The Trump Impeachment Thread

  • Thread starter Dotini
  • 2,103 comments
  • 84,596 views

Will the current Articles of Impeachment ever be sent from the House to the Senate?


  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
Remember was neoconservatism was all the rage, and we were wailing about how terrible they were? They hardly even exist anymore. I was going to call Mike Lee a neocon but I think he's more of a tea partier-turned-Trumpist. I really don't even know what to call the Republican movement going on currently besides Trumpian, anti-American, traitorous, I really don't know. Have we developed a name for it yet? The entire tea party movement doesn't exist anymore either. This new stuff has all developed during Trump's time in office.

Diet Fascism.

But Mike Lee is a Tea Party Republican that completely forgot what it means. On some level, I can appreciate the Tea Party, but they got so lost along the way that instead of being the "Taxed Enough Already" party, they became the "Those Who Pay Me Are Taxed Too Much" Party.
 
Yeah and Hitler actually did go to prison after the Beer Hall Putsch so I guess the analogies with Trump stop there...
Not only that but as @Biggles succinctly put it...

I think you've got to have decent beer to call it a putsch.

---
There's no way Trump's "base" is going to desert him IMO. However, there is hope that enough fence sitters will be disgusted by Trump's actions after the November election that Democrats will pick up, rather than lose seats in the House in the mid-terms. It may be that they can also pick up two or three Senate seats - not enough to decisively switch control away from Republicans, but enough to convince Republicans to abandon the Trump train for good.
If losing an election and control of both houses didn't convince them to abandon the train, I'm not sure what will other than widespread depletion of his MAGA base. I'm not sure whether they're scared of the personal threats made by Trumpers towards them and their families or just greedy for the power afforded them by presiding over such a supposedly large swathe of people whose voting intentions seem to be tied into whether or not their candidate bends the knee to Uncle Scam.

taco-girl-article.png

---
One thing we may (perhaps likely) see out of all of this is more right-wing terrorist activity from people who feel that their only recourse is to go shoot up a football game or school.
Should something like this happen (and I'm praying my atheist arse off that it doesn't) I'm willing to bet that it'll be defended on social media with "YeAh BuT bLm..."
 
Last edited:
If losing an election and control of both houses didn't convince them to abandon the train, I'm not sure what will other than widespread depletion of his MAGA base. I'm not sure whether they're scared of the personal threats made by Trumpers towards them and their families or just greedy for the power afforded them by presiding over such a supposedly large swathe of people whose voting intentions seem to be tied into whether or not their candidate bends the knee to Uncle Scam.

The loss of the Senate was significant, but it wasn't as decisive as it might have been .. & the GOP actually picked up seats in the House, so it's not a powerful enough message to override their fear of Trump. I think they are scared of Trump's influence over the deplorables * that comprise a large percentage of the Republican party's base. Without that base the GOP falls off the map. The leaders of the Republican party are caught in a Trumpy web with no clear strategy to get out of it.

In the end, I have confidence (barely) that American voters are going to do the right thing.

* Before the 2016 election a lot of GTPLanet members were posting that Trump was bad, but Hillary Clinton was "terrible". This never made any sense to me & I expressed that opinion. I don't want to say "I told you so" ... but I told you so. :indiff:
 
I'm not sure everyone is appreciating how truly in-shambles the GOP is right now.

Maybe so, but I'll still be very nervous come 2022 midterms. Yes, things look really bad for the GOP right now, as it should. Public opinion is in the tank, as it should be. But by and large, the party knew what Trump was the last four years. They knew what it meant to be getting into bed with his followers. But the gladly did it, because they had a goal - SCOTUS.

Give things two years to cool off, for attention to wane a bit, and I think that same temptation to embrace the lunatics, especially with them being just one flipped seat away from holding the Senate, will be hard for them to ignore. Combine that with the tendency of Democrat voters to sit out the midterms, and anything can happen.
 
Remember was neoconservatism was all the rage, and we were wailing about how terrible they were? They hardly even exist anymore. I was going to call Mike Lee a neocon but I think he's more of a tea partier-turned-Trumpist. I really don't even know what to call the Republican movement going on currently besides Trumpian, anti-American, traitorous, I really don't know. Have we developed a name for it yet? The entire tea party movement doesn't exist anymore either. This new stuff has all developed during Trump's time in office.[B/

Maybe Pee Party. As in ****ing in their pants because the election didn't go their way.
 
Last edited:
Interesting take:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dpayb/12-gop-senators-voted-against-clinton-for-lies-about-sex-will-they-convict-trump?utm_source=reddit.com
Twelve sitting GOP senators voted against former President Bill Clinton during his 1998 impeachment proceedings for lying under oath about his affair with a White House intern. If you added them to the 55 senators, including five Republicans, who last week voted to allow Trump’s second impeachment trial to proceed, signaling an openness to also convicting him, you’d get 67 votes—the two-thirds threshold necessary for a final guilty verdict.

I didn't know we had that many senators hanging around from 1998. But apparently we have 12 senators that thought Clinton should be convicted for perjury, and who are set to declare that trump should not be convicted for attacking congress and the VP.
 
Last edited:
I saw an article today headlining that a couple senators are meeting with Trump’s lawyers to discuss strategy.

Im sorry, how is that legal? Is that not conspiring?

I think Trump is entitled to a proper defence and I presume this forms part of that, however distasteful the idea might be. He might have treated Americans as trash but America needs use proper legal process to show it's survived him.
 
I think Trump is entitled to a proper defence and I presume this forms part of that, however distasteful the idea might be. He might have treated Americans as trash but America needs use proper legal process to show it's survived him.
The members of the senate are the jury in this case though.
Would it make better legal sense if any and all senators involved in preparing Trump's defence then had to sit out the trial, at least in terms of voting for/against conviction?
 
I think Trump is entitled to a proper defence and I presume this forms part of that, however distasteful the idea might be. He might have treated Americans as trash but America needs use proper legal process to show it's survived him.
If it's considered legal in this type of setting, then I concede to your point. It just makes this whole hearing sound like a bigger waste of time than it already seems to be (based on earlier reports of some senators doodling & things Graham has said).

Edit* I found a lawyer's post on Reddit who gives a quick explanation. In short, it's not considered a normal trial and basically independent of any normal rules or following, I guess.
Lawyer here, but I am not infallible and I am no senatorial nor ethical expert, but as I understand it, the short answer is no.

The longer answer is that the Federal Rules of Evidence, The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and individual state bar ethical rules apply to any and all Trials except this one with slight variations depending on whether you're in Civil or Criminal Court.

Impeachment Trial rules are distinctly unique in that the rules for them are explicitly set by the Senate; as such, they are not bound by any normal procedural or ethical rules that govern other courts or trials such as the FRE, FRCP and the ethical rules that generally hold us accountable.

The Constitution uses the term "Trial" but this event is unlike any other in our judicial System precisely because it falls entirely outside of the judicial system.

TL; DR- No, because the rules that Govern Trials and ethical rules that govern Lawyers don't apply to this particular "Trial". The term used here is really incorrect nomenclature.

I hope this is helpful and if any other Lawyers who have more expertise than I do would care to chime in, feel free, I'll correct this post if any information is incorrect
 
Last edited:
The members of the senate are the jury in this case though.

Did you think I hadn't thought of that? Because I hadn't :lol:

If it's considered legal in this type of setting, then I concede to your point. It just makes this whole hearing sound like a bigger waste of time than it already seems to be (based on earlier reports of some senators doodling & things Graham has said).

Yeah, I do agree with your sentiment. I stand by the fact that Trump deserves due process because he's an American citizen. I guess the question of whether or not the actual proceedings are really representative of proper process is another matter.
 
If the impeachment vote were by secret ballot I wonder what the outcome would be? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the acquittal its widely believed it would be.
 
Last edited:
I saw an article today headlining that a couple senators are meeting with Trump’s lawyers to discuss strategy.

Im sorry, how is that legal? Is that not conspiring?

It's terrible political strategy is what it is. It attempts no semblance of impartiality, and only further solidifies the notion that they are complicit in Trump's wrongdoings. All it does is further chain them to Trump's anchor.

Edit:

If you wanted to make it as clear as possible that Trump was guilty, and that these people were forsaking their oaths of office and refusing justice... then you'd ask these people to take one for the team and go have a private chat with Trump's legal counsel. You'd ask them to doodle and skip out during the proceedings, and make every attempt to be as clear as possible that they're paying zero attention.

If you wanted to make it as clear as possible that the GOP is the party of January 6th, that the Republicans as a party represent insurrection, murder, violence, disregard for rule of law or democracy... then you'd ask the republicans in the senate to appear as partial as possible.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure that this is considered a "real" trial. It's clearly a political trial rather than a criminal one.

At the end of the day, it's what American voters do that really matters. That's a long delayed response to what's happened. The way I see it, Trump has only ever won one election - & that with a minority of the vote. His unexpected win in the EC made him seem like some kind of political genius ... but in fact, he's the narcissistic idiot he's always been. I know there are a lot of people in the US who have been taken in by this narcissistic idiot, but my sense of the American people is they are not, in the majority, people who look favourably on his behaviour. In the end they will do the right thing. The immediate problem is that the Republican party has become trapped in a dead-end scenario of their own making - there's no obvious path out for them.
 
Trump's lawyers just adding more projection, as if there isn't enough in most arguments made to defend Trump.

"The Democrats are using bad faith arguments & taking quotes and clips out of context".

*Proceeds to literally make bad faith arguments about Georgia election signatures & clip chimp videos of Democrats & celebrities (who are private citizens)*
 
Last edited:
Sorry to double post, but this seems worthy on its own.

Article out in the last couple hours detailing that McCarthy got into a heated exchange with Trump during the riot of Jan 6th, asking Trump to say something to calm the rioters.
Washington (CNN)In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the Capitol was under attack, then-President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did.

"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.
McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump's supporters and begged Trump to call them off.
Trump's comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, "Who the **** do you think you are talking to?" according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.

The newly revealed details of the call, described to CNN by multiple Republicans briefed on it, provide critical insight into the President's state of mind as rioters were overrunning the Capitol. The existence of the call and some of its details have been previously reported and discussed publicly by McCarthy.
The Republican members of Congress said the exchange showed Trump had no intention of calling off the rioters even as lawmakers were pleading with him to intervene. Several said it amounted to a dereliction of his presidential duty.
"He is not a blameless observer, he was rooting for them," a Republican member of Congress said. "On January 13, Kevin McCarthy said on the floor of the House that the President bears responsibility and he does."

Speaking to the President from inside the besieged Capitol, McCarthy pressed Trump to call off his supporters and engaged in a heated disagreement about who comprised the crowd. Trump's comment about the would-be insurrectionists caring more about the election results than McCarthy did was first mentioned by Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Republican from Washington state, in a town hall earlier this week, and was confirmed to CNN by Herrera Beutler and other Republicans briefed on the conversation.
"You have to look at what he did during the insurrection to confirm where his mind was at," Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House Republicans who voted last month to impeach Trump, told CNN. "That line right there demonstrates to me that either he didn't care, which is impeachable, because you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it, which makes me so angry."

"We should never stand for that, for any reason, under any party flag," she added, voicing her extreme frustration: "I'm trying really hard not to say the F-word."
"I think it speaks to the former President's mindset," said Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, an Ohio Republican who also voted to impeach Trump last month. "He was not sorry to see his unyieldingly loyal vice president or the Congress under attack by the mob he inspired. In fact, it seems he was happy about it or at the least enjoyed the scenes that were horrifying to most Americans across the country."

As senators prepare to determine Trump's fate, multiple Republicans thought the details of the call were important to the proceedings because they believe it paints a damning portrait of Trump's lack of action during the attack. At least one of the sources who spoke to CNN took detailed notes of McCarthy's recounting of the call.
Trump and McCarthy did not respond to requests for comment.
It took Trump several hours after the attack began to eventually encourage his supporters to "go home in peace" -- a tweet that came at the urging of his top aides.
At Trump's impeachment trial Friday, his lawyers argued that Trump did in fact try to calm the rioters with a series of tweets while the attack unfolded. But his lawyers cherry-picked his tweets, focusing on his request for supporters to "remain peaceful" without mentioning that he also attacked then-Vice President Mike Pence and waited hours to explicitly urge rioters to leave the Capitol.

It's unclear to what extent these new details were known by the House Democratic impeachment managers or whether the team considered calling McCarthy as a witness. The managers have preserved the option to call witnesses in the ongoing impeachment trial, although that option remains unlikely as the trial winds down.
The House Republican leader had been forthcoming with his conference about details of his conversations with Trump on and after January 6.
Trump himself has not taken any responsibility in public.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html
 
Romney is a lock. I'm pretty sure Murkowski is right there as well.
I'm calling it Romney and Murkowski doing the right thing.
Romney is a safe bet to convict. I was never super confident about Sasse and Toomey, and I'm losing confidence in Sen. Lisa Murkowski, not because of anything she's said or done since voicing support for a trial, but because McConnell getting a postponement out of Schumer--ostensibly to give Senate Rs a chance to build a defense, when he knew there was never a chance enough of them would vote to convict--was actually about giving anyone who may not toe the party line the opportunity to buckle under pressure from the unhinged base.


Looking like she's gone. It's a shame, but it's not terribly surprising. You can't fix Republican.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to double post, but this seems worthy on its own.

Article out in the last couple hours detailing that McCarthy got into a heated exchange with Trump during the riot of Jan 6th, asking Trump to say something to calm the rioters.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html
Saw that and was taking it with a pretty massive grain of salt...because CNN...but I've since seen this:



Still pretty outlandish but it's getting more credible. It seems pretty on point for parties involved, and yet it's unlikely to have any affect whatsoever on the impeachment trial vote.
 
Trump's lawyers just adding more projection, as if there isn't enough in most arguments made to defend Trump.

"The Democrats are using bad faith arguments & taking quotes and clips out of context".

*Proceeds to literally make bad faith arguments about Georgia election signatures & clip chimp videos of Democrats & celebrities (who are private citizens)*

All under the direction of you know who... Golf Cheater in Chief...
 
Back