House to deliver Trump impeachment charge on Monday, rejecting Republican push for time

[RocketDog]

4 hours ago, polpott said:

Everyone in the capitol was elected by the people. Only right and proper that they should roast the pig on behalf of the electorate. That's democracy in action, something that's been sadly lacking for the last 4 years.

The congress critters cannot elect each other. 

The people have the authority to vote them into office. The solution should start there, not after the fact. 

[GrandPapillon]

it's safe to say that Trump is not going to get convicted on those Trumped up charges ????

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

it's safe to say that Trump is not going to get convicted on those Trumped up charges ????

What trumped up charges.

[Tie Dye Samurai]

 

the rules for impeachment are in place and have been for a long time....he has been impeached, he needs to go to trial. If anything he will be made an example of for President's of the future that try to take the course of action Trump decided to take.

 

And as far as the people not being "allowed" to vote for him again, Trump did this to his supporters, not congress. Trump is the one that is responsible for his actions and if he was any type of politician he would have known what would happen to him if he decided to invite his supporters to a pregame pep talk to fire them up and then direct them to go to the Capital.....to basically attack the government...and how hypocritical would it be for Donald Trump...the King of Political Theatre...of all people...to not be subjected to the bright lights of a conviction and banning of public office.  

 

And by the way, if Trump does get convicted and the vote does go for him being barred from running for office again, what is so terrible about him going to the Supreme Court....it isnt like he hasnt been there before for less (and lost....the same way he would lose this time too)

 

Basically his only defense is what happened....happened so close to him being out of office....and that's weak because that is the very reason he basically sent a lynch mob to go kill some politicians and stop and election from being certified...because he was running out of time.

Edited January 27, 2021 by onthedarkside
quote of hidden post removed

[impulse]

50 minutes ago, Tie Dye Samurai said:

Basically his only defense is what happened....happened so close to him being out of office....and that's weak because that is the very reason he basically sent a lynch mob to go kill some politicians and stop and election from being certified...because he was running out of time.

 

That's false, and you'll notice Dershowitz didn't even mention the merits of the charges in this interview.  He has in other interviews.  Worth finding and watching even if you disagree with him.  It's always helpful to know where the other side is coming from, as evil as you think they may be.

 

In this interview, he looks at the process, and notes some disturbing conflicts of interest.  (Also mentions that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has indicated that he won't preside over any senate trial.  (Reading between the lines, maybe he doesn't agree with the process, but can't make a ruling until it's presented to the Supreme Court, but that's me taking liberties)   Leaving it to Harris, who would probably have to recuse herself...  She's a potential 2024 opponent, after all.

 

Besides, I'm not going to try and give Dershowitz a civics lesson.  That would just be dumb on my part.

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by impulse

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

it's safe to say that Trump is not going to get convicted on those Trumped up charges ????

Says the one who stated that the storming of the Capitol was no big thing, the security put in place to prevent other violence was an over-reaction, and Russia is our friend.

[pedro01]

On 23/01/2021 at 6:51 AM, spidermike007 said:

 

Well, I know alot of Trump supporters who are well educated, and intelligent. However, they drank the Kool aid, and bought into alot of the nonsense. But they were disenfranchised by decades of very poor performances by dem candidates and especially the extremely incompetent DNC.i think it is time for a truly independent party. Both the dems and the GOP are corrupt beyond repair. Though, I continue to favor the policies of centrist democrats.

I know a lot of very well educated Trump supporters. 

 

Last August I was on a retreat in Samui and one girl there was the owner of a successful online business. She grew up in LA and she thought Trump was doing positive things. She couldn't tell her friends in LA this as she felt they wouldn't talk to her again. 

 

So a lot of his supporters keep shtum. I have met a lot of people like this in the past 4 years. 

 

 

[heybruce]

19 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

That's false, and you'll notice Dershowitz didn't even mention the merits of the charges in this interview.  He has in other interviews.  Worth finding and watching even if you disagree with him.  It's always helpful to know where the other side is coming from, as evil as you think they may be.

 

In this interview, he looks at the process, and notes some disturbing conflicts of interest.  (Also mentions that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has indicated that he won't preside over any senate trial.  (Reading between the lines, maybe he doesn't agree with the process, but can't make a ruling until it's presented to the Supreme Court, but that's me taking liberties)   Leaving it to Harris, who would probably have to recuse herself...  She's a potential 2024 opponent, after all.

 

Besides, I'm not going to try and give Dershowitz a civics lesson.  That would just be dumb on my part.

 

It's funny that you think that any Senator who aspires to be President has a conflict of interest, and that Harris should recuse herself (how did Trump respond when Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation?).  It's kind of like you think Trump has no rules, but all those who may oppose him are strait-jacketed by rules.

 

If you look into the what the  Constitution and the courts have said about impeachment, it is a political process.  That means that Senators, whether Democrat or Republican, who were sent fleeing for safety when the mob stormed the Capitol building, can vote for what they think is right.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

I know a lot of very well educated Trump supporters. 

 

Last August I was on a retreat in Samui and one girl there was the owner of a successful online business. She grew up in LA and she thought Trump was doing positive things. She couldn't tell her friends in LA this as she felt they wouldn't talk to her again. 

 

So a lot of his supporters keep shtum. I have met a lot of people like this in the past 4 years.

If only there were a way to know how the majority really think.  Something like an election, perhaps.

[pedro01]

Just now, heybruce said:

If only there were a way to know how the majority really think.  Something like an election, perhaps.

 

Of course,I agree. 

 

I'm not big on conspiracy theories, so I don't think it was rigged. 

 

Trump was a symptom. I find it incredible that the best 2 candidates the US could come up with for president were Trump and Biden. 300 million people and that's all you got? 

It's broken. 

 

[impulse]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It's funny that you think that any Senator who aspires to be President has a conflict of interest, and that Harris should recuse herself (how did Trump respond when Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation?).  It's kind of like you think Trump has no rules, but all those who may oppose him are strait-jacketed by rules.

 

If you look into the what the  Constitution and the courts have said about impeachment, it is a political process.  That means that Senators, whether Democrat or Republican, who were sent fleeing for safety when the mob stormed the Capitol building, can vote for what they think is right.

 

You're entitled to your opinion.  It conflicts with the opinion of Alan Dershowitz. 

 

If the two of you were called in front of the Supreme Court to argue your respective sides, who do you figure would win?  I know where my money would be.

 

 

[heybruce]

13 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

You're entitled to your opinion.  It conflicts with the opinion of Alan Dershowitz. 

 

If the two of you were called in front of the Supreme Court to argue your respective sides, who do you figure would win?  I know where my money would be.

Considering how far out of the mainstream Dershowitz is, with coaching from the lawyers in my family and the judges they know, I would take your bet.

[Scott]

Post from an unauthorized source has been moved along with troll post.

 

 

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Of course,I agree. 

 

I'm not big on conspiracy theories, so I don't think it was rigged. 

 

Trump was a symptom. I find it incredible that the best 2 candidates the US could come up with for president were Trump and Biden. 300 million people and that's all you got? 

It's broken. 

 

A rank choice vote would improve things.  So long as primaries and elections are won by who ever has the largest minority of votes, weird results will happen.

[impulse]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

If you look into the what the  Constitution and the courts have said about impeachment, it is a political process.  That means that Senators, whether Democrat or Republican, who were sent fleeing for safety when the mob stormed the Capitol building, can vote for what they think is right.

 

Because one of the bedrocks of the American justice system is the right to a trial by a jury of your victims, right?

 

If they want to prosecute him for insurrection, for inciting a riot, or anything else, all they have to do is indict him in the criminal justice system.  Now that he's out of office, he's no longer immune.   They do it to mayors, governors, and congressmen all the time.  Lots of them have been sent to jail for their actions in office.

 

But that would require inconveniences like due process, rules of evidence, and a jury that has no conflicts of interest.

 

As much as I dislike Trump, and I'm happy to see the back end of him, I cringe at the way due process and the constitution have been cast aside in the scramble to get rid of him.  Not only is it wrong, but according to Dershowitz, it can come back and haunt us in 2024 if they don't do it right today.

 

And no.  I did not vote for Trump.  Probably wouldn't in 2024.  But that depends on how bad Harris is.

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by impulse

[GrandPapillon]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Says the poster who thinks the Capitol assault was a publicity stunt, the defense against a further assault was an over-reaction, and Russia is our friend.

you guys are projecting, everyone can see now that the charges have been trumped up and they are not going to get a conviction

 

Nancy should be ashamed and impeached for being out of order and out of line with her power grab

[Tie Dye Samurai]

3 hours ago, impulse said:

 

You're entitled to your opinion.  It conflicts with the opinion of Alan Dershowitz. 

 

If the two of you were called in front of the Supreme Court to argue your respective sides, who do you figure would win?  I know where my money would be.

 

 

The same Alan Dershowitz who came up with this brilliant argument during Trump's FIRST Impeachment: 

"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," he said. "And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." 

 

The author of that hot mess does not exactly have the credibility you seem to assign to him...in my opinion.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/30/alan-dershowitz-controversial-trump-impeachment-argument/4618461002/

Edited January 24, 2021 by Tie Dye Samurai

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

Because one of the bedrocks of the American justice system is the right to a trial by a jury of your victims, right?

 

If they want to prosecute him for insurrection, for inciting a riot, or anything else, all they have to do is indict him in the criminal justice system.  Now that he's out of office, he's no longer immune.   They do it to mayors, governors, and congressmen all the time.  Lots of them have been sent to jail for their actions in office.

 

But that would require inconveniences like due process, rules of evidence, and a jury that has no conflicts of interest.

 

As much as I dislike Trump, and I'm happy to see the back end of him, I cringe at the way due process and the constitution have been cast aside in the scramble to get rid of him.  Not only is it wrong, but according to Dershowitz, it can come back and haunt us in 2024 if they don't do it right today.

 

And no.  I did not vote for Trump.  Probably wouldn't in 2024.  But that depends on how bad Harris is.

 

Please, you posted tweets in which you said you preferred Trump over Biden.

[impulse]

2 hours ago, Tie Dye Samurai said:

The same Alan Dershowitz who came up with this brilliant argument during Trump's FIRST Impeachment: 

"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," he said. "And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." 

 

The author of that hot mess does not exactly have the credibility you seem to assign to him...in my opinion.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/30/alan-dershowitz-controversial-trump-impeachment-argument/4618461002/

 

He's out there.  He's controversial.  But given the choice between taking my constitutional law cues from a retired Harvard Law professor, or some random guys posting on TVF, well...

 

I don't like some of what he says.  But I don't pretend that I know enough to actually disagree with him in points of law.

 

You'll notice in your linked article he's claiming his statements were deliberately distorted.  I've read CNN and MSNBC for the past 4 years.  I can see where that may have happened.

 

You, like most of the MSM, left out the next part:  Dershowitz said a quid pro quo that involved an illegal act, or was done for personal financial gain, would be impeachable, however. 

 

Let that sink in...  If it involved an illegal act, it would be impeachable.   If it wasn't illegal, it's not impeachable.  That's pretty much a truism.  It may be repugnant.  It may even be deplorable.  But not impeachable.

 

You'll notice that even your linked article put an ad in between your quoted statement and the rest of it.  You figure that may be to draw attention from "the rest of the story"? 

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by impulse

[impulse]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Please, you posted tweets in which you said you preferred Trump over Biden.

 

First, I don't tweet.  Never had a Twitter account.  Still don't.  Probably never will.

 

Second, I did say I preferred Trump over Biden.  Much  the same as I'd prefer a slap in the face over a kick in the nuts.  Trump is the less objectionable to me of the 2 sorry candidates put forward by the 2 parties.  Not on personality and integrity, but on the issues.

 

Third, 1.9 million Americans voted for independent candidates.  I did not vote for Trump.  I'd have voted for him over Biden if it was just down to those 2 and I was forced to vote for one of them.  I'll let you do the math.  X>Y>Z and all.

 

Fourth, and most important, even if I was a big honking Biden fan, I'd still cringe at the way the Dems are demonizing Trump voters and stepping all over due process in the 2nd impeachment.  Maybe I'll change my mind after Monday.  But I doubt it.

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by impulse

[impulse]

Here's some more grist for the mill, with no comments on my my part.  Because I have no clue how accurate the information is- it is a weekend story, after all.  But it does give some background that's helpful in understanding some of the issues.  Could get interesting.  And maybe not in a good way.

 

https://nypost.com/2021/01/23/sen-rand-paul-says-chief-justice-roberts-wont-take-trump-impeach-trial/

[Jeffr2]

11 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

it's safe to say that Trump is not going to get convicted on those Trumped up charges ????

You mean charges of inciting an invasion of the US capitol?  Trying to subvert the results of a legal and fair election?

 

Right...you really do need a better source for your news.  OANN isn't cutting it.

 

P.S. He's been impeached.  Again.  A first in American history.

[Jeffr2]

8 hours ago, impulse said:

 

That's false, and you'll notice Dershowitz didn't even mention the merits of the charges in this interview.  He has in other interviews.  Worth finding and watching even if you disagree with him.  It's always helpful to know where the other side is coming from, as evil as you think they may be.

 

In this interview, he looks at the process, and notes some disturbing conflicts of interest.  (Also mentions that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has indicated that he won't preside over any senate trial.  (Reading between the lines, maybe he doesn't agree with the process, but can't make a ruling until it's presented to the Supreme Court, but that's me taking liberties)   Leaving it to Harris, who would probably have to recuse herself...  She's a potential 2024 opponent, after all.

 

Besides, I'm not going to try and give Dershowitz a civics lesson.  That would just be dumb on my part.

 

You mean the Dershowitz who was working with Jeffrey Epstein?  And is a regular on Fox News?  What a horrible man.  Great lawyer, but a terrible person.

 

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-17/alan-dershowitz-named-to-trumps-impeachment-legal-team

 

Dershowitz’s defense of Trump isn’t the only thing that has generated concern. There’s also his association with Epstein, a convicted sex offender.

 

In 2008, Dershowitz helped the wealthy financier secure a cushy plea deal with federal prosecutors in Florida while Epstein was under investigation on suspicion of sexually abusing underage girls.

 

A decade later, a Miami Herald investigation disclosed details of the deal for the first time, spurring outrage among Epstein’s victims.

[Jeffr2]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

<snip>

Trump is the less objectionable to me of the 2 sorry candidates put forward by the 2 parties.  Not on personality and integrity, but on the issues.

 

<snip>

 

Fourth, and most important, even if I was a big honking Biden fan, I'd still cringe at the way the Dems are demonizing Trump voters and stepping all over due process in the 2nd impeachment.  Maybe I'll change my mind after Monday.  But I doubt it.

 

You like a man who incited a group of nuts to invade the capitol?  Said the election was rigged and tried to overturn it?  Come on....that's really bizarre.

 

It's not just dems that are demonizing Trump.  Most Americans are independents, not dems or repubs.  A majority of Americans saw through Trump and his lies.  Sad that a minority did not. 

 

Let's not forget he ended his presidency with the lowest approval rating ever.  But you won't read about that on Fox news or the alt right media outlets.  Try AP News for a bit.  No conspiracy theories there....

[Jeffr2]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Here's some more grist for the mill, with no comments on my my part.  Because I have no clue how accurate the information is- it is a weekend story, after all.  But it does give some background that's helpful in understanding some of the issues.  Could get interesting.  And maybe not in a good way.

 

https://nypost.com/2021/01/23/sen-rand-paul-says-chief-justice-roberts-wont-take-trump-impeach-trial/

Rand Paul should be censured.  Horrible politician with a terrible track record of telling the truth.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

you guys are projecting, everyone can see now that the charges have been trumped up and they are not going to get a conviction

 

Nancy should be ashamed and impeached for being out of order and out of line with her power grab

How are we projecting?  How are charges trumped up?  Do you think that mob would have stormed the Capitol if Trump had not delivered his speech full of lies about a stolen election and fighting words?

[Jeffr2]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

How are we projecting?  How are charges trumped up?  Do you think that mob would have stormed the Capitol if Trump had not delivered his speech full of lies about a stolen election and fighting words?

This helps explain why Trump supporters think the way they do.  It's all about their source for news.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/media/2021/01/24/fox-news-newsmax-coverage-of-biden-administration-political-divide-stelter-rs-vpx.cnn

[Credo]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

Here's some more grist for the mill, with no comments on my my part.  Because I have no clue how accurate the information is- it is a weekend story, after all.  But it does give some background that's helpful in understanding some of the issues.  Could get interesting.  And maybe not in a good way.

 

https://nypost.com/2021/01/23/sen-rand-paul-says-chief-justice-roberts-wont-take-trump-impeach-trial/

I suspect that Rand Paul is full of it.  I very much doubt that Roberts can refuse that easily.  When he was impeached he was President.   The alleged crime was committed as a President.   

I think this is a case of extreme wishful thinking mixed with a bit of conspiracy.  It's not unlike the Trump-supporters who actually believed that the FBI was going to rush up on the steps of the Capitol and arrest Biden and Harris and haul them away before he was sworn in.   

 

[placeholder]

 

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

First, I don't tweet.  Never had a Twitter account.  Still don't.  Probably never will.

 

Second, I did say I preferred Trump over Biden.  Much  the same as I'd prefer a slap in the face over a kick in the nuts.  Trump is the less objectionable to me of the 2 sorry candidates put forward by the 2 parties.  Not on personality and integrity, but on the issues.

 

Third, 1.9 million Americans voted for independent candidates.  I did not vote for Trump.  I'd have voted for him over Biden if it was just down to those 2 and I was forced to vote for one of them.  I'll let you do the math.  X>Y>Z and all.

 

Fourth, and most important, even if I was a big honking Biden fan, I'd still cringe at the way the Dems are demonizing Trump voters and stepping all over due process in the 2nd impeachment.  Maybe I'll change my mind after Monday.  But I doubt it.

 

You don't support Trump but you prefer him on the issues? Before it was just a flat out that you didn't support Trump.  Please, to say you prefer him on the issues is functionally the same as supporting him. Particularly given some of the awful stands he's taken. US presidential elections aren't like voting for the president of your high school class.

[spidermike007]

On 1/23/2021 at 11:58 AM, Sujo said:

Facts matter

 

Thank you. And as stated by Rudy, "Truth is not truth" is of course another feeble form of disinformation, and simply a mediocre legal mind, attempting to explain why truth is not important. Truth is always important, and that is something that is hard for Trump, and his closest supporters to deal with, since truth does not align with their agenda of deception.