the insurrection, inciting the mob to target VP Trump. The video proves that even hours after the Capitol was once again in control of its defenders, he congratulated the mob he'd incited -- celebrating their mayhem, the destruction, and their killings that he incited. He did NOTHING to avoid, calm, or call off the mob before, during, or after the events of Jan. 6th 2021.

We can not just move on and do nothing. To do nothing will not unify us; it will endanger us.

It's over. The votes don't matter. The case is made and is irrefutable. Votes are only opinions to agree or disagree with FACT: to adhere to reality, evidence, and the constitution, or to HIDE behind deliberate delusion, blindness-by-choice, and dereliction of duty for the cold sake of gaining and keeping political power. The Senators who vote to draw the veil, excuse, and move on without holding Trump accountable make themselves guilty of high crimes: the DENIAL of the US Constitution, the REFUSAL to perform their Constitutional duty, and the creation of a "January Exception" to ANYONE who violates their oath of office is to stab their country in the heart.

Senators, you cannot look away from your vote, even if you look away from the video.

There is no pass. The Constitution is clear. Not only is Trump guilty, but the Constitution makes inescapable that the Senate MUST try him. No "January exception" exists to "excuse" Trump's high crimes. It matters not whether any official does what he did the first day in office after taking the oath of office, or the last day.

Crime is crime. Guilt is guilt. Accountability MUST be accountability. If it is not, there is no such thing as law. There is no hope of democracy. There is no future America, only tyranny and despotism. It all ends now.

75Limelite
feb. 9, 5:58pm

Trump's Lawyers Have No Clue

Trump's Impeachment lawyers put in impossible position by Mitch McConnell who postponed the trial until after Biden's inauguration.

Trump's opening defender -- Bruce Castor: It's too early to hold this trial. Not enough due process, investigation, questioning of witnesses for my client. Wah, wah, wah. Oh, and Trump lost the election. So, the Big Lie is a BIG LIE.

Trump's second defender -- David Schoen: It's too late to hold this trial. Trump isn't president, he's a private citizen now, therefore untouchable. Convict him and I promise more violence! Wah, wah, wah. Oh, and IOKIYAR. So, it is what it is, move on.

A ham-handed good cop, bad cop presentation. Castor the flatterer of the senators, Schoen the finger shaker at the senators.

"And let me quote from some random poem because I have no legal arguments that I can make."

Sorry, John Q. Republican. I don't see any difference between these two guys and Rudy Julie Annie. Could Trump's difficulties getting top-drawer defenders have something to do with his actual conduct?

But Senator Cassidy (R-LA) newly crossed over to vote with the Democrats. He was impressed by the Democratic prosecution made by House Managers and distinctly unimpressed by the disorganized and rambling mess by Trump's defenders. The only Republican Senator who did what his oath demanded -- keep an open mind and hear and objectively evaluate. 44 Republicans just stuck their fingers in their ears, or literally covered their eyes and looked away in order to not do what their oaths as jurors in Trump's trial bound them to do.

76lriley
feb. 9, 6:40pm

#75--chances of convicting Trump are pretty damn slim. That said it's good they went from 5 to 6. I'm sure that McConnell really would like to separate his party from Trump but if he's not going to take the step himself then he's to blame for his own cowardice.

77Molly3028
Editat: feb. 10, 8:11am

Numbnut GOPers cannot say there is a January exception for a president's actions in spite of the fact that the nuclear codes must remain in his possession until January 20 at noon. The person who possesses those codes is the leader of the country, and he must continue to live up to the Constitutional duties he swore to uphold during his inauguration ceremony until the Black Bag is transferred to the new president.

This week the world is watching the Trump-era GOPers dismantle the democracy they proclaim to love.

78margd
feb. 10, 5:54am

>74 Limelite: Didn't see link to impeachment managers' video in your post, just timeline in text? Anyhoo, here it is.
Powerful. Sobering.

House managers present video evidence in first day of impeachment trial (13:15)
CNBC Television • Feb 9, 2021

House impeachment managers presented video evidence that showed how former President Trump incited the violence that led to the insurrection on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThFsZ_9P78U

79Molly3028
Editat: feb. 10, 7:23am

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tucker-carlson-opens-show-immediately-dismissing-imp...
Tucker Carlson Opens Show Immediately Dismissing Impeachment Trial as a Distraction: ‘Who Cares?’

This clueless dude doesn't seem to realize that he is living in a very important historical period in the 21st Century. This era is going to be a focal point of historical studies done around the globe for generations to come. This white nationalist and Murdoch henchman appears to have a plethora of mental-health issues.

80margd
feb. 10, 9:33am

Impeachment Is Working—Just Not as the Framers Expected
The case against despair
David Frum | February 7, 2021

...Impeachments were designed as ways to remove corrupt federal officials. That function has mostly gone dormant, replaced by the operations of federal public-integrity law, enforced by the Department of Justice...

But what impeachment can do in the modern era is send a powerful signal to the public about the gravity of certain cases. When the House impeaches, it declares: We believe we have exited normal politics; we believe we are dealing with a true emergency.

It elevates the president’s alleged abuse over all other congressional business. Impeachment empowers the House to force an issue onto the agenda of the slower-moving Senate. Impeachment changes the calendar of politics. Impeachment concentrates and clarifies issues. Impeachment compels senators to take a public stand one way or the other: convict or acquit.

...Yes, Trump can probably still expect a second acquittal in 2021. But Trump has three main post-presidential goals, and the forthcoming trial will do severe and possibly lethal damage to all three.

Trump’s maximal post-presidential goal is to position himself for a comeback run in 2024.

Failing that, Trump would like to demonstrate that—president or not—he remains the dominant force within the Republican Party, a leader surpassing all others.

Failing even that, Trump would at a minimum like to prove that he remains a potent-enough figure to frighten away federal and state prosecutors from investigating his businesses for tax or bank fraud.

The second impeachment in the House has already complicated these goals. The second trial in the Senate will complicate these goals further.

...Politics will dissuade the necessary 17 Senate Republicans from voting for Trump. Politics will acquit him. But that’s not the same thing as rendering the impeachment useless, or the trial a Trump victory.

A criminal trial is binary: guilty or not guilty, punishment or release. Politics offers a much wider range of outcomes. The Senate does not have to vote to disqualify Trump to destroy his future political prospects. It does not have to convict him on the impeachment charge to signal state and federal prosecutors that it’s safe to proceed against private-citizen Trump—that ex-president Trump has forfeited some large measure of the deference normally extended to former presidents.

He won’t be scotched. He will be marked. That will not be justice. It may be enough.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/impeachment-is-working-just-no...

81margd
feb. 10, 11:58am

Rep. Raskin Recounts His Experiences During The Capitol Riot At Senate Impeachment Trial (8:55)
NBC News | Feb 9, 2021

Rep. Jamie Raskin closed his argument in the impeachment trial of former President Trump by recounting what he and his children experienced during the Capitol riot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81_b59p-1YA

82Limelite
Editat: feb. 10, 12:55pm

>78 margd:

Thanks for including Managers' timeline. Yes, it was a stunning graphic.

However, I deliberately linked to the timeline that extended into the past beyond theirs because I wanted readers to see that Trump's incitement began much earlier.

Why? Because Trump knew early in 2020, and no doubt suspected and believed (based on his unpopular polling) even earlier that he was in serious trouble to be re-elected. The pandemic was the nail in his coffin -- and he knew it. That's why he manipulated the CDC to rid it of ethical scientists and med professionals and replaced them with sycophantic lickspittle. The government's official public health department had to be controlled to only emit his messaging. He was desperate to quash the truth about American deaths.

His terror of losing the election was visceral and so he was ready to do ANYTHING -- even provoke his mob to murder (hang!) his own VP -- to create a mindless mob that he programmed for MONTHS to create a coup so he could overthrow the election, destroy the Constitution and remain in power to go on to make himself dictator for life, and to make the Trump family a hereditary tyranny.

83Molly3028
Editat: feb. 11, 10:46am

Trump, with the help of long-time GOP members, has managed to gut Lincoln's party in five short years. The videos show that white nationalists, white supremacists, Nazis, Proud Boys, QAnons and other fellow travelers are the only Americans who want to make the rotting carcass of Lincoln's party their political home going forward.

84margd
feb. 11, 11:41am

The Lincoln Project @ProjectLincoln | 1:43 PM · Feb 10, 2021:

Remember: Brian Sicknick deserves justice.
1:00 ( https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1359573598126678018 )

85Kuiperdolin
feb. 11, 12:30pm

I know there aren't many book readers left on this group, but what few remains might get a chuckle out of this:



source

86lriley
feb. 11, 1:02pm

#85--Well it is Faulkner too.

87Limelite
feb. 11, 5:46pm

>85 Kuiperdolin:

Stunning example on this thread of Trumpty-Dumbpty response to facts -- create a meaningless diversion, pertinent to anything(?) but the topic before them.

Cruz, Rubio, and Graham simultaneously get up and walk out when the Manager presents the evidence of Trump's lack of remorse over the events of Jan. 6, and years before.

Those three senators choose cognitive dissonance over Constitutional duty. Ask yourself, as House managers did: Would any of the events of January 6th, the storming of the Capitol, the rampage within it, the murder and mayhem the insurrectionists brought to destroy democracy and overturn our legitimate government have occurred but for Donald Trump inciting them to be there and go fight?

It doesn't take a more severe or harder test to know DJT must be convicted. No law degree is needed to be able to answer it.

Of course, if, as a senator, one voted not to hear this case before the trial began, then one obviously has no desire to hear evidence of DJT's infamy, and will do everything to squirm away from doing so. Lindsey Graham claimed that the evidence and facts presented by the prosecution yesterday offended Republicans. Oh? Was it the words of the insurrectionists themselves that they did what they did because Trump told them to that you found offensive?

Well, his offended-ness, can't approach mine that he, Cruz, and Rubio got up and walked out to avoid hearing the truth laid out before them, and plenty of it by the perps themselves.

88Kuiperdolin
feb. 11, 6:23pm

Just like a Demonrat to resort to childish name-calling instead of addressing clear and damning evidence against his ilk.

89kiparsky
feb. 11, 8:53pm

>88 Kuiperdolin:

"Just like a Demonrat"... "to resort to childish name-calling"

Just gonna leave that there...

90John5918
feb. 11, 11:23pm

The impeachment managers reflect a diverse US – unlike the senators they seek to persuade (Guardian)

One side holds up a mirror to America in 2021. The other, not so much.

The nine Democratic prosecutors at Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial are made up of men and women young and old with multiple racial and religious identities. But each day in the Senate chamber they are trying to persuade a caucus of 50 Republicans still dominated by ageing white men...

91lriley
Editat: feb. 12, 1:51am

#90--one of the interesting things to me was that many of these same republicans were just as outraged and worried about their own safety during and immediately after the insurrection but then still tried to overturn state ballots and in the interim between now and then have completely moved to personal political calculation motivated by not wanting to cross Trump and/or fear of their own base. It will be interesting to see if any more Senators join Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Sasse and Toomey--whether Cassidy will remain with them or whether someone like a Portman or a Tillis who are going to retire in 2022 now will join them.

The moral weakness of so many of them has been on open display. Lindsey Graham is chief among the morally weak. Mario Rubio who may be primaried by Ivanka Trump is certainly in this group. Ted Cruz as well. Meanwhile there are goofballs like Rand Paul or Josh Hawley who see the Trump train as a way to further their presidential agendas and/or aspirations and neither of whom stand a chance. Then they have complete dolts like Cindy Hyde-Smith or Tommy Tuberville and a load of partisan hacks like Rick Scott, John Kennedy or Ron Johnson.

And what will the old guard do--I'm pretty sure McConnell wouldn't mind at all if Trump dropped dead. His leadership team of John Thune, Chuck Grassley and John Cornyn are viewed with disdain and skepticismma by Trump advocates. For all their hemming and hawing this group is kind of no man's land group

92margd
feb. 12, 2:55am

Robert Reich @RBReich | 5:21 PM · Feb 11, 2021:
Today, 15 Republican Senators chose not to attend Trump's trial. They should be held in contempt of Congress.

Jurors in criminal trials cannot get up and leave the courtroom. If they did, they'd be held in contempt of court, and face possible fines and jail.

--------------------------------------------------​

Image--the 15 senators ( https://twitter.com/donwinslow/status/1360130799736029185/photo/1 )

_______________________________________

Three GOP senators (Cruz, Graham, Lee) meet with Trump's lawyers on eve of impeachment defense presentation
Manu Raju and Alex Rogers | February 11, 2021
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/11/politics/gop-senators-trump-impeachment-lawyers/i...

_______________________________________

No overlap between the two sets of senators--those that were absent v those jurors that met with the defense.

93margd
Editat: feb. 12, 12:18pm

>92 margd: contd.

Wish it were so...

Laurence Tribe (Harvard Law Emiritus) tribelaw | 3:00 AM · Feb 12, 2021:
I heard it was 16 Rs who were AWOL yesterday.
By all rights, they shouldn’t count as “present” when the votes are tallied.
And 2/3 of 84 = 56, the number who voted in favor of holding the trial at all . . .

_________________________________________________
ETA

Bill Kristol @BillKristol | 8:11 AM · Feb 12, 2021:
The contempt shown by some Republican senators for their role as jurors in the Senate
sitting as a court of impeachment is contempt for the Constitution.

Will @LeaderMcConnell distinguish himself from his lesser colleagues
by doing his constitutional duty and voting to convict?

__________________________________________________
ETA
MeidasTouch.com @MeidasTouch | 10:52 AM · Feb 12, 2021:
Any Senator who does not show up to the trial or
who privately meets with and gives advice to Trump’s attorneys
should not be allowed to vote on conviction.

__________________________________________________
ETA

A tweet that matters this week: shabbat starts at 5:24p in dc.

- Jake Sherman (Punchbowl News) @JakeSherman7:53 AM · Feb 12, 2021

94Molly3028
Editat: feb. 12, 1:30pm

Importance of Impeachment II

Dems took the initiative of showing the world that many government reps in this Trump era kept their eyes on the Founders' desires, and they had their eyes on the microscope of history at the same time. The Trump era has been a never-ending cautionary tale since June of 2015.

95margd
feb. 12, 3:37pm

>93 margd: contd.

New on @MSNBC: Ted Cruz visited the Trump defense team's room during the Senate break.

- Kyle Griffin @kylegriffin | 12:32 PM · Feb 12, 2021

96margd
feb. 12, 3:55pm

>95 margd: contd.

Norman Ornstein @NormOrnstein | 1:56 PM · Feb 12, 2021:
So it turns out Schoen lied about (not) having access to the House managers' videos. Suspend his law license. This is a grave offense.

Darth Voter @TheGarberZone · 1h
Several options of misconduct exist, e.g. focus has been on the senators' conduct meeting with the defense team,
but look at the reverse, the attorneys meeting with those senators.
Rules of prof. conduct prohibit attys from ex parte communications/jurors during a proceeding.

Alicia Romano @AliciaRomano8 · 1h
Breaking. Source close to House Managers tells @NicolleDWallace:
"Every piece of evidence, including new videos, were given to the defense team before the trial.
They could have played them. He lied when he said they never saw them. That was part of the rules we voted on." @MSNBC

Embarrassment of Bitches @AGoodSpy · 1h
Schoen is a member of the NY bar, admitted to the 1st Department.
Here's their contact info to make a complaint. You don't have to be a client to make a complaint.
https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/Committees&Programs/DDC/index.shtml

Van der Veen is a member of the Pennsylvania bar. File a complaint here:
https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-the-public/file-complaint

97Limelite
Editat: feb. 13, 7:10pm

>88 Kuiperdolin:

Your remark, I take it is intended to distract readers from the truth of my factual post by bringing up Trump's actual behavior which you claim is the behavior of Democrats?

Trump isn't known as the name Caller and Insulter-in-Chief for nothing. You're old enough to remember how his opening campaign speech in the 2016 election was a string of ethnic slurs, lies, and vilification of Hispanics and immigrants.

If you'd paid attention to the Impeachment Trial, you would have heard Trump's defense built on that same technique of misdirection by outright lies when faced with overwhelming facts and evidence that speak of his guilt.

You're just not as good at it as Trump.

98Limelite
Editat: feb. 13, 2:16pm

Trump's "Defense" Team Proves Incapable of Mounting a Defense

If it weren't for an atmosphere of solemnity in the Chamber, the Republican Senators who had to sit in outright embarrassment through the monkey show put on by Castor & Schoen, a vaudeville act but not a pair of guys practicing law, would have wept. Theses two guys were laughed at by a bi-partisan audience for their 11-mminute "Fight Club," video complete with music, mocked mercilessly for self-pitying rants, specious due process whiny protests, and -- naturally -- outright lies.

What a shambles. This was the "calvary" (sure enough) riding to save the Orange Shitegibbon? Was this legal team "only the best people" Trump could hire?

Nice to know that Graham, Cruz, and Hawley are forever tarred by their non-partisan (choke!) after-hours cloakroom consultation with Trump's defense team to advise them on how to go about Trump's their argument today. If today's performance was the product of their advice, I expect the peals of laughter those Three Stooges will hear trailing them whenever they pass their colleagues by will be unceasing.

Typing while listening to the Q&A session. The Republican questions from the Graham team and the Ryan faction are embarrassing, especially since the current question is an accusation that the Dems are trying to embarrass the president with the impeachment. Well, no one can deny they succeeded! But everyone, who watched the trial, is aware, the Dems didn't have to try!

Hope ya'll are watching the Q&A.

Love it! Sen. Castro calls him "Senator Tube-ur-ville." Brilliant after the deliberate mispronunciations by the defenders of at least two Democratic Senators' names.

99margd
feb. 13, 10:58am

Impeachment Trial Live Updates: Senate Votes to Hear Witnesses, Delaying Verdict on Trump

Senator Mitch McConnell told his Republican colleagues that he planned to vote to acquit former President Donald J. Trump, who faces a charge of “incitement of insurrection.”

Feb 13, 2021 10:52 am

The Senate approved a last-minute call for witnesses in the impeachment trial, putting off a verdict.

McConnell tells Republicans he plans to vote to acquit Trump, calling it ‘a close call.’

Here’s what happened on Day 4 of the trial.

Trump’s impeachment lawyers followed the Trump playbook.

Georgia prosecutors will scrutinize Trump allies like Graham and Giuliani.

Lindsey Graham will meet with Trump to discuss the G.O.P.’s future.

Trump’s defense made inaccurate claims about antifa, the Jan. 6 siege and impeachment.

Biden gets some distance from Trump’s trial with a weekend trip to Camp David.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/02/13/us/impeachment-trial

100Molly3028
feb. 13, 4:22pm

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-acquitted-senate-gopers-give-the-green-...
Trump Acquitted: Senate GOPers Give The Green Light For End-Of-Term Insurrections

Apparently GOPers believe their elections to office are more important than the grand plan the Founders' developed for America. Our democracy has officially joined the Titanic down at the bottom of the deep blue sea.

101Limelite
Editat: feb. 13, 4:58pm

Not Guilty: 57-43

Republican Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted guilty.

Senators now speaking in defense of their votes, both Democratic and Republican. Their eyes are on the history books.
________________________________
UPDATE

McConnell admits he's a rank hypocrite and is just fine with being one. After voting to acquit, he says on the Senate floor, "Trump did it."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY., said on the Senate floor that former President Donald Trump is "practically and morally responsible" for the insurrection on Jan. 6.

McConnell said Trump's supporters were “assaulting the Capitol in his name” and "carried his banners” while “screaming their loyalties to him.”

“It was obvious,” McConnell said of where the rioters' loyalties laid. He explained the riot was unsurprising given the lies Trump had fed to his supporters about the election being stolen.
Then blah, blah, blah procedural excuses for his vote to acquit.

Future dictionaries will use Moscow Mitch's photo to illustrate the definition of "forked-tongue."

102lriley
Editat: feb. 13, 5:37pm

That was some weak shit by McConnell. He trashes Trump after voting to acquit him. It's like he still thinks the old pre-teaparty republican party still exists. Kind of spat at but didn't cut off the head of the snake.

103kiparsky
Editat: feb. 13, 7:28pm

>97 Limelite: Actually, my remark was intended to highlight the hypocrisy of >88 Kuiperdolin:'s post. What on earth is more childish than the pathetic name-calling we saw on display there?

104Limelite
Editat: feb. 13, 7:10pm

Actually, I misnumbered the addressee. Sorry. I hope you can see it was a mistake.
______________
Fixed.

105kiparsky
feb. 13, 7:29pm

106Molly3028
feb. 14, 7:21am

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/mcconnell-says-trump-could-still-be-criminally-li...
McConnell Says Trump Could Still Be Criminally Liable For Actions as President: He ‘Didn’t Get Away with Anything Yet’

Now, the GOP has two factions. The McConnell faction hates Trump but loves the votes of the white nationalists and white supremacists that he attracts. The Graham faction loves Trump and the votes of those white groups.

107liamfoley
feb. 14, 7:32am

>100 Molly3028:
Democracy eh? Did your founders intend you to be ruled by oligarchs? Did they intend you to get all worked up by billionaire news sources to the extent that you see your fellow citizens as the enemy? Did they intend you to look for enemies based on the color of a person's skin, who they voted for, if/where they went to school and so forth?
You're all being played, Trump and anti-Trump, but you can't see it while the rest of the world sits back and benefits from the decline of the USA.

108Charger777
feb. 14, 9:41am

>107 liamfoley: Now come on, you can see by the video evidence the state of the poor, half starved, ragged, downtrodden peaceful protesters at the Whitehouse on Jan 6 . . . . . .

109liamfoley
feb. 14, 10:03am

>108 Charger777: the insurrectionists that were taking selfies and all left in time for happy hour? Really fearful, especially compared to the mostly peaceful Summer of 2020. Either way as long as the masses let off steam you can sure no one bothers with the oligarchs, the tech titans and their political pawns.

110lriley
feb. 14, 10:22am

Actually it's been a great year for the super wealthy. Bezos and Amazon for instance. Walmart's going to town. Google, Twitter, Youtube etc. consolidating on the messaging. The pandemic's been great for all of them.

On Trump's part of that though--he completely couldn't be bothered putting together any kind of national response to it at all which is why we're somewhere around 30 million cases and closing in on 500 thousand dead. We didn't protect jobs and we left people fending for themselves whether they had health care or not and it's a mess because a lot of people don't have money for food, rent or fuck all.

111Molly3028
Editat: feb. 15, 2:25pm

post impeachment chaos ~ the real-life Lucifer

Trump is causing the destruction of the GOP by encouraging its members to form a circular firing squad. GOP reps are clueless, gullible fools when it comes to the desires of the life-long con man and cult personality. The media and the Dems can just sit back and enjoy the show as it unfolds.

112margd
feb. 15, 10:03am

MeidasTouch.com @MeidasTouch | 10:00 PM · Feb 14, 2021:
We're upset. We're angry. But let's make sure we're mad at the right people. A powerful reality check from @IAmPoliticsGirl.

I Get It, You're Upset: PoliticsGirl
1:52 ( https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1361148224183148547 )

113Limelite
feb. 15, 7:48pm

Impeachment II Beyond Continues. . .

The consequences of the House Managers' case do, anyway. Speaker Pelosi formally announces the formation of a9/11-type investigative commission to examine the fatal insurrection.

No details included on who will be the candidate pool from which investigators will be drawn. But I'm willing to bet that she'll make sure not a damn one of the sitting Republican Senators who voted to acquit will be included. Perhaps former judges? Retired former Congress members from both parties (go Claire McCaskill!)? Even former state attorney's general of both parties? Will have to wait and see.

Her announcement: