Military Officers in Congress Join Call to Invoke 25th Amendment, Remove Trump

[laylalex 7,284]

Impeachment without conviction isn't meaningless unless the underlying support for the impeachment is meaningless. Ignoring impeachment where it is warranted because it's not politically expedient to carry it out has the effect of saying "why not engage in such sanctionable behavior again, when there are no consequences?" We can have a genuine debate about whether the impeachment grounds are meaningless but not the process if they are not, I think. 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

People who want to save their political careers,

Thats not going to work. Trump has no power going forward. Who are they going to get support from

 

Quote

those who understand the President didn't commit any crime,

The criminality and culpability is clear. Trump incited sedition and insurection. 

 

 

Quote

never mind a high crime and misdemeanor.

Sedition , Insurection , and conspiracy... actually written into the federal code

 

Quote

The idea that Trump did any of those things stands no chance in court,

The court that matters is the Senate

 

Quote

 

there are plenty of lawyers who know this too, they know the political motivations behind impeachment, and they know their constituents are aware of it too.

 

Impeachment isn't anything by itself.

Condoning his behavior by not condemning unacceptable. If impeachment provides that condemnation, that would be enough.

 

Quote

The exercise isn't to find out who won't, because you've seen that not many will.

Impeachment is a done deal, a trial that remains to be seen.

 

Quote

 

So logic dictates

I asked you for a list thirtysix senators who will definitely vote to acquit, you cannot provide one.

 

Quote

 you figure out who will. Unless you've got 17 GOP Senators willing to convict/bar from future office, you have another meaningless impeachment.

 

Edited January 10, 2021 by CanAm1980

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

34 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Thats not going to work. Trump has no power going forward. Who are they going to get support from

 

The criminality and culpability is clear. Trump incited sedition and insurection. 

 

 

Sedition , Insurection , and conspiracy... actually written into the federal code

 

The court that matters is the Senate

 

Condoning his behavior by not condemning unacceptable. If impeachment provides that condemnation, that would be enough.

 

Impeachment is a done deal, a trial that remains to be seen.

 

I asked you for thirtysix senators who will definitely vote to acquit, you cannot provide one.

 

 

1. You're conflating the populist movement Trump leads with Trump himself as a movement, when Trump is merely a byproduct of that movement. It's not like the grassroots that quickly get absorbed into the parties (e.g. Tea Party, Occupy, etc.), populism is growing on the left and right. At the moment left wing populism is still being controlled by the Democrat Party but what "remains to be seen" is if it will stay that way. Right wing populism is absolutely not under control by the Republican Party, which is why you see so many neocons in particular, rife in the Senate, hide their views and adopt a populism stance. It doesn't go with Trump, and they know it.

 

2. Sedition, insurrection, and conspiracy, are not applicable crimes to Trump for liking a post and the most ridiculous hyperbolic interpretation of his other posts, if even applicable to the President at all in a few of them.

 

3. Impeachment is, like the social media thing, a way of circumventing the legal system, and it's why this sort of thing is being kept in this arbitrary realm.

 

4. The default position for impeachment is not removal, it's acquittal. In good faith, I didn't ask for the list of Democrats too because logic assumes they're all on board, but logic doesn't assume all or even most Republicans are on board. We've only seen a few give support to removal, and likely even less for barring from future office. So logically speaking, onus is on you to show who is on board with it. You need 17 Republicans for impeachment to matter. List them, or simply play games and end the conversation, choice is yours.

Edited January 10, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

7 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

1. You're conflating the populist movement Trump leads with Trump himself as a movement, when Trump is merely a byproduct of that movement. It's not like the grassroots that quickly get absorbed into the parties (e.g. Tea Party, Occupy, etc.), populism is growing on the left and right. At the moment left wing populism is still being controlled by the Democrat Party but what "remains to be seen" is if it will stay that way. Right wing populism is absolutely not under control by the Republican Party, which is why you see so many neocons in particular, rife in the Senate, hide their views and adopt a populism stance. It doesn't go with Trump, and they know it.

 

2. Sedition, insurrection, and conspiracy, are not applicable crimes to Trump for liking a post and the most ridiculous hyperbolic interpretation of his other posts, if even applicable to the President at all in a few of them.

This is not the sum of the evidence.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

3. Impeachment is, like the social media thing, a way of circumventing the legal system, and it's why this sort of thing is being kept in this arbitrary realm.

Impeachment is the legal system. It is written into the constitution. 

 

7 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

4. The default position for impeachment is not removal, it's acquittal.

 

What "default" are you going in about?  Impeachment and the trial are called out in the constitution. 

 

7 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

In good faith, I didn't ask for the list of Democrats too because logic assumes they're all on board, but logic doesn't assume all or even most Republicans are on board.

Remember that it was Senators that were the targets of this terrorism including the 36 names. 

7 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

We've only seen a few give support to removal, and likely even less for barring from future office. So logically speaking, onus is on you to show who is on board with it. You need 17 Republicans for impeachment to matter. List them, or simply play games and end the conversation, choice is yours.

You cannot name 36 senators prepared to aquit.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

3 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

This is not the sum of the evidence.

 

 

Impeachment is the legal system. It is written into the constitution. 

 

What "default" are you going in about?  Impeachment and the trial are called out in the constitution. 

 

Remember that it was Senators that were the targets of this terrorism including the 36 names. 

You cannot name 36 senators prepared to aquit.

Impeachment is a political system, which is why its governed by political rules.

 

Default means there's no inherent removal associated with impeachment. It has a hurdle it must clear, the end. If you can't demonstrate how it would clear that hurdle, there's no point in moving forward. You're free to play a pointless game all on your own.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Not sure if this was posted but... this guy should be given a medal.. saved potentially dozens of lives. Watch the video in the link (might have language and not sure if we can post it):

 

Quote

Capitol cop led DC rioters away from open Senate chambers door before it was locked, likely saving lives

Quote

A lone cop chased by rioters appears to have deliberately led the mob away from an open door to the Senate chambers — just seconds before armed security was able to lock it down, according to new reports.

Quote

The officer appears to notice the open door as he glances to his left once at the top of the stairs — initially standing in the way, before pushing the man at the front of the mob in a bid to get him to antagonize him and get him to follow as he ran the opposite direction, away from the door.

Quote

Had the officer not led them the other way, there could have been a far different confrontation — with the officers inside the chambers, including one with a semiautomatic weapon standing in the middle of the floor scanning each entrance for intruders, the paper noted.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/capitol-cop-led-dc-rioters-from-open-senate-chambers-door-before-it-was-locked

 

While there's lots of criticism about the underwhelming police presence, even conspiracies from Trump supporters about the police "letting them in", I think it's worth appreciating that this situation didn't get any worse and recognize heroic acts that saved lives. 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

4 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Impeachment is a political system, which is why its governed by political rules.

 

Default means there's no inherent removal associated with impeachment. It has a hurdle it must clear, the end. If you can't demonstrate how it would clear that hurdle, there's no point in moving forward. You're free to play a pointless game all on your own.

There is removal and other consequences around the impeachment trial. Right now it appears the impeachment will go forward to give congress a bigger stack of chips, the trial will go forward up to 6 months later. 

 

[seekingthetruth 1,246]

6 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

The criminality and culpability is clear. Trump incited sedition and insurection. 

 

5 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Sedition, insurrection, and conspiracy, are not applicable crimes to Trump for liking a post and the most ridiculous hyperbolic interpretation of his other posts, if even applicable to the President at all in a few of them.

Can some someone direct me to a list of the actual words Trump spoke that has lead to the conclusion of the left that he incited the Capital riots?  I don't mean snippets from NYT or similar, but all the words involved with their original context.  Preferably with date / time, chronologically ordered.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

5 minutes ago, seekingthetruth said:

 

Can some someone direct me to a list of the actual words Trump spoke that has lead to the conclusion of the left that he incited the Capital riots?  I don't mean snippets from NYT or similar, but all the words involved with their original context.  Preferably with date / time, chronologically ordered.

Look for the speech the day of his rally.

[millefleur 5,046]

2 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Look for the speech the day of his rally.

Donald Trump Speech “Save America” Rally Transcript January 6 (note: I didn't check it for accuracy/errors):

 

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

6 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

Remember that it was Senators that were the targets of this terrorism including the 36 names. 

You cannot name 36 senators prepared to aquit.

Well calling sitting Senators as Nazis isn't going to help the case of the Democrats. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 hour ago, CanAm1980 said:

There is removal and other consequences around the impeachment trial. Right now it appears the impeachment will go forward to give congress a bigger stack of chips, the trial will go forward up to 6 months later. 

 

So 6 months AFTER he leaves office????? Doesn't that sound vindictive and desperate to you?

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

Just now, Cyberfx1024 said:

So 6 months AFTER he leaves office????? Doesn't that sound vindictive and desperate to you?

No pragmatic and practical. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

No pragmatic and practical. 

No, it sounds desperate because you think he will still have enough power in 2024 to make some waves

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

Just now, Cyberfx1024 said:

No, it sounds desperate because you think he will still have enough power in 2024 to make some waves

He will loose his pension, loose his ss detail and loose the ability to run for federal office.