The second impeachment of Donald Trump thread

[spookyturtle 9,466]

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The point of impeachment is to remove a democratically elected official.. the President. There is no such thing as a successful impeachment that just ends there. If it can't do what it set out to do, remove the President (at minimum), then it is indeed a failure. This is why impeachment likely should be done with an ounce of consensus, because the impeachment threshold of a simple majority doesn't apply to the Senate trial. If people made less of a joke of what is supposed to be a serious process, Congress might have been made to be slightly more useful.

Impeachment is a very serious process. I liken it to a final effort when all else has failed. If it becomes a common occurrence, something is quite wrong somewhere. Our government, the American people.......

[yuna628 9,700]

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The point of impeachment is to remove a democratically elected official.. the President. There is no such thing as a successful impeachment that just ends there. If it can't do what it set out to do, remove the President (at minimum), then it is indeed a failure. This is why impeachment likely should be done with an ounce of consensus, because the impeachment threshold of a simple majority doesn't apply to the Senate trial. If people made less of a joke of what is supposed to be a serious process, Congress might have been made to be slightly more useful.

Impeachment is a process to judge if an official has committed an offense worth removing them from office. Partial impeachment is an indictment and a moral condemnation that is supposed to mean something for face value. To be fully impeached and removed from office is the trial part, where crimes are aired and defense if any is given. But impeachment itself is a political process which renders at times the ability to actually convict difficult, not simply because the official has indeed done something wrong, but because of amoral men rendering party over country. Still the founders did not state that because an official isn't convicted, makes the process and point moot or that it is somehow not worth pursuing just because it makes everyone generally unhappy or could have a political cost. Pence himself seemed to understand this back in the 90s, how serious a moral condemnation it was.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

11 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Impeachment is a very serious process. I liken it to a final effort when all else has failed. If it becomes a common occurrence, something is quite wrong somewhere. Our government, the American people.......

 

   We tend to blame government, but at some point we have to look in the mirror. I accept that we sometimes elect people who really can't do the job, but sending them back to congress over and over when we know they can't get it done, there is no excuse for that. We can only blame the broken system for so much before we need to accept that we (the people) are part of why the system is broken.

[yuna628 9,700]

12 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Impeachment is a very serious process. I liken it to a final effort when all else has failed. If it becomes a common occurrence, something is quite wrong somewhere. Our government, the American people.......

Indeed it should never be a common occurrence, but neither should it never be wielded. This is entirely why it is up to the people to make better choices about just who we are putting in government. There are large philosophical arguments about the values of impeachment and that we as society should perhaps start carefully weighing the morality and competency of the people we elect.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

At this point, unless a direct connection between Trump and violent conspirators is documented, just let the impeachment mellow without a trial.  If direct evidence connecting Trump to the conspirators surfaces, then full steam ahead with the Trial. I don't care if the trial doesn't convict, isn't upheld as applicable to a ex president, at that point we need to see it play out.

 

As far as the folks who plotted, financed, conspired, murdered and assaulted...the law should show no mercy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nykolos 711]

2 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

As far as the folks who plotted, financed, conspired, murdered and assaulted...the law should show no mercy.

 

Too bad this didn't apply to the BLM and Antifa riots that lasted over 5 months.

 

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

8 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Impeachment is a process to judge if an official has committed an offense worth removing them from office. Partial impeachment is an indictment and a moral condemnation that is supposed to mean something for face value. To be fully impeached and removed from office is the trial part, where crimes are aired and defense if any is given. But impeachment itself is a political process which renders at times the ability to actually convict difficult, not simply because the official has indeed done something wrong, but because of amoral men rendering party over country. Still the founders did not state that because an official isn't convicted, makes the process and point moot or that it is somehow not worth pursuing just because it makes everyone generally unhappy or could have a political cost. Pence himself seemed to understand this back in the 90s, how serious a moral condemnation it was.

Moral condemnations are not proper use of this power. This was not a censure or a condemnation.

 

There's no reason whatsoever to logically separate impeachment from the trial, functionally, they are of the same process but with different procedural rules (no different than in court) with the same ultimate goal, throwing out a democratically elected President. Even though the process is purely political, it only gets legitimacy if looked at in the scope of fairness akin to the legal system itself. It's no different than someone being indicted, but then acquitted/found not guilty, and people celebrating the indictment and going, "well, morally, we won". No, you didn't. And if one thinks that using power to throw out someone is merely a good platform for moral grandstanding, they are dangerous people.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

7 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Indeed it should never be a common occurrence, but neither should it never be wielded. This is entirely why it is up to the people to make better choices about just who we are putting in government. There are large philosophical arguments about the values of impeachment and that we as society should perhaps start carefully weighing the morality and competency of the people we elect.

It doesn’t seem like morality has played much of a part in recent times. Competency? Maybe not much of that either.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

11 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   We tend to blame government, but at some point we have to look in the mirror. I accept that we sometimes elect people who really can't do the job, but sending them back to congress over and over when we know they can't get it done, there is no excuse for that. We can only blame the broken system for so much before we need to accept that we (the people) are part of why the system is broken.

I think the American people play a big part in it. 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

7 minutes ago, nykolos said:

Too bad this didn't apply to the BLM and Antifa riots that lasted over 5 months.

 

 

Federal charges levied in racial unrest

Federal authorities have arrested more than 300 people amid a crackdown on racial injustice protesters in the U.S. since spring. An AP analysis shows that while many are accused of violent crimes, others are charged with relatively minor violations.

 

CHARGE	PEOPLE CHARGED
Arson (includes attempt and conspiracy to commit)	86 86
Illegal possession of firearm	46 46
Civil unrest/Disorder/Rioting/Creating a disturbance/Disorderly conduct	39 39
Assaulting/Impeding/Intimidating federal employee or officer	33 33
Use of explosives/Use, making or possession of destructive device (including Molotov Cocktail)/Receiving explosives	30 30
Damaging/Destroying property by fire or explosive/Conspiracy	17 17
Failing to obey lawful orders	17 17
Damage/Destruction of government property	17 17
Burglary/Conspiracy to commit burglary	14 14
Interfering/Obstructing/Resisting law enforcement	11 11
Attempting to destroy/Destroying a vehicle by fire/Conspiracy	10 10
Making threats by phone/Internet	9 9

For those arrested for multiple crimes, each separate charge is tallied in this table.

Source: AP analysis of court records

 

[Boiler 45,946]

2 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

Because no evidence has been presented to support the idea. Because the night of the election Obama called Clinton and told her the best thing to do is to conceede ASAP in the interest of the country. Because the Obama administration worked deligently to make the transition smooth to the Trump administration.  

 

 If Obama was trying to negate or undermine the Trump Presidency, he was being awfully cool about it.

Evidence?

 

That is something new.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

3 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

Federal charges levied in racial unrest

Federal authorities have arrested more than 300 people amid a crackdown on racial injustice protesters in the U.S. since spring. An AP analysis shows that while many are accused of violent crimes, others are charged with relatively minor violations.

 

 

CHARGE	PEOPLE CHARGED
Arson (includes attempt and conspiracy to commit)	86 86
Illegal possession of firearm	46 46
Civil unrest/Disorder/Rioting/Creating a disturbance/Disorderly conduct	39 39
Assaulting/Impeding/Intimidating federal employee or officer	33 33
Use of explosives/Use, making or possession of destructive device (including Molotov Cocktail)/Receiving explosives	30 30
Damaging/Destroying property by fire or explosive/Conspiracy	17 17
Failing to obey lawful orders	17 17
Damage/Destruction of government property	17 17
Burglary/Conspiracy to commit burglary	14 14
Interfering/Obstructing/Resisting law enforcement	11 11
Attempting to destroy/Destroying a vehicle by fire/Conspiracy	10 10
Making threats by phone/Internet	9 9

For those arrested for multiple crimes, each separate charge is tallied in this table.

Source: AP analysis of court records

 

300 seems like a very low number when you consider the many many 1000's that committed acts over many months

[Boiler 45,946]

300 would be a slow night in Portland.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

48 minutes ago, Boiler said:

300 would be a slow night in Portland.

But remember they were mostly peaceful protestors not dogmatic terrorist's  that shook our very democracy to its core 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

I am heading to Portland tommorow. I will let everyone know what kind of post apocalyptic mad max hellhole I discover.  I hope the Ramen is still good.

53 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

But remember they were mostly peaceful protestors not dogmatic terrorist's  that shook our very democracy to its core 

I know, but when you storm the Capitol building and chant that you want to hang the VP and Speaker, it gets federal attention, it's not a local dc matter.