Off-topic posts removed.

7 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

What I saw was a mostly peaceful protest by people who likely had a myriad of reasons for suspecting the validity of the election result. I will not speculate on their exact motivations as I don't know them.

I'll speculate....a picture is worth a 1000 words.....

 

https://media.nbcdfw.com/2021/01/GettyImages-1230476983.jpg?resize=850%2C478

18 hours ago, placeholder said:

Do you understand that the President has no Constitutional role in impeachment?

Do you not understand that Biden has a phone and could have told Nancy to back off? "Upsetting" 75 million American voters isn't a good way to begin a presidency, in my opinion.

The 2022 elections are going to be very interesting.

16 hours ago, Sujo said:

Law and order, or would you prefer no trial.

Ask yourself this simple question. Is "upsetting" millions of Americans a good way to start a presidency, or not?

As I see it, the main reason to continue with the trial is to prevent him standing for POTUS again, and if they can't work out that even if he doesn't become POTUS again he can be a kingmaker to get someone else that has the same policies into power, IMO they must be a bit dim. IMO they must be really really scared of him ( or more likely of his base ) to go so far right now, when Biden is just starting out. The trial is going to completely occupy the Senate and the news cycle at a time that Biden is attempting to make his mark on American politics.

As usual, it's all going to be about Trump, which will make him happy, and will likely end in no conviction anyway. Biden, IMO, will be remembered as the president that was upstaged by an ex president, and will always looking over his shoulder at the millions of Trump's base out for revenge at the ballot box.

From what I have seen, the use of impeachment ( and obviously trial ) are only for a sitting president. They probably never considered that an ex president would be tried.

 

Personally I'm all for it. Trump will likely be acquitted, which will make a mockery of it, it gives the defence an opportunity to expose the procedure as an attempt for revenge, rather than justice, and will sideline Biden at the precise time he is attempting to get his cabinet approved and make his mark as a president. By having a trial at this time he will always, IMO, be remembered as a president that was overshadowed by an ex president.

 

Indeed, Trump casts a large shadow, and he isn't going away any time soon, as CNN and the Democrats are doing all they can to keep him in the forefront of politics.

10 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

What I saw was a mostly peaceful protest by people who likely had a myriad of reasons for suspecting the validity of the election result. I will not speculate on their exact motivations as I don't know them. As is the case at large political demonstrations, there is sometimes a fringe group of people who are violent and cause destruction and mayhem, as we all saw over the Summer during the mostly peaceful ANTIFA/BLM/George Floyd demonstrations over race that occurred throughout the country. It is my understanding that law enforcement authorities are investigating and charging those who may have engaged in such conduct at the Capitol.

I have never quoted anyone saying this or posted any such sentiments myself.

I agree. I watched about 4 hours of the demonstration, and from what I saw, the vast majority ( ?99.9% ) of the demonstrators did no more than walk around and then go home. A small minority gained access to the the building because the Capitol police had not done their job properly and prepared appropriately to a situation that was known about for days before- it was no secret that a demonstration was coming and doesn't take a genius to know that extremists were likely going to be in the crowd.

Had the police done their job and prevented the entry, none of the current attempt to convict Trump would be occurring.

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

From what I have seen, the use of impeachment ( and obviously trial ) are only for a sitting president. They probably never considered that an ex president would be tried.

Personally I'm all for it. Trump will likely be acquitted, which will make a mockery of it, it gives the defence an opportunity to expose the procedure as an attempt for revenge, rather than justice, and will sideline Biden at the precise time he is attempting to get his cabinet approved and make his mark as a president. By having a trial at this time he will always, IMO, be remembered as a president that was overshadowed by an ex president.

Indeed, Trump casts a large shadow, and he isn't going away any time soon, as CNN and the Democrats are doing all they can to keep him in the forefront of politics.

Impeachment isn't only for presidents.

There is precedent for impeaching and convicting office holders after they have left office.

The fact that Mr. trump was impeached before leaving office makes the constitutional objection even weaker.

It is indeed constitutional.

In any case, the impeachment already happened. Considering the gravity of the charge (inciting insurrection) taking it to trial in the senate is the only realistic option. 

I would agree he won't be convicted but the republican (now the American authoritarian party) senators that don't vote to convict will have their names etched in infamy for all time.

I hear your curiously extreme advocacy for Mr. trump, the disgraced ex-president,  twice impeached (first time in history), that the consensus of historians are already saying he will be placed as the worst president in American history or at best among the worst two or three.

You can predict doom for President Biden because of this impeachment trial but you fail to see the balance of it. Americans understand the high bar to convict an impeached president, it has never happened even once, but they will be well exposed to the truth of his guilt in his trial. 

Sure most Americans want to lower the temperature now, but white nationalist domestic terrorists still lurk, and there is no chance of real reconciliation without TRUTH and JUSTICE. Assuming Mr. trump won't be impeached, there may be another path to ban him from politics. 

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree. I watched about 4 hours of the demonstration, and from what I saw, the vast majority ( ?99.9% ) of the demonstrators did no more than walk around and then go home. A small minority gained access to the the building because the Capitol police had not done their job properly and prepared appropriately to a situation that was known about for days before- it was no secret that a demonstration was coming and doesn't take a genius to know that extremists were likely going to be in the crowd.

Had the police done their job and prevented the entry, none of the current attempt to convict Trump would be occurring.

You've got to be kidding? 99.9 percent. If you had an ounce of credibility before, you just lost it. 

9 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Well that was quick...is it dawning on the Democrat Party and their Senate leadership that impeaching a private citizen is unconstitutional? 

 

Democrats consider one-week impeachment trial, censure resolution after GOP signals likely acquittal of Trump

 

Bracing for the prospect of a likely acquittal, Senate Democrats are eyeing a rapid-fire impeachment trial for former president Donald Trump...while also contemplating alternatives such as censure...in light of a test vote Tuesday that saw all but five Republican senators back Trump in a constitutional challenge to proceeding with the trial.

 

And when you have a weak case, just press rewind and play the inflammatory video highlights over and over ad nauseum; and don't present any actual witnesses or non-hearsay evidence.

 

In the two weeks since the House impeached Trump...Democrats have signaled they are likely to rely on...video record of the events...but not call witnesses or present revelatory new evidence...

 

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-consider-impeachment-alternatives-censure/2021/01/27/fdfd9b6c-60bd-11eb-afbe-9a11a127d146_story.html

 

 

Surely even the Democrats can see that denying Trump a proper defence is likely to lead to demonstrations that would make the Capitol demonstration a "walk in the park"?

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Surely even the Democrats can see that denying Trump a proper defence is likely to lead to demonstrations that would make the Capitol demonstration a "walk in the park"?

Who said they are blocking a defense by the disgraced ex-president?

Also, I must add I find your apparent enthusiasm for another much bigger white nationalist terrorist insurrectionist attack on the U.S. capitol truly sickening. I refuse to play into your gaslighting trump fan game that the attack on the capital in the middle of officializing an election to overturn it was a mere demonstration. That's like calling the bombing of Pearl Harbor a fireworks show. 

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Impeachment isn't only for presidents.

There is precedent for impeaching and convicted office holders after they have left office

I am aware of that.

My point, which you chose to ignore, is "sitting". As I see it the procedure is to remove people that should not be in the position whatever it may be, but Trump has already been removed. To continue now is IMO for revenge, and more importantly to prevent him becoming president again, but as I already pointed out he could still be kingmaker, so somewhat pointless.

To my knowledge nobody has ever been tried after leaving office in the US.

 

The Democrats are somewhat confused IMO. On the one hand he currently has no social media access, but the trial is going to give Trump vast medias exposure, and is going to obliterate Biden in the news during the trial, just when he is trying to make his mark.

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I am aware of that.

My point, which you chose to ignore, is "sitting". As I see it the procedure is to remove people that should not be in the position whatever it may be, but Trump has already been removed. To continue now is IMO for revenge, and more importantly to prevent him becoming president again, but as I already pointed out he could still be kingmaker, so somewhat pointless.

To my knowledge nobody has ever been tried after leaving office in the US.

 

The Democrats are somewhat confused IMO. On the one hand he currently has no social media access, but the trial is going to give Trump vast medias exposure, and is going to obliterate Biden in the news during the trial, just when he is trying to make his mark.

You don't get it both ways.  He considered himself the 'sitting' president.  He contended it was stolen and congress had not yet certified the election.   So make up your mind.

And as noted impeachment can and has occurred with officials already out of office.  

Here's an example:

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/meet-other-american-who-was-impeached-tried-after-leaving-office-n1255516

 

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I am aware of that.

My point, which you chose to ignore, is "sitting". As I see it the procedure is to remove people that should not be in the position whatever it may be, but Trump has already been removed. To continue now is IMO for revenge, and more importantly to prevent him becoming president again, but as I already pointed out he could still be kingmaker, so somewhat pointless.

To my knowledge nobody has ever been tried after leaving office in the US.

 

The Democrats are somewhat confused IMO. On the one hand he currently has no social media access, but the trial is going to give Trump vast medias exposure, and is going to obliterate Biden in the news during the trial, just when he is trying to make his mark.

I have no idea what distinction you are trying to make, or maybe you're just confused. 

Again, impeachment for office holders AFTER they have left office has precedent, as well as a senate trial. 

In the case Mr. trump was impeached before he left office, and the trial for potential conviction will happen after.

 

4 hours ago, Tie Dye Samurai said:

I'll speculate....a picture is worth a 1000 words.....

 

https://media.nbcdfw.com/2021/01/GettyImages-1230476983.jpg?resize=850%2C478

The problem with a photo like that is the fact that the "faithful" would reject it immediately (as I learned to my cost the other day) on one of two grounds..

The photo has been faked by mainstream media

or

These are Antifa agents-provocateurs.

 

This was from a 45 year old white Australian male who spends a lot of his time on NRA sponsored websites.

47 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

The problem with a photo like that is the fact that the "faithful" would reject it immediately (as I learned to my cost the other day) on one of two grounds..

The photo has been faked by mainstream media

or

These are Antifa agents-provocateurs.

 

This was from a 45 year old white Australian male who spends a lot of his time on NRA sponsored websites.

 

I just watched a CNN interview of a reporter who had joined a voice chat group of QAnon supporters for three weeks prior to the Capital Hill incident, during which voice recordings were played. These people knew exactly what they were trying to do. As soon as matters went askew, immediately switched to blaming Antifa. The QAnon supporter voted into the House, Greene, had previously harassed victims of school shootings, 'liked' posts advocating killing of Dems etc; this person has now been appointed by Republicans for a committee for education!  Greene should be permanently banned for holding any public political role. Just demonstrates how corrupted the republican movement had become under trump. trump should also be banned for life for any public political role, as well as his vile family enablers.

Off-topic, troll posts and replies removed.  

 

Go back a page.  A number of questions asked and answered.

 

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree. I watched about 4 hours of the demonstration, and from what I saw, the vast majority ( ?99.9% ) of the demonstrators did no more than walk around and then go home. A small minority gained access to the the building because the Capitol police had not done their job properly and prepared appropriately to a situation that was known about for days before- it was no secret that a demonstration was coming and doesn't take a genius to know that extremists were likely going to be in the crowd.

Had the police done their job and prevented the entry, none of the current attempt to convict Trump would be occurring.

99.9% just walked around then went home?  That means only one in a thousand took part in storming the Capitol building.  Crowd size estimates range from several thousand to ten thousand. https://theconversation.com/it-is-difficult-if-not-impossible-to-estimate-the-size-of-the-crowd-that-stormed-capitol-hill-152889  Using your estimate that would mean the Capitol police were overcome by several people, up to ten. 

 

Or perhaps you think the crowd size is underestimated.  The FBI is looking for 400 people who took part in the attack.https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/doj-identified-400-suspects-charged-135-capitol-riot/story?id=75497113   Do you think the crowd size was 400,000?

 

Obviously more than 0.1% of the protesters took part in the attack, at least 4% by the numbers above.  The remaining protestors did nothing to stop the violent and illegal assault.  These were not a bunch of innocent patriots.

13 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

The actual Washington Post headline (which you declined to quote) is much more equivocal on the subject:

 

Can a former president be subject to an impeachment trial? The Constitution is murky.

 

Something that's "murky" is cloudy or unclear...hardly the "majority weight of legal opinion" you suggest.

 

And what you choose to label the impeachment "process" is what lawyers call "due process," and is accorded to every defendant at any trial.

Murky?  In another post you said unconstitutional.  Which is it...can't be both.

 

Not so sure why you are so against this?  Unless you don't fully understand the invasion and acts of sedition that were committed.  Egged on by Trump and his sycophants. As has widely been reported.

1 hour ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Agree...it's the only thing keeping them in business. And overshadowing President Biden isn't a hard thing to do, any dwarf could do it, but think where the Democrat Party would be if they had just censured President Trump and moved on with their own President's agenda instead of going on another impeachment jihad, which by losing only make Trump stronger.

If a dwarf could overshadow Biden, and Trump lost to Biden, I can only assume Trump is terrified of dwarves.

17 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

told you so guys, Trump is not going to get convicted ????

 

badge of honor, double impeachment, will mark his place in history ????

 

MAGA!!!

MAGA by letting a criminal off the hook?

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you not understand that Biden has a phone and could have told Nancy to back off? "Upsetting" 75 million American voters isn't a good way to begin a presidency, in my opinion.

The 2022 elections are going to be very interesting.

Do you not understand that McConnell actually voiced support for this?

 

75 million American voters won't be upset.  Only a small minority that live in a bubble of "alternative" facts where the "truth isn't the truth".

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Surely even the Democrats can see that denying Trump a proper defence is likely to lead to demonstrations that would make the Capitol demonstration a "walk in the park"?

From some of the responses on this forum, I would have to say the answer to your question is "no."  They do not appear to be able to see beyond their noses.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree. I watched about 4 hours of the demonstration, and from what I saw, the vast majority ( ?99.9% ) of the demonstrators did no more than walk around and then go home. A small minority gained access to the the building because the Capitol police had not done their job properly and prepared appropriately to a situation that was known about for days before- it was no secret that a demonstration was coming and doesn't take a genius to know that extremists were likely going to be in the crowd.

Had the police done their job and prevented the entry, none of the current attempt to convict Trump would be occurring.

Reliable estimates of the crowd size put it at well under 10,000.  And hundreds stormed into the capitol. 

 

Had Trump not egged them on, they would not have gone to Washington to commit crimes.  Calls of election fraud by Trump, which is potentially sedition, needs to be adjudicated.  Let the court decide.  Not the court of public opinion.  Not sure why all you Trump supporters are against this.  Innocent till proven guilty, right? 

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Do you not understand that McConnell actually voiced support for this?

 

75 million American voters won't be upset.  Only a small minority that live in a bubble of "alternative" facts where the "truth isn't the truth".

McConnell is establishment to the core. I doubt he ever wanted Trump, or cares what happens to him now. Trump had to battle GOP members as well as the Democrats during his time. We were always being told that Mueller and Comey are Republican, as if it mattered.

 

We'll see how many voters are upset come the 2022 elections. IMO the Democrats have good reason to fear Trump's base at the ballot box.

4 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Not sure why all you Trump supporters are against this.  Innocent till proven guilty, right? 

Because we can see what it's really about.

8 minutes ago, ExpatOK said:

From some of the responses on this forum, I would have to say the answer to your question is "no."  They do not appear to be able to see beyond their noses.

Yeah, Trump's supporters seem to be stuck in their bubble of alternative facts where the "truth isn't the truth". LOL.  It all boils down to your source for news...

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Because we can see what it's really about.

You mean prosecuting an individual that potentially committed sedition?  What's wrong with that?  Very unpatriotic...very...

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Also, I must add I find your apparent enthusiasm for another much bigger white nationalist terrorist insurrectionist attack on the U.S. capitol truly sickening.

 

Making stuff up, I see. I never indicated "enthusiasm" for another attack on the capitol. I merely pointed out what the consequences might be.

 

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

McConnell is establishment to the core. I doubt he ever wanted Trump, or cares what happens to him now. Trump had to battle GOP members as well as the Democrats during his time. We were always being told that Mueller and Comey are Republican, as if it mattered.

 

We'll see how many voters are upset come the 2022 elections. IMO the Democrats have good reason to fear Trump's base at the ballot box.

So far, according to Trump's approval ratings, most don't like him.  Worst approval rating in history.  And yet, some still try to bash the other side. 

 

Mueller is a highly decorated vet and an outstanding civil servant with decades of service to the US.  Amazing anyone would bash him.  Boggles my mind.  And yes, a Republican who is bashed by his own party.  Stunning.

Put it to a trial.  Let him prove his innocence.  What's wrong with that?  It is the American way after all...

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-effort-live-updates/2021/01/11/955631105/impeachment-resolution-cites-trumps-incitement-of-capitol-insurrection

 

"Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States," the resolution argues, citing his false claims of election fraud in the months leading up to the riot — which he repeated on Jan. 6 — and a phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger where Trump urged him to "find" votes to overturn the results there.

 

The impeachment article says that during an address to supporters on Wednesday, Trump "willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged — and foreseeably resulted in — lawless action at the Capitol, such as: 'if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a county anymore.' "