Day 1, Act 1
The following is a recap of the democrats second faux impeachment of the man that unites progressives and their boot licking allies in the media in their key obsession - a hatred of Donald Trump. Despite the Constitutional question of whether a private individual could face a Senate trial as a part of an impeachment, the Trump lawyers put up little defense. Republicans who were destined to lose a vote on the issue anyway conceded 6 defections. The Senate voted on the Constitutionality of removing a President who was already out of office and the unified democrats prevailed by a vote of 56-44.
The six Republican defectors were: Sens. 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.
If it really helps them win elections, so be it. (As Red Skelton used to say "May God bless")
Note: Unlike other impeachments, there was no formal inquiry, no investigation, no hearings and no witnesses. The trial is occurring under a judge who is also a juror.
Then there was a vote on a resolution to go forward. It passed by a vote of 89-11.
Our new Senate leader. The man who threatened Supreme Court Justices.
"Unlike the previous impeachment, Leader McConnell and I are introducing the resolution together. No one can claim it's not fair". ...Chuck Schumer.
Then we were all treated to a professionally produced montage of film meant to horrify those watching at home. The film featured graphic images of rioters breaking into the Capitol building and yelling profanities at officers, such as "f**k D.C. police." The police in this instance were "the good guys" who protected our ruling class, many of which were taken to underground tunnels.
Then we got to hear what was without a doubt the performance of the day - Rep Jamie Raskin and his emotional recounting of January 6th, completed with induced tears.
Jamie Raskin...US Representative, Impeachment Manager, and actor extraordinaire
"All around me, people were calling their wives and their husbands, their loved ones, to say goodbye," Raskin said. "Then there was a sound I’ll never forget – the sound of pounding on the door like a battering ram, the most haunting sound I’ve ever heard and I will never forget it."
Sniff, sniff...
I suppose at that point we should have all jumped from our seats crying & shouting "convict Trump!"
It was very touching, (if you were an 18 year old living in your parents basement and inexperienced with politicians and how they manipulate people). Raskin took it to another level. The Trump lawyers looked incompetent. The contrast was striking. Trump attorney Bruce Castor seemed unprepared and was widely quoted by MSNBC and CNN after he praised the House impeachment managers for a job "well done."
Sadly, for the American people, those seeking a relief package or hoping for our elected representative to do the people's business, the proceedings will resume today (Wednesday afternoon).
Tags
Who is online
134 visitors
Democrats think this will unite & energize their party and divide Republicans. The dream of preventing Donald Trump from running again is all but gone. IMO the next few elections will be about how Americans respond to the radical transformation the nation is being subjected to.
Act 2 will follow this afternoon.
For once they may be right. Republicans going after Liz Cheney is the height of stupidity.
I think that little exercise confirmed that Republicans still allow members to stand on principle. It was an act of courage in a nasty world where there is little mercy, charity or justice.
Freedom of thought & freedom of speech.
What a novel idea, huh?
I enjoy watching the Q party shed members at the direction of their idiot demigod.
Is that so?
"Rep. Liz Cheney reiterated Sunday morning that she has no plans to resign from Congress — even after Republicans in her home state of Wyoming voted to censure her for voting to impeach Donald Trump.
“I’m not" going to step down, Cheney told Fox News’ Chris Wallace. “I think people all across Wyoming understand and recognize that our most important duty is to the Constitution. And as I’ve explained — and will continue to explain — to supporters all across the state and voters all across the state, the oath that I took to the Constitution compelled me to vote for impeachment.”
The Wyoming Republican Party voted overwhelmingly Saturday to censure the Republican, with just eight of the 74 members of the Wyoming central committee opposing the move. Cheney did not personally attend the meeting. In their letter, Wyoming Republicans said that Cheney “violated the trust of her voters, failed to faithfully represent a very large majority of motivated Wyoming voters and neglected her duty to represent the party.”
That's what I'm talking about.
She is still the House Republican Conference Chair, the third-highest position in the House Republican leadership. That was not taken away from her.
61 sycophants voted to remove to remove her, plus one coward who voted present.
As I say, Republicans think for themselves, unlike democrats who usually follow orders. Today we may see democrats do some soul searching - they have to vote on OMB nominee Neera Tanden, who can offend people of both partys. Let's see how much courage democrats can muster.
Here's a 'novel' idea, mobs exhibit a freedom from thought via chants of inanity ... and before you go there, that goes for all mobs.
I never liked mobs. How about you?
That's never happened yet.
Mobs? No, but I have met a few mobsters that had a certain je ne sais quoi about them.
You asked what principles they stood for.
I answered.
Well Wyo has no provision in statute or in its constitution to recall and remove federal representatives so she is safe there .
All the censure does after reading the statement put out is simply makes it so that she wont get any future campaign funds from the state party which wont really bother her campaign finances since the state GOP donations and funding makes up < 20%, most of her finance comes from outside of state and business donations for her runs . It also calls for her to repay to the individual state parties of the GOP moneys they have put forward to past campaigns ( very doubtful they can do that legally anyway so wont happen ).
As for the call in the censure for her to resign , she doesnt have to , so that will be a no -go .
So that leaves what will inevitably happen in about a years time , primary season and she will have to face the voters themselves in an effort to retain her spot on the general ballot, only this time it will likely be without the individual county and state GOP endorsing her , which is a pretty critical thing in this state .
My `estimation based on what i am seeing literally being on the ground and hearing? she will be primaried out by the voters and likely only be on the general ballot if she changes her party affiliation at which point she may syphon votes from both the major( Rep and Dem) parties , but not likely enough to win the general and not enough to swing a victory to the dems.
Now you may ask where i stand in all this , i have no dog in the hunt , being registered as independent i can not vote in either the dem or rep primaries and have to wait to see who is on the general and go from there.
what i am considering is and usually do anyway :
1. where is the bulk of her campaign funding coming from
2. and this is simply me and my criteria, is it worth having a carpetbagger representative representing the people of Wyo?
3. and what has said candidate done for the job she has , in this case as a member of the HoRs done for the people of Wyo, that she has and would be in future runs, done for those she represents .
Honestly, that is a big part of the hyper-partisan political landscape we find ourselves in today. The two parties hold FAR to much sway on how elected officials vote on anything, and how their campaigns are funded. THAT is a real problem that we need to solve.
THAT should be much more important than representing the party. Representatives are there to represent their constituents, ALL of them, not just the party leaders.
When did the former occupant of the White House ever concern himself with the 'people's business'?
When will the current occupant and his party concern themselves with the 'people's business'?
The Democrats own the blame for the 'people's business' not being done
Today the Trump team is expected to expose Dems’ own incitement as Senate trial proceeds.
Among possible examples to be shared by Republicans during the impeachment trial:
I hope that the Trump team also shows videos of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Joaquin Castro, Nancy Pelosi, John Tester.
Videos of some of the above are in the links below. Joaquin Castro's call to violence is in the first link.
Any others, and there are many, are easily found on YouTube.
I'm counting on it. Democrats are trying to establish a standard of conduct in this trial that they themselves cannot live by.
We shall see fairly soon.
The House did nothing for weeks to get testimony in hearings but is now citing witnesses from media reports.
I'm watching it. Jamie Raskin and Joe Neguse are doing their usual drama queen performances.
Raskin may be up there with Sir Lawrence Olivier.
Tell Raskin that his personal life should stay personal.
Raskin calls Jan. 6 "a day that will live in disgrace"
There was no reason, as a prosecutor, for him to tearfully recount a lengthy story about the death of his son and the fear his daughter felt ... unless it was to gain anti-Trump support.
They love using emotion, don't they? Didn't Biden do it during the campaign when questioned about Hunter? He pretended that he thought it was an attack on his other son who died!
Here comes Swallowin' Swalwell - TRAITOR!
And then there's the juror/judge who already told us Trump is guilty!
Swalwell, the man who colludes Communists while on the US House Intel Committee. Pelosi didn't worry about treason. She needed his vote so she could hold onto her beloved gavel.
Contextual reading leads to understanding.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify an error that should have been obvious to readers, Texan.
Fang Fang
Yeah, people who seem to think they can use something like that to win a debate.
They can't!
And a missing word certainly didn't diminish Jasper's well taken point.
Nicely done Sir.
You see, Tess, when a politician is acting as a "impeachment manager" at a Senate trial, he need not invoke the death of his son to enhance/bolster his argument. The subject at hand is far to serious for anything so childish. I'm sure the more naive observer could get caught up in it, but it is obviously the wrong thing to do.
That was the Chinese spy that Swalwell got involved with.
Lol, it comes and it goes
I'm watching Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-USVI). She falsely said that in 2018, the FBI designated The Proud Boys as a terrorist organization.
According to The Guardian (left wing) and The Oregonian (center right) ...
I saw that. Very dramatic.
Liked what she was wearing. I had to take a cold shower.
That had to be the highlight of the day. How much time does the impeachment managers get today? It seems like all day! I guess that's what happens when the Trump team fails on day 1. The moral of the story is get it right from the start!
It was her that made the false claim in 2018.
Well Tess, the thought of impeachment gave democrats a hard on. Is that the only time they aren't angry?
They're domestic terrorists. . . plain and simple .
That is the narrative.
I do have a question for you or anyone capable of an answer - why has the House not used the last few weeks to call witnesses and build the needed case to show intent to incite an insurrection?
[DELETED]
First of all, devining Trump's exact intent is not needed to convict him. He did incite the mob, as dozens of his tweets definitively show. He started inciting even before Nov 3.
You should stop trying to pontificate and start watching the House presentation.
Secondly, my understanding is that they are not calling witnesses because there was so much material even without witnesses, and also that President Biden wants to keep the impeachment relatively short so as to get Congress back to his agenda.
I have a question for you. Why did you think no one could answer your question?
Does anyone agree with that?
I'd say it is essential.
Why did you think no one could answer your question?
Because those in favor of impeachment don't seem to understand that you have to prove intent. Otherwise all that's left is the current rhetoric in speech we see from both sides.
In a criminal court it might be.
There is no mystery about Trump's intention. He wanted his mob to do whatever it took.
You have to prove it!
It is if Senator thinks it is.
ob, as dozens of his tweets definitively show. He started inciting even before Nov 3
This is why the Democrats made a huge mistake claiming that's he guilty of the crime of incitement. It makes it very easy to demonstrate Trump's not guilty of incitment by pointing out the obvious fact that the Supreme Court requires Imminent lawless action.
You seriously believe there is a "both sides" component to what Trump did for the months beginning before the election and through Jan 6th? His constant lying about the election, his urging his followers to "fight " for him, his telling them AFTER it was over that they should remember it forever?
You are not in touch with reality, although I will say that is a common condition among Trump supporters.
No one expects Trump to be convicted , other than by the verdict of history, which will completely crush him and his "movement" , so you can stop trying to be his lawyer. The evidence the House has produced, particularly all those tweets, is devastating to him.
What would you consider proof of intent? Seems to me you would need an email or equivalent where Trump writes: 'I intend for my supporters to storm the Capitol to disrupt the proceedings'.
But others can look at the evidence (especially Trump's actions and lack of actions) and easily see intent. Partisans defending Trump will never 'see' it, but it is blatantly obvious if one is objectively considering the evidence.
I listed some of it for you in Post 6. We had a summer of non-stop violence as blue city mayors had their police departments stand down.
What did our current Vice President say about it?
“They’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop,” she told him. “This is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop. And everyone beware because they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop before Election Day and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And everyone should take note of that. They’re not gonna let up and they should not.”... Kamala Harris
She even funded bail for the rioters.
That's worse than anything you're claiming Trump did!
Something like our vice president said about the BLM riots:
“They’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop,” she told him. “This is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop. And everyone beware because they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop before Election Day and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And everyone should take note of that. They’re not gonna let up and they should not.”
Very specific.
I'm not the one being partisan. Why get personal?
Oh, you didn't mean me.
Based on what you have written, my conclusion is that you are looking at this strictly through partisan eyes. No doubt you disagree. No surprise you disagree. Does not matter that you disagree.
The evidence presented in this trial is damning. I see no way for someone to not see Trump's guilt of inciting his supporters except through partisan filters.
Just so that you are clear on my opinion.
I think I'm looking at it logically. It is not I who is blinded by a hatred of Donald Trump, nor do I have any fear of him running in 2024. Who would that be?
I'm only asking for evidence.
The evidence presented in this trial is damning.
Show me some of it.
As with the first "impeachment" this one goes down on the matter of intent!
They will try to bamboozle everyone. That is their main thing to do.
Democrats don't care about that. This is political theatre. Americans rightfully abhor the riot and they want to tie Trump to it without having to worry about having to legally prove it. Thus they use a legal term like incitement and make a case that doesn't even make the attempt to satisfy the legal requirement for incitement. There's a reason Trump is being charged with "incitement" in a political proceeding and not in a court of Law.
This is all about milking the riot for political advantage, which is fine, since impeachment is a political event. But it's nothing more than that.
Who is they?
Once the word bamboozle enters the conversation, I can only assume it's over.
Wouldnt bother me if it was over. I think we have seen enough misinformation here today.
That's another buzz word.
Or as George Orwell might say misinformation is information.
The impeachment managers overwhelmingly proved that Trump was responsible for everything that happened at the Capitol that day. Did his language at the rally meet the legal definition of "incitement" ? That is for the lawyers and judges to say. That isnt necessary to impeach him though. Trump clearly violated his oath of office. For months and years.
He caused the riot. He is the one who told people to come on the 6th. Without his lies about the election NO ONE would have been there. No one would have believed the election had been "stolen". No one would want to "fight" for him in the halls of Congress. This is not a complicated thing Sean.
Yeah, I know that is what you think.
The trial is going on right now. They have been showing evidence since it started. I do not buy that you have not observed the timeline which synchronizes Trump's actions with the acts of his supporters or the history of Trump's telling his supporters that the election is a fraud, etc.
Well, Vic, what do you think Trump's intent was here? What is the innocent intent that you presume for him given the presented evidence? Is it something like:
Trump really believed (without evidence) that the election was stolen from him. He, as PotUS, was just doing his duty by informing his supporters of the failure in the US electoral system. He, Trump, had no intention of causing his supporters to act on his behalf. He always thought that his multi-month 'fight' oriented language would result in his supporters peacefully working to 'repair' the system for the next election.
Trump, when the insurrection took place, did not really see it as violent. He did not think that the violence was enough for him to take action to protect the Capitol. And when he finally acted, Trump had no idea that his speech included giving aid and comfort to the attackers.
Yeah, Trump is just misunderstood. He really is a great patriot thinking only about the greater good of the nation. He truly did not see the violence that everyone else can see with their two eyes. He is innocent.
Something like that? ⇡
Makes me sick to see people defending Trump no matter what; no matter how obvious his guilt. This is an example of why I am so against partisan thinking.
To my way of thinking Trump expected to win that election. He did warn the states about election laws being changed and as we know the states didn't do much to prevent the changes. So when Trump watched the battleground states go the way they did he got it in his head that people like Marc Elias changed the course of history and he reacted like a petulant child. He didn't even know that Mike Pence had no power to change the election. Trump wanted to hold a rally in which people would voice their dissatisfaction with the way the election went. That's my opinion. Anyone who thinks he incited a riot is also giving an opinion - nothing more.
Something like that?
There must be a reason why you aren't telling where that is from. Ok, let's here it?
Same here!
I was not quoting anyone; I wrote that as an illustration of a potential 'excuse'.
Okay. Lot's of wishful thinking, but, sure, that is possible.
So? There is no evidence (after countless investigations) that this had any effect on the outcome of the election. So it is moot.
His reaction went against facts. His response was to engage in a campaign of lies. The whole point of a campaign is to convince supporters of something. In this case, he sought to convince supporters that he really won and that the election was a fraud. He lied for months using the power and influence of the presidency and thus created a shitload of emotion because he told his supporters that their votes were violated and that their president was stolen from them. Surely you can see how emotive those claims are.
What could possibly go wrong from there ... ?
Then he was incompetent. Really, really simple thing to look up. Indeed, as PotUS, he can snap his fingers and get the best constitutional advice available. 'He did not even know' ... is pretty laughable.
That is why we go with evidence, not with opinion. But for evidence to make any difference people must consider it objectively.
The point is that election laws were changed to benefit Biden/democrats, whether or not there was fraud. I don't know how many times I've said that. An investigation after ballots have been counted is meaningless. The point is that elections need to have the public trust before people cast ballots. There is a lot to be done before the next election, but in Trump's case, it is what he blamed for the loss. If there were no rule changes, he probably wouldn't have thought he was cheated. All the more reason to make sure we don't relive it in 2022.
Surely you can see how emotive those claims are.
Oh, sure I do. That was rhetoric that could inflame the base. Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams did the same thing. As far as I'm concerned the question is - did he intend to start a revolt. I see no evidence of that and I gave some evidence to the contrary - he wanted 10,000 Guardsmen there. If you want to argue that intent is not important, then that means acquittal.
Then he was incompetent.
In the sense of how much power the VP had, sure. He was certainly competent in the positive policies America needed.
'He did not even know' ... is pretty laughable.
Abraham Lincoln initially thought he had to run over to all his cabinet members to deliver instructions personally. It's part of being an outsider. It may be laughable to you but I'll take the novice that serves the nation over the 47 year old pro who knows the ropes and destroys traditional America.
That is why we go with evidence, not with opinion.
That is on you! No witnesses, no interviews, not even a hearing.
But for evidence to make any difference people must consider it objectively.
You have no evidence. When people have no evidence and no argument they resort to claiming "bias"
I have now placed you on ignore. You earned it.
That is bullshit. Trump was talking about the election being fraudulent the entire year. He talked about a rigged election while running in 2016 — up until the point he won. After countless lawsuits and investigations that went nowhere, Trump continued to insist the election was stolen from him. He had no evidence, his allegations were all refuted, yet he continued.
Trump's game is to pretend the election was rigged because his ego cannot deal with losing. He did not have and did not need evidence to engage in his national con job.
This is obvious.
Why not get even more specific and establish an even more impossible question to adjudicate such as: Did Trump intend for people to die during the insurrection? Thing is, that is not the question for this trial. You do not get to formulate the question. The question is whether his actions as PotUS incited violence against the government.
To me, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates his guilt in this matter.
I am saying your excuse does not hold water. Trump would have to be a moron to not know that Pence could not prevent certified electoral votes from being counted. He knew. This is part of the con job. Trump needs no facts, no evidence to engage in his willful con.
They have Trump on video and tweets Vic! The evidence is overwhelming and obvious.
Play whatever silly game you wish. Note that ignore simply prevents you from seeing my rebuttals. Everyone else will.
Does anyone have the answer?
Try asking the question, Papaw.
As our resident wordsmith once said "address me by my name!"
What was the question? "why is Trump a piece of shit?" I think we can answer that.
10.2.4
If you can..