Impeachment the Sequel.

[superdave]

More blood & gore than the original and a bigger body count!

1st president to be impeached twice.

1st president to be impeached for insurrection.

So much winning!

I'm getting tired of witnessing so much history being made.

READ: House article of impeachment against Donald Trump

The US House of Representatives has released its resolution to impeach President Donald Trump, charging him with "incitement of insurrection," an article for which the House is expected to vote on this week.

www.cnn.com

 

[Glurin]

Democrats have lowered the bar on impeachment so much at this point that they could probably impeach you, superdave, for drinking coffee.

Seriously, they impeached him the first time just for being elected. Obama got a peace prize for that. And now this time it's because he said "Hey, show your support.", which every politician in history has said and they arbitrarilly decided was inciting an insurrection just because he's the one who said it this time. (We'll just conveniently ignore all those statements from democrats encouraging rioters all summer long.)

 

[krischan]

I think it's strategically unwise for the Democrats to try an impeachment. If he is impeached, it mainly helps the Republicans, as a means to get rid of him permanently. If it fails, it would be a humiliation for the Democrats.

 

[Glurin]

Not to mention impeaching him like this is only going to make the situation even worse as far as the political divide is concerned. And the Senate has already told them, "Look, even if you ram these charges through the House like a kangaroo court, we don't have the time for an impeachment trial before he leaves office anyway."

The democrats, and the entire nation as well, would be far, far better off if they just let the transfer of power play out like it always has instead of resorting to outright fascist censorship and persecution of their political enemies.

 

[Leopold Stotch]

He NEEDS to be held accountable. Yes, it might seem pointless but SOMETHING needs to be done. Something that says "We will NOT allow this for him or anyone else. You can't incite a riot and get away with it."

Honestly, I don't care if this "further divides" us. We're already divided and I don't see any healing or coming together ANYTIME soon. I'm tired of the GOP just shrugging their shoulders and being like "Okay. This is okay." NO. This is not okay.

 

[Glurin]

Why only him? Why is he the only one who must be "held accountable" for each and every bad thing that anyone remotely connected with his supporters did? Why is Maxine Waters, who declared that her supporters must confront republicans while they are having diner in restaurants, given a free pass? Or Ayanna Pressley, who in the middle of the BLM riots insisted that there needs to be even further unrest? Or Kamala Harris, the incoming Vice President, who said the same thing even as buildings across the nation were turning to ash? Why do these people still have Twitter accounts when Trump is being erased for saying "Hey folks, if you like me come show your support."? Why is that okay?

They are enforcing a double standard, and that is the heart of the problem. You might be able to make an argument for impeachment if everyone else were held to the same standards, but they undeniably are not. It is impossible to look at this whole situation objectively and say this is anything more than political persecution the likes of which have only been previously seen in places like China, North Korea and Soviet Russia.

 

[superdave]

The right sees no difference between an interrupted dinner date and the violent takeover of the nation's Capitol.

 

[Glurin]

Oh yes, because there's certainly nothing inherently wrong or violent about a bunch of angry protesters surrounding and harassing you at the dinner table. Nothing could possibly go wrong there.

 

[superdave]

Not what I said. I said you were equating the 2 and that in itself is disingenuous.

 

[Glurin]

Not what I said. I said you were equating the 2 and that in itself is disingenuous.

Oh? I'm the one equating an actual call to violence with an invitation to a political rally? That's funny, because I'm pretty sure I just pointed out that they are not the same thing when all the major propaganda and social media networks are saying that it is depending on the political affiliations of the person who said it.

 

[superdave]

Your "whatabout" deflections don't hold water.

 

[Glurin]

That would be true if they actually were going to be held to the same standard. But what else am I supposed to think when day after day after day one guy gets hammered with public nuisance citations just for putting up a normal American flag on his lawn, yet nothing happens to the guy just down the street holding full blast rock concerts every night.

Even if we put all that aside, ask yourself honestly if this is the standard you want to have set for impeachment. Regardless of your political leanings.

The president said something completely innocuous and somebody loosely connected to the group it was meant for did something bad, therefore it was a message of hate and violence. Is this really where you want that line drawn? Because if we actually did objectively apply that rule to everyone (you know, equal justice under the law and all that), we'd be going through presidents like they were potato chips. After just a few years there wouldn't be anyone left in the U.S. legally qualified to be president because everyone will have been impeached already.

 

[superdave]

The number 3 Republican in the house, Liz Cheney will vote to impeach. She joins 2 other reps...Katko and Kinzinger.

 

[Glurin]

I thought this was an interesting take on the issue. In summary, Trump's words and actions do not meet the legal threshold for incitement and are protected by the first amendment. However, impeachment is a political solution to a political problem, and therefore can basically be used to remove a president just for being a dick. He doesn't actually have to commit a crime to be impeached.

I still think impeachment is the wrong move and goes to a place we really aught not to, and it doesn't address the outright hypocrisy from most of those seeking impeachment right now. (In fact the hypocrisy could be considered the one of the primary reasons impeachment is the wrong move.) But it was an interesting take nonetheless.

 

[krischan]

We should not forget that this will be a precedence case for future times. Even if you think that Trump deserves an impeachment, next time enough scumbags might imagine up a similar justification. As Glurin said, this is a political issue, not one of justice or despise... and politics is a snakepit in which many if not most are doing whatever they can get away with in order to achieve their goals.

I think an impeachment is due when the involved person would be an unacceptable threat to what he's deciding about, but Trump will be gone soon anyway. If he's going to start something terrible before he's gone, his orders could as well be ignored or delayed.

 

[superdave]

We should not forget that this will be a precedence case for future times. Even if you think that Trump deserves an impeachment, next time enough scumbags might imagine up a similar justification. As Glurin said, this is a political issue, not one of justice or despise... and politics is a snakepit in which many if not most are doing whatever they can get away with in order to achieve their goals.

I think an impeachment is due when the involved person would be an unacceptable threat to what he's deciding about, but Trump will be gone soon anyway. If he's going to start something terrible before he's gone, his orders could as well be ignored or delayed.

There is a very good chance that if he isn't convicted at his impeachment trial, he will run again. Could the country survive 4 more years like 2106-2020?

 

[superdave]

"To allow the President of the United States to incite this attack without consequence is a direct threat to the future of our democracy. For that reason, I cannot sit idly by without taking action. I will vote to impeach this President." Katko (R)

"The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution." Cheney (R)

“There is no doubt in my mind that the President of the United States broke his oath of office and incited this insurrection. He used his position in the Executive to attack the Legislative. So in assessing the articles of impeachment brought before the House, I must consider: if these actions—the Article II branch inciting a deadly insurrection against the Article I branch—are not worthy of impeachment, then what is an impeachable offense?” Kinzinger (R)

 

[superdave]

You know things are going bad when you lose Geraldo....

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1349357867225198595

 

[Glurin]

There is a very good chance that if he isn't convicted at his impeachment trial, he will run again. Could the country survive 4 more years like 2106-2020?

Yes, I've heard this excuse a few times as well. Frankly speaking though, a lot of Trump voters would rather vote for someone else in 2024. The guy was never exactly a model candidate to begin with and basically got elected just because the other choice was Hillary, who was easily one of the most corrupt, self serving, deceitful pieces of garbage ever to serve in public office.

If the election were held today, they'd still vote for Trump. No surprise there. You'd still be giving them the same choice they had in November between a corrupt, senile, perverted puppet and a bully with a dog on his head. But yeah, I know it's a lot to ask, but in 2024, can we please, please get somebody worth voting for rather than someone we'll take by default.

 

[superdave]

It's official. Trump has been impeached a 2nd time in a bi-partisan vote. 10 Republicans side with every dem in the house.