House Votes To Impeach President Trump a Historic Second Time (nytimes.com) 557
A House majority, including several Republicans, on Wednesday voted to impeach President Trump for "incitement of insurrection." The New York Times reports: The House had enough votes on Wednesday to impeach President Trump for inciting a violent insurrection against the United States government, as more than a half-dozen members of the president's party joined Democrats to charge him with high crimes and misdemeanors for an unprecedented second time. Reconvening under the threat of continued violence and the protection of thousands of National Guard troops, the House was determined to hold Mr. Trump to account just one week before he was to leave office. At issue was his role in encouraging a mob that attacked the Capitol one week ago while Congress met to affirm President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s victory, forcing lawmakers to flee for their lives in a deadly rampage.
The House put forward and was on the brink of adopting a single article of impeachment, charging Mr. Trump with "inciting violence against the government of the United States" and requesting his immediate removal from office and disqualification from ever holding one again. [...] The vote, which was still underway, set the stage for the second Senate trial of Mr. Trump in a year, though senators appeared unlikely to convene to sit in judgment before Jan. 20, when Mr. Biden will take the oath of office. The last proceeding, over Mr. Trump's attempts to pressure Ukraine to smear Mr. Biden, was a partisan affair. [...]
This time, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, was said to support the effort as a means of purging his party of Mr. Trump, setting up a political and constitutional showdown that could shape the course of American politics when the nation remains dangerously divided. [McConnell said he would not agree to use emergency powers to bring the Senate back into session for a trial before Jan. 19.] The House's vote was historic. Only two other presidents have been impeached; none has been impeached twice, by such a large bipartisan margin, or so close to leaving office.
The House put forward and was on the brink of adopting a single article of impeachment, charging Mr. Trump with "inciting violence against the government of the United States" and requesting his immediate removal from office and disqualification from ever holding one again. [...] The vote, which was still underway, set the stage for the second Senate trial of Mr. Trump in a year, though senators appeared unlikely to convene to sit in judgment before Jan. 20, when Mr. Biden will take the oath of office. The last proceeding, over Mr. Trump's attempts to pressure Ukraine to smear Mr. Biden, was a partisan affair. [...]
This time, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, was said to support the effort as a means of purging his party of Mr. Trump, setting up a political and constitutional showdown that could shape the course of American politics when the nation remains dangerously divided. [McConnell said he would not agree to use emergency powers to bring the Senate back into session for a trial before Jan. 19.] The House's vote was historic. Only two other presidents have been impeached; none has been impeached twice, by such a large bipartisan margin, or so close to leaving office.
Rumor is McConnell will convict (Score:5, Interesting)
At first I thought it would split the Republican party to force a vote, but McConnel doesn't seem to think so, and he's political instincts are way, way better than mine, so I'm guessing he's right.
Re:Rumor is McConnell will convict (Score:5, Informative)
McConnel's just pissed off that some of his Republican buddies have been taking massive financial hits as their corporate sponsors pull funding from them for being shitbirds and inciting insurrection. Two days ago he was saying impeachment would be a horrible idea. Suddenly, after a day and a half of fundraising being dropped by the massive corporate sponsors for some other Republicans, it's suddenly a great idea.
It just goes to show you what really matters to the Republican party. This isn't about ethics or morality. It's about money. Purely and simply.
Re:Rumor is McConnell will convict (Score:4, Insightful)
McConnel's just pissed off that some of his Republican buddies have been taking massive financial hits as their corporate sponsors pull funding from them for being shitbirds and inciting insurrection.
That and the fact that McConnell doesn't need Trump anymore. He's gotten everything he wanted: 3 Supreme Court placements, numerous federal court placements, tax cuts, etc... Besides, McConnell is turning 78 soon and was just re-elected to another 6-year term. Chances are he won't run again at 84.
The real reason for these actions: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
How exactly would it turn it all over to Trump? If the Senate votes to remove the Trump then he would no longer be eligible to run for re-election of any Federal post. He could endorse one of his kids I suppose but I'm not sure if all 72+ million voters that voted for Trump in 2020 would support one of his kids.
Re:The party, not the presidency. (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean how much of the Reagan presidency was some high level Republicans, particularly in the last term? Oddly enough, the Constitution doesn't state how a President may perform his duties. His cabinet can be as powerful or as weak as he chooses. It can by Reagan, where the power lay with a few advisors and cabinet members; a sort of brokerage presidency. Or it can be a strong centralized presidency like Obama's. Even if Biden ends up being a bit of a Reagan, well, is that such a bad thing? Having Trump trying to be all things to all people, with no ability to do so, and no apparent capacity to even understand the job description, gave the US a government of stunning incompetence. Government by Tweets is no way to run a modern democracy. It would have been better for all concerned if it were more like the George W Bush presidency, a figurehead president with the VP and cabinet far more deeply involved in the decisions. Yes, it might mean some bad policies were put into play, but it would also have been more rational.
Re:Not even Republicans are that dumb (Score:4, Funny)
Now that's a niche 3-way I'd pay money not to see: Don Jr, Pence and Cruz
Re: (Score:3)
You really think Trump was anti-corporation? Part of the implicit deal between Trump and the GOP was that he'd allow them to give the moneyed interest everything they wanted. It's telling that the only major piece of legislation that got through under Trump was a major corporate tax cut.
Like him or not, Trump is going to be dead or disabled sooner rather than later. Maybe not 5 years from now, but probably in 10. The question is not whether the GOP moves on from Trump. The question is how.
Re:Not even Republicans are that dumb (Score:4, Interesting)
The history of former President third party runs doesn't exactly suggest Trump will have much success. He may, if he or a proxy if he can't run, peel off enough Republican support to kill a 2024 bid, but generally incumbent Presidents win their second term. I suspect, reasonably, the Republicans doubt they have high odds of winning back the White House in 2024 even under the most optimal circumstances. But they have, and can still play the longer game. Weathering a period of Republican anger over Trump's trial, possible disqualification and any role Republican lawmakers will play in that will be rather old news in eight years. The idea that a man who is now 72 years old will still exert that much influence over the Republican party in even four or six years is absurd.
The Republicans will go through a period of disarray. The knives will come out, and I wouldn't want to be guys like Hawley and Cruz, who are likely going to lose those valuable big donors. But the Republicans will be back in one way or another in 2024, when the Senate will be fairly ripe picking. A few dedicated Trump cultists may vote for some Trumpian third party, but the bulk of Republicans will return to the fold. It's wishful thinking to imagine that Trump is so vast and so powerful that even as a much older man he will play kingmaker are drastically overstated. The donors won't want anything to do with him or his children, and they'll make that known by closing their wallets for any of their bids. The Mercers may be rich, but they can't overawe the deep pockets of other big money donors. Friendly media like Fox News will change the channel, having no desire to chain themselves to a man who has no chance of winning any future election, and they'll simply plant their flag with the next Republican candidate who they think stands a fighting chance of winning the White House.
Trump will be a notable, even remarkable foot note in history in eight years, but he'll still be a footnote.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It would clear Trump out of the party.
That is so far from true, it's not even funny.
Conviction would mean the end of the Republican Party, and turn everything over to Trump, the few Republicans remaining in the old system could convert to the Democrats they truly are.
That's not even necessary. If Trump plays his cards right and retains the fanatical loyalty of enough of the Republican base he can play kingmaker in the Republican Party until he dies. Every aspiring Republican presidential candidate or senate house candidate, especially in the handful of states whose votes actually matter in US elections, will have to kowtow to him and lick his boots. The Republicans are already only winning elections with the votes of angry white people, to a large extent angry old white
Re:Rumor is McConnell will convict (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a lot of Democrats would feel a lot better with the Trump elements purged from the GOP, even if it costs them their majorities. If the deal is lose to the Republicans in 2022, but the Republicans return to McCain style leadership, I think there are a lot of Democrats that would take that deal.
Re:Rumor is McConnell will convict (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, stuff works better when political leaders are statesmen and politics is a matter of reasoned debate and cooperation among people with differing viewpoints.
Football is fun and all, but it's kind of nice that nothing important depends on the outcome.
Trump went too far (Score:3, Insightful)
The Dems are thinking longer term than the Mid Terms. The GOP, for their party, are happy to let it all burn as long as they hold money and power. That's the real problem, and I don't know a solution for it.
That said, give everybody $2k, fix the Pandemic and maybe legalize weed and the economy
Re: (Score:3)
The solution is simple - abolish the electoral college.
Re:Trump went too far (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution is simple - abolish the electoral college.
The Electoral College is mandated by the Constitution.
Amending the Constitution requires the approval of 75% of state legislatures.
Since most states (but not most citizens) benefit from the Electoral College, that chance of that happening is 0%.
Re: (Score:3)
They need to figure out how to appeal to working-class people in Midwestern states.
They need to figure out how to combat Republican attacks on the education system first, because those people have overwhelmingly fallen for false promises and bullshit rhetoric. Republicans keep promising them the moon, and then delivering a turd, and they keep voting for them. It's hard to see anything positive in that for anyone who wants to operate in reality.
Re: (Score:3)
The participating states have agreed to pledge their EC votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote
Small states, with a disproportionate share of the EC votes, have no reason to support this, and won't.
Your link shows a map of states that have joined the compact. They are all blue. Not a single red state. Not a single purple state.
It would go into effect once states representing a majority of the EC have signed on to the compact.
I.e.: Never.
Re:Trump went too far (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no idea why the Democrats did not make this a campaign issue.
This election was a referendum on Trump. Biden just had to act like an adult. Raising side issues, especially controversial issues that won't help with swing voters, was not part of the strategy.
This would play so well: die-hard Republicans would see it as a states-rights issue.
In theory, this makes sense. In practice, Republicans only care about "states' rights" when it helps them push their agenda.
Re: (Score:3)
Does anyone know why this is a controversial issue? I get that gun control or abortion are highly controversial, but weed?
It's controversial because Republicans have spent decades telling their followers lies about how bad it is supposed to be. Some of them have incorporated those lies into their identity. Many of those people suck down beer like they're a bottling facility, and then talk about how those n-words are always smoking that shit and that's why [insert racist trope here]. I've literally heard 'em.
Re:Rumor is McConnell will convict (Score:5, Informative)
As someone in the oil industry, I can assure you that the price of gasoline circa 2010 had next to nothing to do with any Democratic policy. It was the result of supply not catching up to the economic rebound from the great recession. Prior to the rise of hydraulic fracturing, it took years for new oil projects to come online. Many of the projects that would have come online in 2010-2014 were cancelled in 2008 due to the great recession. But even before the recession, supplies were already constrained. Oil hit its all time high of around $140 a barrel during the waning years of the Bush administration (immediately before the bottom fell out of the economy).
The 2014 price crash happened under a Democratic administration and despite a generally unfavorable regulatory climate. What bailed out consumers was the rapid ramp up of fracking and its application to liquids (not just gas). The U.S. went from producing around 4 million barrels a day to producing 13 million in about 5 years. The Democrats actually drove prices down further with the Iran nuclear deal, which brought a few million extra barrels a day onto the global market.
Re:Rumor is McConnell will convict (Score:4, Insightful)
You do know that Slow Joe wants to ban fracking, right?
Different oil industry person here. Yeah good. It's a horrible process. Yay it made your petrol cheap, but it's not a good thing by any means environmentally and the cheap supply of hydrocarbons into the economy is only further delaying any interest in the world doing anything about it.
Cheap oil is the reason the USA is so horrendously wasteful with it, and one of the reasons emissions per capita in the USA are the second worst in the western world beaten only by Australia which has a hardon for coal, and that gap is closing as even Australia is bringing its emissions downs.
Just because you're in an industry doesn't mean you need to support some of the horrible things it does.
Burying the news (Score:3, Funny)
This was only done to bury the news about the UKs nuclear space ship. Wake up sheeple!
Re:Burying the news (Score:5, Funny)
Win-win for the Republicans (Score:4, Interesting)
I expect this to fly through the Senate.
Elections are over so no one is immediately threatened. The GOP gets a clean break from Trumpmania and they can dissociate themselves from the Trump stain. Pence gets to be POTUS for the day, demonstrating calm and reasonableness with facetime on media everywhere all aiming for 2024. Pence pardons Trump and Trump won't have to try out the legally dubious Self-Pardon theory. From a GOP perspective, what is not to like here?
The Democrats are giving the GOP a gift.
Not JUST the coup attempt (Score:5, Insightful)
And don't forgot the pressure-packed "perfect call" to Georgia officials to somehow "find extra votes". Same pattern as the mafia-like Ukraine call.
The a-hole is a loose cannon.
Re: (Score:3)
On the plus side Trump has finally got more votes then a Clinton.
Practical effect? (Score:4, Interesting)
European here, so I am not aware of the details of the process.
If I understand correctly, they have said that the impeachment will not be resolved before Jan 20th. But the goal of the impeachment is to remove Trump from presidency, and he will not be President by then.
Therefore, is this process purely symbolic, or does it have an actual, legal effect during this week? (Thanks in advance!)
Re:Practical effect? (Score:5, Informative)
If the impeachment leads to a conviction, they can also vote to revoke his pension, travel allowance, secret service protection, and have him barred for life from holding federal office. But really, it's mostly symbolic.
Re:Practical effect? (Score:5, Informative)
They can also revoke his access to classified security briefings.
I would think that would be a priority.
Nobody is going to tell Trump anything useful (Score:3)
Re:Practical effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the impeachment leads to a conviction, they can also vote to revoke his pension, travel allowance, secret service protection, and have him barred for life from holding federal office. But really, it's mostly symbolic.
I disagree that this is all symbolic. If we just ignore what Trump has done then it tells all future presidents that they can go ahead and lie, cheat, and attempt an overthrow of the government if they lose and the worst that will happen is that they walk away with a pension, a travel budget, and a secret service detail for life. He needs to be held accountable so that others know that such activities can cost you everything.
More than Symbollic (Score:3)
But really, it's mostly symbolic.
Given that he has indicated that he wants to run for president again I would say that barring him from holding US federal office would be a very practical effect of convicting him. If that fails then the papers here in Canada have been reporting that the US Congress can still achieve the same effect using the 14th amendment of the US constitution which bars those who have committed "insurrection" from holding office. All they need to do this is to pass a law to declare Trump's actions as insurrection and,
Re:Practical effect? (Score:5, Informative)
It means Trump can't run for President again, or for that matter "hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States" as per the Constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
The only problem being that the Presidency isn't [ssrn.com] an "Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States", nor are any other elected offices (like Senator, for example). That's why in the 14th amendment, the authors were careful to also list additional offices like "a Senator or Representative in Congress" to the list.
So they can disqualify him from being a federal judge, or a cabinet member, or from leading a federal agency, etc... and they can take away his pension, but that's it. The people are not
Re: (Score:3)
There are two parts to the impeachment. The first requires a 2/3 and is the conviction. If that passes there is another that requires a majority that bans him from serving public office ever again.
Politics (Score:4, Insightful)
>"A House majority, including several Republicans, on Wednesday voted to impeach President Trump for "incitement of insurrection."
Nothing says "incitement of insurrection" quite like telling people at a speech, right before, that they should go protest "peacefully" (which is what he said). He said a lot of nonsense, but nothing that was incitement of insurrection or the use of violence.
Re:Politics (Score:5, Informative)
"...and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore" is most certainly a manipulative emotional appeal to base human instincts of fear and survival. Knowing (as Trump certainly did) that many in the crowd were armed, saying that at the very end of his long and rambling speech full of emotional rhetoric was about the equivalent of tossing a lit match carelessly on a pile he had just doused with gasoline. Whether he was self-aware of what he was doing, is debatable. But intention means nothing - the behavior is what counts. Push the red button, and expect big shit to happen - it doesn't take a brain surgeon to know this.
Re: (Score:3)
So when he is acquitted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If nothing else, Ajit Pai won't be back.
Re:New for Nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Slashdot established a pass for "Oh Shit!" non-Nerd news when it was one of the few news outlets to stay up during 9/11.
I argue that a presidential impeachment as a reaction to an insurrection fits that category.
It's just that we're getting older (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's just that we're getting older (Score:4, Interesting)
Great point. Such a great one, I went to the Slashdot Hall of Fame for the first time in years to see what have been the most active stories. (https://slashdot.org/hof.shtml)
Most Active Stories of All Time
5687 Kerry Concedes Election To Bush by timothy
4183 Strike on Iraq by CmdrTaco
3709 Barack Obama Wins US Presidency by CmdrTaco
3468 Six Bomb Blasts Around Central London by Zonk
3451 Equal Time For Creationism by Zonk
3360 Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
3315 The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design by Hemos
3314 Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco
3265 Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion by CmdrTaco
3212 What's Keeping You On Windows? by Cliff
Lots of important current events there.
Re: (Score:3)
We should bring back OMG ponies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:New for Nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
At this point, this article is just another venue for bone-hard, Trumped-up retards to vomit up the same limp and/or delusional defenses of Dear Leader. At least the other articles on the social media response had a tech dimension to them.
The results of this impeachment business should be no mystery to anyone who's been paying attention. Last go-around there was only 1 Republican senator to break the picket line, this time we may get a whole 3 or 4 of them. Too risky for them politically. They've spent deca
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you think Trump is using tin cans with strings to talk to his millions of fanatical followers? Would that be low-tech enough for you?
Maybe if you have nothing to say, you could just say nothing? Or is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to act like a fool in public?
Make that "was using". In the future, it's fine with me if Trump is using tin cans with strings.
How about for soliciting election fraud? (Score:5, Insightful)
They should have impeached Trump for that phone call to Georgia. He was asking for a criminal favor.
McConnell has said he'll drag out the Senate trial (Score:5, Informative)
Let's list some odds and ends out:
1. The terrorists who stormed the building found Rep Clyburns unmarked office.
2. One of the Reps has said that her colluegues were giving "tours" to people she believes were with the terrorists.
3. A GOP Rep live tweeted Nancy Pelsoi's whereabouts.
4. Armed men with Zip ties were looking for hostages, likely to execute them in order to force run off elections and/or replacements.
5. AOC apparently had a run in with one of the less violent terrorists, fearing for her life at one point.
6. They were chanting "Hang Mike Pence!" and built a gallows.
7. Trump refused to call out the guard (Pence eventually did, after the Capital had fallen). There's every indication the GOP helped block additional police presence, leaving them completely unmanned.
On and on and on and on. There was not choice at this point. It was a violent coup attempt. And the more we learn about it the clearer that is.
The question is will the Republicans tell McConnell to F*** off when the Dems take the Senate and force a vote and impeach Trump, or will they let McConnell drag this out for political reasons?
I'm guessing the latter. What's amazing is the number of people here on
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is making apologies for the violent people. I just don't blame Trump for the actions of a few violent people. I've read the transcript of Trump's speech and found NO calls for violence. In fact, Trump specifically tells the large crowd of mostly peaceful protesters to PEACEFULLY march to the capital.
Is Bernie Sanders responsible for James T. Hodgkinson showing up at a Republican baseball practice with a semi-automatic weapon firing close to 200 shots, shooting five people and almost killing Steve Scalise?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The riot was the culmination of well over 2 months of election denial, and that's only if we are going back to Nov 3rd.
We could have a discussion that this started far, far earlier.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump told his followers to "stop the steal". "Steal" is what he chose to call the counting of valid electoral votes for his opponent, so the practical meaning of his call was "stop the legal process of certifying the next president".
Now if he said "protest the steal", that would be legally OK, free speech allows you to protest anything you want. But he said "STOP the steal", i.e. prevent it from happening. That is an explicit call for insurrection against the legal processes of the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Is he going to care about their political life? In GA elections he constantly diverted the attention from the race to himself. They all know Trump does not care about them and they will be thrown in the dumpster. He has realized he has the po
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Much of this is nonsense. For example, did Trump interrupt his speech in order to "refuse to call out the national guard"?
Miles away, the capitol was breached 20 minutes before Trump even finished his speech. I doubt they interrupted his speech ahead of time for someone to ask him about the national guard.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget:
8. Multiple panic buttons were removed [thehill.com] from at least one Congress member's office suite previous to the attack, where that particular member has been a particular ass-pain for conservatives over the last 2+ years.
Re: (Score:3)
No way they can have anything like a proper trial before the 20th. But I think they can have the trial later on with McConnell reduced to obstructionist leader of the minority. (Time to kill the filibuster rule altogether?)
Impeachment is not a proper trial. And this cuts both ways.
During the previous impeachment Republicans simply refused to allow witnesses which would have been unthinkable in any real trial. Now it's the other way around: Democrats don't feel like dragging the process.
Re:McConnell has said he'll drag out the Senate tr (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
During the previous impeachment Republicans simply refused to allow witnesses which would have been unthinkable in any real trial.
At the risk of inciting the mob against me, I must point out it's not the Senate's place to hear witness testimony. That is the function of the House, not the Senate. It's the House's job to gather all the evidence and testimony for presentation to the Senate. The Senate deliberates on said evidence and testimony and pronounces judgement. That is how impeachment works. Go look it up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At the risk of inciting the mob against me, I must point out it's not the Senate's place to hear witness testimony.
Senate Republicans simply refused to hear witnesses that the House requested.
Re: (Score:3)
LOL
That's like saying it's not the jury's place to hear witness testimony. The House determines if the "trial" should be held; the Senate, in a form, conducts the trial. Senators serve as jurors and it is absolutely their "place to hear witness testimony". Go look it up.
"The Senate deliberates on said evidence and testimony and pronounces judgement. "
Should point out that you immediately contradicted your only point. Yes, the The Senate deliberates on testimony, hard to do that without hearing it. Now,
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans won't be able to block witnesses this time, because they won't be in the majority. They can thank the current Majority Leader for being an ass and delaying this thing until it means that there wouldn't be a removal from office on a guilty vote.
McConnell saw this as an opportunity to try to fuck the Biden administration on day 1 by logjamming all his nominees for cabinet positions behind this trial and refusing to bring back the Senate to deal with either this or confirmation hearings before the
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt that ranked preference voting is the best solution approach. I see the dynamics somewhat differently. The bulk of the voters have always been in the middle, but there used to be competition to get your candidate as close to the middle as possible. That did result in more moderate politicians who were able to do good faith negotiating and reach compromises in the middle.
Around the time of Reagan the dynamics started changing. The right wing seemed to decide that the best way to get what they wanted w
The point of impeachment is to get the GOP (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The point of impeachment is to get the GOP (Score:5, Insightful)
on record as either pro Trump or anti-Trump.
The point of impeachment is to deter political leaders from trying to overturn elections and inspire insurrections.
Re:McConnell has said he'll drag out the Senate tr (Score:5, Interesting)
Senate has already adjourned. It was known before the vote that the senate will not take this up until after the inauguration.
Yeah... this is a bothersome thing. It calls for a constitutional amendment of something like "The Senate shall make provisions to ensure that a delivery of articles of impeachment and correspondence from the president and the house will be accepted at all times, and regardless of any previous decision to adjourn the Senate shall nevertheless reconvene within 24 hours or the earliest possible time after being presented with
articles of impeachment, and shall remain convened and never adjourn or recess until after a final vote to accept any and all Articles of Impeachment or confirmation of Nominations from the president, or other urgent matters, that had been delivered in correspondence."
Re: (Score:3)
That supposes that the President has the emotional capacity to be chastened, shamed, "learn his lesson", show contrition, or in any way made to feel bad about what he did. Amble evidence to date suggests he has no such capacity. I am no psychiatrist, but that lack looks to me like some sort of pathology.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, Trump does hold the record for the most legitimate votes in a US Presidential election.
Seems you're a little short on evidence, there, bro.
Re: (Score:3)
You're assuming that the votes for biden are not legitimate and the votes for trump are.
For now trump is second unless proven otherwise.
The fact that both candidates received more votes than any previous candidate is still an important fact to consider.
Re: McConnell has said he'll drag out the Senate t (Score:3)
With Republican members of congress literally afraid of physical violence from Trump supporters if they voted for impeachment, what else would you call it?
FYI - Stormtroopers (Score:5, Insightful)
Just FYI, the administration offered National Guard support three days before the event, and again in the day of the event. The chief of the Capitol Police has stated on the record that he wanted that backup, and asked the Congressional Sargeants at Arm's to authorize it (the Capitol building is controlled by Congress, with security handled by the Sargeant at Arms).
Twice the Sargeant at Arms refused to allow the National Guard onto the property.
The Sargeant at Arms boss called the National Guard "stormtroopers" (N@zis) and said these "stormtroopers" shouldn't be allowed near a protest. That boss who called them stormtroopers is named Nancy Pelosi.
Re: (Score:3)
The reply, if you hadn't noticed, was from slivergun, not silvergun.
He's a psychotic stalker whose life is so utterly pathetic that he has nothing better to do than stalk silvergun.
Re: (Score:3)
The people participating in this were radicalized conspiracy theorists, white nationalists, and extremists. Critical thinking isn't a strong point for these guys. The rally that gathered them all in a park 1.5 miles from the Capitol had the goal of keeping Trump in power despite election results that compel him to pack his shit and get out. They heard the President of the United States, his lawyer, and a sitting member of Congress tell them to fight "or they wouldn't have a country anymore" after hearing
They did (Score:3)
His call Georgia is included in the articles of impeachment [congress.gov]. They didn't split it out as a separate article, instead lumping it in with his incitement to insurrection, which has pros and cons.
Re:How about for soliciting election fraud? (Score:5, Insightful)
They should have impeached him for at least obstruction of justice after the Mueller report found that he definitely did so, and also did not exonerate him from collusion with Russia (insufficient evidence). The Democrats did not think it is good politically to do so.
So he got emboldened, and called Ukraine to announce an investigation of Joe Biden. He got cleared by the Republicans, who did not even hear witnesses.
So he got more aggressive and pressured state legislature after he found that he is losing. Again, no consequence, so we had that call to Raffensperger, which was luckily recorded and leaked. If it was not, then it would be yet again one of his repeated lies that he denies as fake news or witch hunt or whatever.
And all that brought us to the storming of the US Capitol ...
Re:Politicians (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, and what did he lie about, getting a blowjob from an intern, which has NEVER been used to impeach a President before.
When do Republicans get impeached for? Attempting to use the CIA to subvert an election (Nixon) or Attempting to use the GRU to subvert an election (TRump) or attempting to incite an angry mob to murder the Vice President and hold Congress hostage (trump)...
Where are your fucking priorities to think that Clinton's impeachment was anywhere close to the evil that gopers have been caught at?
Re:Politicians (Score:4, Informative)
Andrew Johnson, impeached for firing an insubordinant cabinet member, and the cabinet had been in open revolt against Johnson. Several attempts had been made prior to get a resolution of impeachment against him which failed multiple times until finally one stuck. Essentially the radical Republican wing were pissed off that the vice president was a moderate from the south. (radical meaning the wing that was the most opposed to slavery and the most willing to go to war over the issue and had to most desire to punish the south during reconstruction)
Re:Politicians (Score:4, Informative)
Well, truth is nobody in Congress particularly liked Johnson, and his ass was saved by a single vote. Lincoln had brought him in as part of a National Ticket, as a friendly gestures he hoped would aid Reconstruction. Obviously nobody expected Lincoln to be assassinated, least of all Lincoln, so it was meant as more of a gesture of reconciliation than with any idea that Johnson would end up being President.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Politicians (Score:5, Informative)
Many Presidents (FDR and Eisenhower for example) employed their lovers in their administrations, in full view of the press, who simply ignored it
Never is a relevant term to use
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In France I think "President's Mistress" is an official position with an office and staff and budget and residence. Or once was.
If I recall correctly, Clinton's lie was the Lawyer's Omission. He asked for a definition of "sexual relations" in the context of the question. They defined the term "sexual relations" in the question in such a way that their activities were not specifically included. Being a lawyer he told the literal narrow truth, but the answer was misleading in the common usage. It has become
Re: (Score:3)
Reagan is the poster-boy for 'I cannot recall', but he may have had dementia at the time
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno, I think about getting blowjobs a lot.
Re:No one is perfect. No whataboutism! (Score:5, Insightful)
I only wish. I know a few otherwise intelligent people who have chugged the koolaid and remain convinced that the riot was a false-flag operation by the corrupt conspiracy of powers-that-be, who have now tipped their hand and revealed their existence because they were so well played by the 4D chessmaster.
Honestly, I've never before encountered such a powerful widespread delusion short of (arguably) organized religion itself. It's almost enough to make me consider the possibility of demonic intervention.
Re: (Score:3)
As a counterpoint to that, lying under oath to Congress is almost never punished. In recent history, we've seen a parade of people lying under oath to Congress, sometimes quite provably, and nothing happens to them.
Of course, lying under oath to Congress is not relevant to Bill Clinton's impeachment. He was impeached for lying under oath before a grand jury in a civil case. He never testified before either house of Congress in relation to his impeachment.
Aside from perjury to Congress almost never being pun
Re:Politicians (Score:5, Insightful)
There's laws, and then there's the Constitution. Clinton violated the former, Trump the latter.
Trump incited a riot, then directed a group of armed insurgents to overthrow a peaceful transition of power. They attempted to do so violently. That's sedition, and a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States.
The president deserves impeachment, removal, banishment from public office, and full loss of public benefits. Anything less is an insult to our nation, its founding fathers, and those who fought for it and died defending it.
Re: (Score:3)
Context? What's that?
Here, have some:
https://www.justsecurity.org/7... [justsecurity.org]
https://twitter.com/ariehkovle... [twitter.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And after it all started, he sat back and watched. It was hours before he issued the tepid calls to go home:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
"we will stop the steal"
By "steal" he means the legal certification of electoral votes. He was calling on his followers to somehow prevent that legal process from happening. His followers were on the outside of the capitol, the electoral votes were on the inside. So in order to prevent the "steal" from happening, his follower had to invade the capitol.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought his exact words were "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." If you propose to start a riot, telling people to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" is odd language to use.
Let's think about this a little bit. You're telling your supporters that the election was fraudulent, that the lawmakers are about to certify an illegitimate President, and that the current Vice-President has the authority to fix it, but doesn't have the courage to. So all of you should go there and do something about it. But peacefully. To the people who supposedly are already ignoring the voice of the people, as in, their actual votes.
If any of his claims had any weight behind them, a violent revolution w
The limits of pardons breaking the 5th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you see any mumbling around here? Me neither.
I think one of the best reasons to impeach Trump now is that it confuses him about who to pardon and what for.
Obviously Trump wants to use the pardon to placate the potential witnesses against him, but once he pardons them they have no ability to invoke the 5th Amendment. No pardon for past actions can protect anyone against future perjury, and any or all of the pardoned witnesses to his crimes can be forced to testify under oath. Yeah, I know that a lot of his minions and insane and fanatical followers will be quite willing to perjure themselves to protect Trump, but not ALL of them, so the truth is going to come out and Trump is NOT going to come out smelling like a rose.
Meanwhile, the impeachment basically negates the crazy idea of the self-pardon. The trial triggered by impeachment has no relationship to normal judicial process and there is no way the self-pardon will protect Trump.
Having said that, I rather dislike the unpleasant idea of a LONG and PROPER impeachment trial. In theory the Senate can do two things (or even more) at the same time. That means they could be gathering impeachment evidence in committee for a long time before a relatively short trial. No matter what outcome the trial has, there is a lot of value in the truth. At least that's my "scientific" bias. (Though the "scientific" evidence is that the Senate can do ZERO things for LONG periods of time. Hail McConnell of the Do-Nothing Senate.)
But in the end I suspect they may wind up negotiating some kind of weird compromise. Maybe the permanent disqualification under the 14th Amendment? But I hope it is only AFTER everyone has seen and understood the truth about the problems of electing a truly and extremely malignant narcissist and con artist to the presidency. That's the real problem that needs to be addressed.
In conclusion, I want to report election fraud. My district has been so jiggered that I have NO representative in the House of so-called Representatives. Doesn't matter who I vote for or who I donate money to. If there is any threat he just gerrymanders it some more. The REAL election fraud takes place in the "sacrificial" districts where the "enemy" voters are heavily concentrated to effectively cancel as many of their votes as possible. Only constraint is picking enough "friendly" voters for their own districts to make sure they keep getting reelected. (By the way, my FAKE representative is one of the richest bastards in a House of Bastards and he made most of his money from rightwing talk radio stations.)
Re:The limits of pardons breaking the 5th Amendmen (Score:4, Interesting)
Meanwhile, the impeachment basically negates the crazy idea of the self-pardon.
Not even that. The Constitution explicitly excludes Impeachment from the list of pardonable offenses. Article 2 Section 2 Clause 1:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow BeauHD that didn't take long. And how is this "news for nerds"???
Because 2/3rds of the nerds on this forum are American and this affects them.
Re:If at first you don't succeed... (Score:5, Insightful)
As Mark Twain said once: "it's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." There are people who can never admit that they are wrong under any circumstances, because it would be too much blow to their self-esteem. I think such people form the core of the Trump cult, and like with any other cult, the more efforts they invest in certain beliefs, the more difficult for them to alter those beliefs. Moreover, when they are exposed to information that clearly challenges their beliefs, they often strengthen their original belief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:House Votes Without Evidence To Impeach Trump (Score:5, Informative)
I mean, the evidence was televised.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, the impeachment in the House is an indictment not a trial. The trial takes place in the Senate and that's where evidence would be introduced.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the people with a vote got to watch a lot of it in person.
Re: (Score:3)
The House does not conduct a trial. That is the job of the Senate. Impeachment is essentially the same as an indictment. They don't have to present any evidence, they simply need to feel they have enough evidence to present at the trial to secure conviction.
Now, a rogue jury (in this case republican senators) can (and as shown have) refused to consider the evidence on its merits during the trial. But that's a separate issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And what exactly is there to relitigate here? The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power to impeach. It doesn't put limits on it, or make any requirements other than "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", which is in fact straight out of English Common Law, when in England, prior to the far finer instrument of Parliament revoking Confidence in the King's government, was the only way they could go after officers of the Crown. Since no definition is given, and since the Framers explicitly understo