Impeaching Donald Trump - Again

Jump to Last Post 1-33 of 33 discussions (639 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image86
    My Esotericposted 12 months ago

    On Wednesday, Jan 6, 2021, while Congress was attempting to certify Joe Biden as having won the election to become the next President of the United States, Donald Trump was exhorting the mob he had spent the previous week or two calling together to attack Congress and stop the process.  He constantly used the word "fight", and making boxing gestures, to rile up the crowd and then sent them on their way into infamy.

    March they did and they violently invaded the Capital building intent on stopping the certification of Joe Biden.  They murdered one police officer in the process and one of their own was killed climbing in a window.  Three others died of "medical conditions" brought on by the riot.

    For this, since Mike Pence won't invoke the 25th Amendment to prevent Trump from causing further harm to the nation, the Democrats (and several Republicans) have set a course to impeach Donald Trump for the second time.

    The charge - Inciting an Insurrection.

    It is expect it will pass the House on Wednesday, Jan 13; seven days before Biden is sworn in.

    They understand they can't stop Trump from doing further damage, only Pence can do that, but there are two reasons to continue.  Donald Trump must be punished in some fashion for trying to overthrow the gov't and to prevent him from ever running for office again.

    Passing the House is not at issue.  Getting a conviction in the Senate is and is probably an uphill road given the number of Republican Senators who have sold their soul to the devil.

    So where does the count stand right now?  First consider that if there is a trial, it will happen after the new Senate is sworn in.  If so, then you have 50 Democrats and Independents who will vote to convict.  Another 17 Republicans are needed.  Who is probably on board now according to their latest statement or past actions?

    1. Sen Romney (voted to impeach last time)
    2. Sen Murkowski (statement)
    3. Sen Collins (she knows now Trump didn't "learn his lesson")
    4. Sen Sasse (statement)
    5. Sen Toomey (statement)
    So 12 more are needed.

    Who will probably vote to acquit Trump:

    Sen Cruz
    Sen Hawley
    Sen Scott
    Sen Blunt
    Sen Graham
    Sen Hyde-Smith
    Sen Tuberville
    Sen Marshall
    Sen Lummis
    Sen Kennedy

    That is 10 Senators with no character.  That leaves 35 more which are up for grabs.

    What will they do?

    1. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Sen Pat Toomey joined Sen Lisa Murkowski in demanding Trump resign.  When will Collins and Romney join them?

    2. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      --- Realistically an impeachment takes time. There are preparation times, the President has a right to defend himself (I know you don't feel he should be given that right, but it's the law)...  Then the cases are presented and argued. There is no time to impeach the President.  But it's a great story for the media to run with.

    3. MizBejabbers profile image88
      MizBejabbersposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Tonight Nancy Pelosi answered that question on 60 Minutes when Leslie Stahl asked it. She said that the impeachment can continue after Trump leaves office. When the new congress comes in, she says there will be enough votes in favor for a trial and conviction. It does not matter that he is out of office. The point is that he would be impeached and forever barred from running for office.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Your last sentence says it all: a 100% political ploy, and one that has nothing to do with the "good of the country".  It might keep Democrats from facing Trump again the future (politics again, not the good of the country) but that's it.  Haven't we seen enough of such posturing and hand wringing?

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, it is a political action, by definition.  But the goal is saving America from Trump.  The damage he has done now is incalculable.

          It was said (and I was one of them) before he was elected that he was an existential threat to the existence of America as a viable democracy - and that has now been borne out.

          For example, texts from one of the insurrectionists carrying zip ties said his intent was to kill Pelosi.  That alone should get him 50 years (unfortunately it is only 5 to 10 years).

          I wonder if the very fact that members of Congress having to be moved to a safe location doesn't make every insurrectionist who entered the Capital subject to the statutes covering these offenses - 18 U.S.C.

        2. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          It will be very good for the country if Trump can never run for office again, which would be the case should be be found guilty.

        3. MizBejabbers profile image88
          MizBejabbersposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          And your point is? I think this country has seen enough of Trump's posturing. Let's see, the current count at the Capitol is five dead. If that isn't enough, the count of deaths from Covid-19 is growing exponentially and his lack of responsibility and leadership in taking the necessary steps to help the states remedy their situations while he postures about "poor little me, I won the election, but they cheated" was wearing thin before the rush on the Capitol Building that he fomented. "Fight! Fight! Fight!" (His words, not mine.) I don't think I need a source here, as those words were straight from the horse's mouth.)

      2. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Agreed, except about having enough patriotic Republicans to get a conviction.  I just don't have confidence they can find the 12 that is needed.

        1. MizBejabbers profile image88
          MizBejabbersposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          But...remember there will be a new Congress after Jan. 20, and that means more Democrats to vote for conviction. That and along with more moderate Republicans who are getting tired of his seditious antics and are horrified at his supporters insurrection, it may just fly.

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Long time, no hear.  How are you doing?

      3. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Thank you for posting this. I was not aware that a President can be impeached after they leave the office. I learned something.

        Thinking of this problem logically I think  Impeaching Trump might exacerbate his supporters?

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Why should we not do what is right just to appease delusional criminals? Peaceful Trump supporters will remain peaceful, so I am assuming when you wondered what it would do to his supporters you were referring to the violent ones. Or, did you mean all Trump supporters, yourself included?

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            I meant any of Trump's supporters that have strong enough opinions and feeling to show up and protest, and yes riot for a cause they seem to believe in.

            I do not support any form of violence for any reason. I do not support those that most likely will show up at the inauguration and get violent.

            I did not say anything in regards to my own view in respect to should Congress go ahead with impeachment.  I just shared a thoought. that impeaching Trump might exacerbate his supporters.  I did not give an opinion one way or the other --- "Why we should  not do what is right just to appease delusional criminals?"

            I can see your point, I am all for doing anything we would traditionally do and pretty much handle what might happen. I hope as I did in 2016 that no one shows up to protest on Inauguration Day. However, we live in a country where we have the right to protest peacefully. I hope Trump supporters will be peaceful and be heard due to numbers, not violence.

            1. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              I have no problem with protesters and actually admire those who stand up for their beliefs by lawfully working within the system to create change. However, those who are protesting because they think the election was stolen are simply furthering propaganda created by Trump. They still have a right to peacefully protest; I just think they are dangerously wrong to help keep alive the  delusions of a mad man.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Actually, in part, we agree. I believe protests can lead to change if peaceful and need to be completely lawful. You may want to look at the problem as if you were outside the box. The people that are showing up for Trump have different views. Some really feel Trump is fully telling the full truth about voter fraud, and at this point, they don't care about seeing facts. Some are hung up on the facts just might be there, and they want all avenues investigated. They are not willing to listen to a blanketed media explanation that there is no there...  They feel they deserve an investigation and at this point do not respect the Representatives in Washington or their state governments. 

                I had just hoped some sort of common sense could have prevailed. Just my opinion, but a short investigation may have shown many that their voices were being heard. Now, we have something that is just developed into something I never thought I would see, violent Americans fighting other Americans. This is only going to get worse. Many have been pushed too hard, and are not willing to listen or be pushed any further.

                The politicians are playing one against another. Have you noticed much of what is being talked about is how unsafe "they felt", what danger "they were in"?  Is there any mention of why these protesters showed up that day, what made them travel to Washington from all over the US? I feel the country is in a real crisis. And we don't have anyone in Washington that seems to have the know-how to stop a rolling tank!

                Would it not have been easier to prove delusions false, if they are false? Instead of pushing at people that are not going to be pushed any longer.

                1. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  The delusions have already been proven to be unfounded.

                  "The politicians are playing one against another."

                  At what point do we hold citizens responsible for their inability to discern truth from fantasy? This is not the first conspiracy theory swallowed by a considerable chunk of people. And, regardless, we cannot stop speaking truth, or avoid doing what is right, just to avoid angering those who are perpetually angry about something.

                  Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job. There should be no question that Trump deserves to be impeached for his actions surrounding his election loss.. No question.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Please keep in mind, it is your opinion that some citizens are delusional in regard to the election outcome and that you feel all has been proven to be delusional. However,  many are not willing to believe the election was not stolen due to fraud. Where does that leave us?  You tell me

                    It's is just my opinion that the politicians are playing one against another.  And a bit too large of a subject to go into on a chat... 

                    "At what point do we hold citizens responsible for their inability to discern truth from fantasy? "  You might start by realizing
                    that the other side fell they are speaking the truth --- Again where does that leave us?

                    I have no problem if Congress feels they need to impeach Trump. I have looked at this logically. I have once again pulled up rules of impeachment.
                    There is absolutely not enough time to impeach Trump a second time.
                    I listened to Alan. Dershowitz's opinion on the subject. He pointed out the legalities f a late impeachment, and that there just was not enough time, and that it would be totally unconstitutional.

                    So asks yourself why are the Dems proceeding? Could it be a political ploy to continue to stir up the once again hate? Yes, hate, IMO they certainly realize they are stirring up Trump supporters, and appeasing the "other side". Is this truly responsible Government, pitting citizens against one another. And at a time when emotions are high. It is time that we need sensible heads in Washington.

                    This is a cheap despicable political ploy...  It will lead to violence, and we all can blame those that we hired to Govern, that has gone amuck.

                    I have no argument on a legal impeachment of Trump. I have a huge problem that at this point it appears it would be an illegal impeachment.
                    The Dems' know very well this is not the right time to pour more fuel on a fire. Common sense should rule while we have people willing to step up and fight for what they believe in.

                    One thing is clear we have hundreds of thousands of people that as you claim are delusional. They feel the other side is delusional.  Again, where do we go from here? Pour on a shit load of fuel or step back and let the temperature cool down?

                    I guess we will see how this all plays out.  I see no solution at this point because we have two sides well dug in. And we have few in Washington that are willing to just stop the BS for even a while...

                    "There should be no question that Trump deserves to be impeached for his actions surrounding his election loss. No question."

                    You might want to realize there are many on the right that there is no question Trump should not be impeached,

                    It would seem you just can't realize yes your opinion is important, but so are many other American's opinions.

                2. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  "Just my opinion, but a short investigation may have shown many that their voices were being heard. " - What, in your opinion, did the DOJ and Bill Barr do prior to him announcing their was "no there, there"?   Why does that no qualify as a "short investigation"

                  "Is there any mention of why these protesters showed up that day, what made them travel to Washington from all over the US? " - Yes, the President called them to show up for the previous two weeks.  He spoke, they listened.

                  There is no question Trump has put America in a real crisis, on that we agree.  I do not agree that there is "nobody" in Washington to do something about it.  The Democrats, independents, and a few Republicans (who were shook out of their delusion by the coup attempt) are doing something about it.

                  You write " 'They' feel they deserve an investigation and at this point do not respect the Representatives in Washington or their state governments. " and I would add to that list judges.  Who then is left to conduct this "investigation"?  Giuliani?  Sydney Powell?  Face it Sharlee, 'they' will only believe someone who says there was widespread fraud.

                  "Would it not have been easier to prove delusions false" - Apparently no -
                  Since it has been proved false over and over again by almost uncountable authorities to the satisfaction of everybody but Trump supporters. 

                  Anything short of that will be looked at as invalid by Trumpers.

                  And finally, was this written to minimize the danger of death the lawmakers faced?  "The politicians are playing one against another. Have you noticed much of what is being talked about is how unsafe "they felt", what danger "they were in"? "

                3. MizBejabbers profile image88
                  MizBejabbersposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Sharlee, I think they did. They had election recounts and recounts of recounts. Then REPUBLICAN Secretaries of State verified that their elections were honest and there was no voter fraud. Ratffensperger in GA, for one, was threatened and then called by Trump and ordered to "find him" the votes he needed. What more do you think might have been done? I don't believe anything short of taking away votes from registered voters and giving them to Trump would have satisfied these hardheads.

        2. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, I was surprised as well.

          As to exacerbating his supporters, I compare that to the US policy of never giving into a terrorists demands.  That policy has probably led to fewer demands, but unfortunately it has probably also led to some hostages being killed. 

          The question then is, did the policy lead ultimately to fewer hostages in total being killed.  All one can hope for is that the answer is yes.

          And yes, I think you are probably right, it will exacerbate them because so many of them have been radicalized already.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            I hope Trump supporters will be peaceful, violence is not the way to be heard. I think numbers speak louder than violence.

            1. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              We will start seeing how this will come down shortly.  Apparently, the Internet is ablaze with plans from those who really don't want to see Trump go to cause lot's of violence starting the 17th.  Not sure why that date, but that is what I heard.

              I doubt Trump will listen to them but both Barr and the White House lawyer told him it was a really bad idea to self-pardon.  But with things like the DC attorney general now threatening to investigate and, if necessary, take to court people like Trump, Jr., and Giuliani for inciting to riot.

              I finally heard the words Junior and G spoke and those are, without a doubt, well within the meaning of "incite".  You have to string a bunch of Trump's statements to get to the context where he was wanting to happen what did happen.

              It will be whole different story if the FBI finds that there was pre-planning and coordination days ahead of the attempted coup and it leads back to Trump.

              Wednesday is the day the first President of the United States will be impeached twice.  Trump loves records and being the "only one".  I think he got what he wanted.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Not sure about Wednesday, the Senate is not in session until I believe Jan 19th. It seems this impeachment is political in nature, once again it will be up to the Senate. I would think if the Dems intend to go ahead with the impeachment they might wait until after Trump has left office.  Timing is against them, and I venture to say they know this and are showboating. Which in my opinion at this time the country does not need this kind of politicking. It's perfectly what has so many furious.

                It would seem they are very serious about impeaching Trump. So they can have at it. Let the chips fall where they may.

                1. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  I have searched for and so far have been unsuccessful in finding a reference on whether a president can be "impeached" (the House part) after they leave office.  It is clear they can be convicted (the Senate part) after they leave office.

                  Unless Trump resigns or Pence removes him via the 25th Amendment (both seem very unlikely), the House will "impeach" him on Wednesday, they have enough votes including some Republican ones.  Their feeling, as is mine, is that Trump, who instigated the attack on the Capital, must be held accountable.  Based on your "showboating" reference, I am guessing you are not one of those.

                  As to "political in nature", yes, all impeachments are political in nature, by definition.  It can't be anything else but.

                  The question is will McConnell bring the Senate back before the 19th to hold a trial while he has the majority, or will he forgo that and turn it over to Schumer, when the Democrats will hold the majority, after Biden is sworn in.

                  To me, it really doesn't make a difference - the goal is to prevent Trump from ever again holding office.  Putting Trump in jail won't do the trick because politicians have won elections before from behind bars.  No, the House and the Senate need to vote to bar him from ever doing to America what he has done so far.

                  Bottom line, someone must be held accountable for the coup that took place on Jan 6, 2021, too steal a phrase, a day that will live in infamy.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Have you listened to the full speech Trump gave at the rally? If not you may want to listen to it. Not sure any of what he said could be enough to say he incited a riot? He did go on and on about voter fraud, but he also talked about much much more.

                    In my view, we have some very big problems brewing that will affect the country much more than we can imagine.  It might be time for all to realize this division has come to a boiling point, and we don't have a government in place that is for the people. They are for themselves, keeping themselves in power, and doing so by dividing the country. My gosh just look at the little they really do. 

                    I am sickened at the thought of where America has ended up...

                  2. MizBejabbers profile image88
                    MizBejabbersposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    I'm sorry I don't have my legal eagles at my beck and call anymore to answer your question about impeachment, but I don't believe a president can be impeached once he is out of office. The idea of impeachment is to get him out of office, but the trial and conviction after he is out is to keep him from ever being able to serve in that office again. Now that is  my understanding, but if someone can find evidence to the contrary, I welcome the correction.

        3. MizBejabbers profile image88
          MizBejabbersposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          I wasn't aware of it either until I watched 60 Minutes. Yes, I believe that will exacerbate things even more, but I don't think this country should be held hostage in fear of stirring up the hornets again. I used to work at our State Capitol Complex (retired in 2017). I just hope my former coworkers and friends there stay safe because I've heard they are preparing for trouble.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            I appreciate your comment. You always keep a very level head. I just posted a lengthy post to Pretty Panther.  It is hard to discuss such a complicated subject on a chat. But I hoped to offer an opinion. I made an attempt to look at the problem from all sides. While not showing any bias. I think the time has come that we all back up a bit and consider all sides. Because in the end, this is becoming very serious. Please have a look at the comment I left Pretty...  I would appreciate your viewing it.

            1. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              I'm sorry, but referring to holding a president accountable for his potentially criminal behavior as a "cheap despicable political ploy" shows you are not succeeding in your attempt to be unbiased. What would Trump have to do to warrant impeachment, in your mind? Kill someone? One could argue he is directly responsible for inciting murder.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                This comment was just a short message to MIZBEJABBERS.  You certainly did get your point across with your comment to me. I read it I responded. best I could to your opinion. I certainly am very informed about how you feel about the impeachment, and lots more.  We disagree on the timing of the impeachment, and that I see it as a political ploy just due to it looks as if it would be against the constitution, and it would seem there is just is not enough time to conduct an impeachment hearing. If it is lawful and they can pull it off, they can have at it. 

                I think the act will cause a great divide (which it is apparent many want)and could increase the possibility of violent riots.  But, many are hopeful for more red meat to chat about...

                1. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  "But, many are hopeful for more red meat to chat about..."

                  Not me, I want to never see or hear from Donald Trump again. I'd prefer to erase him forever from my thoughts, and even from my memory. But a narcissist of his magnitude will not go away on his own. He must be impeached so he can never run for office again.

                  It's pretty sad that private companies recognize how dangerous he is and have the wherewithal to do something about it, but not our elected officials.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    I used the word many to make sure I did not point a finger at anyone. And the red meat was not Trump, it was impeachment the very act. I can understand your thought in regard to stopping him from running again. However, the Dems are in a tight spot and only have a double-edged knife to weaponize.

                    Can't see the country winning with more fuel being added to a really big fire. This is where I wish we had level headed people in Washington. IMO the Dems are politicking with lives. However, their indignation was very predictable. Not unexpected. They always sink low and could care less about the consequences. Never have, never will.

    4. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      I just read the Article of Impeachment.  Personally, I think it is weak as written.

      https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics … index.html

      Because we have watched all of this unfold in real time over two months, to those who hold my point of view, the case against Trump is overwhelming.  But the written charge must present a case that is equally overwhelming for the benefit of those who might wonder what all of the fuss is about.

      I don't think it does that.  I think it just presumes everybody already knows the crimes that have been committed and I don't think they do - especially if all they consume is information from the right.  (Such as Tucker Carlson saying this isn't impeachable.)

    5. Valeant profile image88
      Valeantposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Blackburn, Lankford, and Johnson are hard no's also - they were selling the election fraud claims.  Cassidy from Louisiana, Rand Paul and Tim Scott drank the Trump Kool-Aid.  Cotton, Mike Lee and Rick Scott just hate anything Democratic.  Rubio is fighting Hawley and Cruz to be Trump's top lapdog.

      Cornyn and Thune could be interesting.

      1. ScottSBateman profile image80
        ScottSBatemanposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        You may have read the FBI is warning about a plan to have armed protesters swarm all 50 state capitols on Inauguration Day.

        In addition, the report of 4,000 armed militia planning to surround the U.S. Capitol.

        If more violence does erupt next Wednesday, you can bet the House will send over the article of impeachment to the Senate within days. Plenty of Republican Senators will have a hard time rejecting it.

        Also, news reports are now saying that McConnell favors impeachment to save what's left of the party. Or that he's terrified what Trump rioters will do next Wednesday.

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          On top of that, three House members were linked to the sedition conspiracy by one of the rioters.  I can see them being charged with sedition now.

          I think, based on the evidence coming out, that because of weeks of Trump's lies, exhortations to do something to help him win, his throwing fuel on the fire it will be shown this invasion was pre-planned by members of Trump's militia.  They knew they were being asked to stop the certification and so they prepared to do just that by bringing zip ties to tie up congresspeople, guns, bombs of various sorts, and bludgeoning instruments to help assault the Capital.

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Many of us said four years ago, and many times since, that Trump was a Clear & Present Danger to America, that he was an existential threat to democracy itself.  It was easy to tell by looking at his past, how he ran his campaign, and how terrible his character was.

            And now look at what his supporters and enablers have wrought.  What happened on the 6th rests squarely on their shoulders.  It was their willingness to accept his lies as truths and go forcefully to the mat to defend his indefensible actions that led directly to almost bringing down our government.

            Since then, it was confirmed that he has never had a moral compass and that his only goal as president was to enrich himself and his family.  Normally, that phrase would end with "and friends", but he has none.

      2. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        As can be, of all people, Mitch McConnell.  He just came out saying he was "pleased" the Democrats were impeaching Trump.  He wants to purge the Republican Party of anything Trump.  Some are now thinking he may vote to impeach to save the Republican Party.

    6. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Should Trump be impeached?  Of course he should.  Republicans should want it to save their party from themselves. Americans want it to 1) punish an insurrectionist, 2) prevent him from ever doing it again, and 3) prove to the world that the Impeachment Clause in our Constitution actually works.  The World wants it in order to bring back a stable world order that Trump ripped asunder.

      Who is responsible for Jan 6, 2021?  A whole host of people.  They worked together, sometimes in concert but often not, to set the stage such that the coup attempt was inevitable.

      First and foremost is Donald Trump.  Simply put, no Trump, no coup attempt.  He spent 4 years cultivating and giving space to the far-right extremist who gathered at the Capitol to conduct their insurrection.  His hate speech, his inflammatory speech, his constant lying, his Big Lie about winning the 2020 election, and finally his call to all those who wanted to "save the nation" to gather for his pity party about having the election "stolen" and then sent to the Capitol to do something about it - which they did.

      But also complicit is the right-wing media, led by Fox Opinion, that spent 4 years amplifying Trump's, passing on Trump's inflammatory lies, adding to them with their own real fake news, willingly propagating Trump's Big Lie about winning the 2020 election.  Without the right-wing media fanning the flames, much of the tinder which set the coup on fire would have been missing.

      You also have so many of the Republican Congress who passed on or even encouraged Trump's most outrageous abuses of power, passing up the chance to be heroes by convicting Trump in the first impeachment, by assisting Trump in propagating the Big Lie about winning the 2020 election, and if several cases actually assisting the insurrectionists in their coup attempt.  Without their active help, Trump could not have had his coup which he so desperately needed to overthrow the election and therefore the government.

      Finally, you have the co-conspirators that make up at least 70% of those who identify Republican, including the pro-Trumpers in this forum.  They decided, for unknown reasons, to suspend their critical thinking and bought into almost ever lie Trump promulgated including the Big Lie about winning the 2020 election.  They amplified this lie on all social media platforms, including this forum, and gave the insurrectionists succor and support to do their foreseeable dirty deed on Jan 6.  Again, without the active support of this mass of so-called patriots the take-over of the Capitol would not have happened.

    7. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Now that President Biden is sworn in, the dark cloud of Trump that has spread across America and the world can begin to lift.

    8. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Two more Republicans voiced their sentiments that they would be willing to convict Trump of sedition if the evidence warranted it.  These are Sens Portman and Cassidy.  Even McConnell seems leaning that way.

      Trump's defense will argue that 1) you can't convict an out of office president and 2) his words are protected speech (he didn't yell fire in a crowded theater).

      The Democrats will argue that 1) history is on their side as far as holding a trial after an official subject to impeachment leaves office, 2) in any case, he was impeached while in office, 3) the constitution proscribes that the Senate will hold a trial for an impeached official, and 4) Trump's words over a period of time go far beyond the pale of protected speech.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        You're saying that Democrats will go back years if necessary to collect sound bites that prove "Incitement to insurrection" years later?  Not that it would surprise me, but it still sounds like more legal shenanigans than honest and truth.

        1. Valeant profile image88
          Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Periods of time could just mean the time Trump leveled false fraud charges made directly after the 2016 election, then the rhetoric used from October through January of this past year.  Those are two clear periods of time where Trump made false claims to undermine our electoral process.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Well I think they should go back at least 40 years - he's been plotting to overthrow the government for at least that long.  Should probably check out parents, grandparent, siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles too - you never know who might have place such thoughts in his evil mind.

            1. Valeant profile image88
              Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Why, those people are not being impeached?  Sounds like a case for the defense - blame Trump's daddy issues.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                But they might find additional "evidence"!  A childhood treatise on revolution, maybe, or a 3 grade drawing of the statue of liberty lying broken on the ground. 

                I mean, the utter failure to find collusion between Trump and Putin doesn't mean their witch hunts will fail every time!  I bet they can find something they can spin or "interpret" into "incitement"!

                1. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  My, where have you been, on Mars with no TV?  Here on Earth, we have two months of lies and violent rhetoric that all but told his militia to go storm the capitol.  He not only yelled "fire" in a crowded theater, he screamed it, over and over and over and over again.  After personally assembling his militia on Ellipse, he whipped his white supremist and Nazi friends into a frensy and on Jan 6. literally told them to march to the Capitol and "fight" to save the country - and they did exactly as he told them.

                  Yes, they will find "something".  They will find thousands of inciting words he used and video/audio of his militia eating it up and tuning them into action.  (ALSO, did you noticed he lied once again by telling his supporters he would march with them?  Instead, he went to hide in the White House to watch his dirty work unfold.)

                  By the way, as you have obviously forgotten, then Russia investigation was not into Trump as you claim.  It was into his campaign.  He ONLY became a target when he obstructed the investigation by firing Comey.  Facts Matter.

              2. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                It sounds very much, Valeant, that Wilderness has no problem with the attempted overthrow of our gov't.  Sad.

                1. Valeant profile image88
                  Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Nah, I think it turns Wilderness on just to play Devil's Advocate, even when he's unaware of the true facts of any case - like the St. Louis thing he brought up and then crashed and burned with a few days ago.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I am watching the memorial in the Capitol to the officer murdered protecting the same by Trump's militia on CNN. 

                    I switched to Fake Fox News to see if they were covering it.  As expected,  they were not.  Instead, there was lying Ingram castigating Dr. Fauci and other medical experts.- disgusting as ever.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I see where what use to be the Republican Party became the Party of Trump-Q today when they didn't have guts, patriotism, pride, sense enough to strip the crazy QLady from her committee assignments.

                    Now the Democrats will have to do the work McCarthy was too chicken to do to rid the House of someone who supports the overthrow of our government and the assassination of the Speaker.

        2. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Silly you, Wilderness, there you go again making false exaggerations - years, my word.  Try Two Months, that is all they need.

    9. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      While there will probably not be enough QOP Senators to find their spine and convict Trump for his obvious insurrection, the State of Georgia may give America justice yet for Trump's criminal activity.

      https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/08/politics … index.html

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Do you think it was a wise move for De's to push forward with the impeachment. When it would appear from day one it would fail?

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Absolutely!  Even if you know the jury is not going to convict a murderer, the prosecutors don't say to the murderer, "oh well, it's your lucky day, you can go free to kill again.  Maybe we will get a jury that actually looks at the facts next time and isn't afraid that you will kill them like the current jury is."  Instead, you go ahead an try the murderer and hope for the best.

          1. Valeant profile image88
            Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Definitely.  This will be a sign to the 81 million of us who voted for Biden whether the Republican Party has died and given way to Trumpism, or whether they will stand with democracy.

            1. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Imagine the total damage to America both internally and externally if the world sees that a president can incite a deadly insurrection against the American people and have absolutely nothing happen to him.  The message those who don't think Trump needs to be brought to justice is that our democracy is not worth protecting and that we are no better than Russia or Iran

              It is going to be almost as bad when the QOP Senators who vote to acquit because they are telling the world and their non-Trump apologist constituents that American democracy is not worth the pain that Trump will visit upon them for voting against him.  If they vote to acquit (assuming the evidence is as overwhelming as it seems to be) then they should all be censured and kicked out of office for violating their oath of office.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                You appear to be concerned about what the world thinks. Perhaps you should consider what many Americans are thinking. It is clear some are willing to commit insurrection against the Government.

                " The message those who don't think Trump needs to be brought to justice is that our democracy is not worth protecting and that we are no better than Russia or Iran"

                Bring a president to justice due to not wanting to hear his words?  Curious, that to me sounds just like something that would occur in Russia or Iran. Last I knew we had freedom of speech. Guess all better be very careful what we say.

                1. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Of course I care about what the world thinks, don't you?  What they think and do have a great impact on our lives.

                  "Bring a president to justice due to not wanting to hear his words? " - What does that mean??

                  I want to bring Trump to justice for inciting an insurrection that led to death, dismemberment, and maiming, among other things.

                  BUT FOR TRUMP, none of that would have happened.  Why is that so hard to understand?

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    If it were not for America's being discussed with the Government this would not have happened. So, many are just not willing to see America go down the wrong path. Right or wrong that's what we are left with. Funny you don't understand that. It would appear some did not want Trump and bellyached for 4 years. Now they seem to think they can impress their will on those that really appreciated what Trump was accomplishing, Almost thinking, all will be fine now... That's a very unrealistic view. The divide has become deeper and is here to stay.  For me, I have no will to mend the country, I think it's time to really stand up and stop all of the left BS.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              It is very clear the Republican party is very split. This trial will work for the two sides to dig in.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            I am pointing out that our Government is more split than citizens. It would seem from the start there legally is no case, just as in the first impeachment. I am not agreeing with the concept of having a trial, just the reality. If the trial is unconstitutional, why progress with it?  It would appear it is, although it depends on which constitutional expert you believe.  If he is convicted, this will go to the Supreme Court. In my opinion, this is very politically fueled.

            1. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Which constitutional expert?  For every 1 (and I think there were only 2 who spoke out) that said it is unconstitutional, you have 100 that say it is.  I will go with common sense and the vast, vast majority (and now two separate Senate votes) that says it is.

              What path do you see it making it to the Supreme Court if Trump is convicted?  The Constitution says the Senate has the sole power.

              I would agree that the gov't is more split given the 50-50 Senate and the almost evenly split House and that America is split 60 anti-Trump and 40 pro-Trump.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                '• The impeachment power only applies to current officeholders. In this camp is Cass Sunstein, a professor at Harvard Law School and author of Impeachment: A Citizen’s Guide, NBC News reports. Others holding this view are Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz and J. Michael Luttig, a former judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia."

                If Trump losses he has the legal right to present his case to the Supreme Court on a constitutional basis.  Which would be the best thing in this case. Ones and for all the matter of can be ruled on. Is it unconstitutional to have an impeachment trial after a president leaves office? The constitutionalists are split. Although I do feel Alan Dershowitz is very much the last word when it comes to the constitution.

        2. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          It is the right thing to do.

    10. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Well,  now we have it - 44 QOP senators voted to sell out America and tell all future presidents they are free to do what ever criminal thing they want without fear of punishment.

      What is interesting is that McConnell voted that holding the trial was unconstitutional EVEN THOUGH he was the one who made sure the trial would happen after Trump left office.  The  man is like Trump, no morals, no ethics, no conscience, no guts.

    11. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Does anyone hear think Trump will be President on March 4?

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Kenna? Where are tou? ;-)

    12. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Independent of 43 Senators violating their oath of office and effective siding with the insurrectionists by not protecting America from Trump inciting another riot, others are now trying to hold him accountable.

      Rep Bennie Thompson (MS) has brought what will probably be the first of hundreds of civil federal lawsuits against, in this case, Trump, Giuliani, and their militia the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers for inciting the Jan 6 insurrection.

  2. Valeant profile image88
    Valeantposted 12 months ago

    If they've got Cheney and McConnell, that likely means Thune and Cornyn will be aboard as well.  That opens things up significantly if the leaders in the Senate are going to go against Trump's base.

    They should have done this during the first impeachment, but McConnell, facing re-election, probably didn't want to battle Trump at that point.

  3. Valeant profile image88
    Valeantposted 12 months ago

    Last week, after Trump was banned from social media, election misinformation posts decreased by 73%.  Just goes to show how much disinformation originated with him.

    1. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      WOW, good to hear, but irreversible damage has been done.

      I just saw where cybersecurity just said the proud boys should be treated like ISIS on-line (as should the rest of those who Trump looked on as friends)

  4. Mark O Richardson profile image84
    Mark O Richardsonposted 12 months ago

    While Trump should handle losing gracefully, it seems that attacks against him are personal. It is like the other side is out for blood (with being banned from social media, the impeachment, his businesses being attacked, etc.).

    1. ScottSBateman profile image80
      ScottSBatemanposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      I think instead the other side is opposed to the violent overthrow of a legal government.

    2. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      And why shouldn't it be personal, Mark?  He led an insurrection against the United States of America, for goodness sake.  How can I say that?

      1.  Because absent Trump and his Big Lie about losing the election there would have not been an attempted coup.

      2.  If Trump had not called his militia to assemble at the Capitol and to "take back America", there would not have been an attempted coup and a dead capitol policeman.

      He brought all of this on himself and has only himself to blame.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        "And why shouldn't it be personal, Mark?  He led an insurrection against the United States of America, for goodness sake.  How can I say that"

        This has not been proved in any respect.

        1. ScottSBateman profile image80
          ScottSBatemanposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Of course Trump led it. He:

          - Set up a rally on certification day.
          - Urged his cult followers to attend.
          - Urged them to march on Capitol Hill.
          - Incited them with inflammatory rhetoric.
          - Refused to deploy the National Guard.
          - Refused to condemn the riot until a week later, only after legal threats.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, a rally was planned for Jan 6th
            The President urged supporters to attend
            He did say walk peacefully to the Capitol
            He spoke his opinion
            A week before the rally he met with Miller and gave hin the
            full authority to make the decision on deploying the Guard.
            "While Trump was less involved in giving orders Wednesday, he gave Miller the green light earlier in the week.

            "The acting secretary and the president have spoken multiple times this week about the request for National Guard personnel in D.C.," said Kash Patel, Miller's chief of staff. "During these conversations, the president conveyed to the acting secretary that he should take any necessary steps to support civilian law enforcement requests in securing the Capitol and federal buildings."  https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did … ol-1560186
            He never refused to condemn the riot. He came out with a statement on the day it happened, and two more videos the day after. These can be found in full on youtube.

            1. ScottSBateman profile image80
              ScottSBatemanposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              All false or misleading. It was Pence who gave the order. WIDELY REPORTED. Your link has nothing to do with the order.

              His statement that day did not condemn the riot. He simply said -- after tremendous public pressure -- to stop the violence because his people were assaulting police officers.

              But your peaceful President did say to the rioters, "We love you".

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                My link actually proves president Trump met with Miller's chief of staff.

                "While Trump was less involved in giving orders Wednesday, he gave Miller the green light earlier in the week. During these conversations, the president conveyed to the acting secretary that he should take any necessary steps to support civilian law enforcement requests in securing the Capitol and federal buildings. A face, A name, A fact...

                1. ScottSBateman profile image80
                  ScottSBatemanposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  The fact that the two had a meeting doesn't mean diddly.

                  It is a fact that Pence -- not Miller -- authorized the deployment because Trump would not.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    It was Pence that spoke with Miller and they made the decision to send in the troops. Miller had the authority. Did he drop the ball, and not want to make the decision, and decided to call Pence. Who knows. Miller was told by Trump a week earlier  Quote from Kash Patel, Newsweek --- " he should take any necessary steps to support civilian law enforcement requests in securing the Capitol and federal buildings. "

                2. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Your link "proves" no such thing, if fact it proves the opposite.  Your whole case rests on whether Patel, a Trump loyalist, is telling the truth.  Since the whole suite of Trump loyalists have been proven to lie over and over again, I don't take him at his word.

                  Tell me, why did Trump lie when he tweeted that "I immediately ordered the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders."?  Can you answer me that?

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    It rests on a man that has given a statement in regards to what he can varify. Miller has in no respect claimed Patel's account is not true. We have a human with a face, and name-giving his account. In my book, this far outweighs a story by an unnamed source.

                    Another source to back up Patel --- "Shortly after activating the additional Guardsmen, Miller spoke with congressional leaders and Vice President Mike Pence about the decision, Hoffman said. Earlier in the week, Miller had received guidance directly from Trump that he should take any necessary steps to support law enforcement, Hoffman added."  https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/0 … ton-455822

                    Could you provide the tweet where Trump stated ---"I immediately ordered the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders"?

            2. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, he did say the word "peacefully".  But it was hidden among thousands of other words designed to inflame the emotions of his cult.

              This on top of two months of other highly inflammatory language urging his supporters to "take back America" and "stop the Democrats from stealing the election."  They heard him and they tried, killing a cop along the way.

              "“Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.” - Trump says to an angry mob he assembled and sent to the Capitol

              While Trump quietly spoke the word "peacefully" once or twice, he loudly spoke the word "fight" dozens of times occasionally emphasizing it by punching like a boxer or "fight like hell".  This with the backdrop of previous claims by Trump that his "supporters might one day get violent". (I remember hearing that one)

              If you were riled up in that crowd, Sharlee, how would you interpret these words? "“We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” (please don't say he was joking)

              or "“We want to go back, and we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.”

              or “Nobody knows what the hell is going on. There’s never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen.” and the crowd chanted Fight for Trump and then took off to storm the Capitol. (Some took off earlier, the police have found, to collect the weapons and implements they were going to use to break into the Capital.

              Here is some of the items rioters brought to the so-called "peaceful protest" you say Trump wanted - https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/01/1 … itol-riot/

              "Under battle flags bearing Donald Trump’s name, the Capitol’s attackers pinned a bloodied police officer in a doorway, his twisted face and screams captured on video. They mortally wounded another officer with a blunt weapon and body-slammed a third over a railing into the crowd.

              “Hang Mike Pence!” the insurrectionists chanted as they pressed inside, beating police with pipes. " from https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-p … s-turn-up/

              Reasonable people understand that Trump caused all of this.  No Trump, no coup.  Unreasonable people think Trump did the right thing.

        2. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          ROFL!

          1. Valeant profile image88
            Valeantposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            'This has not been proved in any respect.'

            Except to those who listened to the lies and rhetoric, and then watched it unfold on the day of the insurrection.

  5. Sharlee01 profile image85
    Sharlee01posted 12 months ago

    No, I don't think I missed the point. The point ap[pears to be Miller did not want the responsibility to call in the troops, what he was told to do... He fell back on calling the VP. I think Miller needs to be questioned on why he did not do what he was told and asked why he thought he needed to call the VP. We do know he did not call, 

    "You miss the point that Miller HAD to call the VP."

    He did not have to call anyone. He had hos orders from Trump, 
    this is a fact.  He was given the authority to make the decision. He did not want to and tried to get Pence involved IMO. 

    So far this is what we know from the statements I provided you within my previous posts

    Believe whatever you please, I am at this point sticking to what facts I have uncovered both sources have names and gave statements  Trump gave Miller the authority to make the call...

    1. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Tell me, what were the Exact words Trump supposedly told Miller?  The best we have is "guidance", according to you, "that he should take any necessary steps to support law enforcement,"  That is pretty damn specific, don't you think? - NOT. 

      You are basing your whole defense of a man who caused an insurrection on an alleged statement, a vague one at that, well before the time he sent his militia to the Capitol.  He then made himself unavailable during a time of crisis.

    2. My Esoteric profile image86
      My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Given the FBI's warnings and the almost total lack of preparedness, I have to wonder how much Trump and his loyalists had to do with being unprepared.

      The Washington Post timeline is a good start at finding the culprits but the 9/11-style investigation, which hopefully lead to a special counsel, should root out all of the bad actors in the government that let this happen - including congressmen and women who assisted the seditioners.

      https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/19/politics … ndex.html.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        I would guess we will never know the motive of who did what on that given day. I can add, Trump, as a rule, is for law and order, and all summer offered troops to all states that were having problems with nightly riots.

        In my view, I do not in any respect feel Trump promoted physical violence, I think the attack was planned by groups long before they set foot in Washington.  And it is very well reported that the FBI knew about the threat, and warned all the appropriate agencies. It is obvious the threat was ignored, and many did not do what was needed to control a huge mad crowd.
        .

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          How can you say this and not laugh out loud "I can add, Trump, as a rule, is for law and order,"??

          The man has broken so many laws, in and out of office, and pushed the boundaries of so many others it is beyond belief.  Let me put it this way, he believes in law and order much like a mob boss does.

          Yes, the threat was ignored - but by whom and why?  Who told them to ignore it - given they have never ignored such a threat before.  Why, in this one instance when Trump sent his militia to the Capitol did years of training and protocol break down?

          That is what the investigation will determine and I bet you it will lead to Trump's front door.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Has he been charged with any crimes now or in the past? I have no idea if the threat was ignored or just another mess that was poorly handled. As I have said previously we need an investigation into this matter.  If Trump is or were a mob boss, I would think Mueller would have found something to charge him with, not just speculative inuendos.

            1. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Once again, and again - Mueller was not allowed to charge Trump with anything.  Why do you keep bring up a false claim? 

              What Mueller did do, however, is lay out all of the evidence needed to try him for obstruction of justice once he slinks off tomorrow morning.  Hopefully the new AG will waste no time in releasing the rest of the Mueller report and indicting an unsitting president so that America can begin the process of finding justice and start healing from the terrible wound this, whatever Trump is, inflicted on our Nation.

              1. MizBejabbers profile image88
                MizBejabbersposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                You have some logical thoughts, But.... 1. In the present, he couldn't be charged with crimes as long as he was president. That was stated over and over. 2. In the past, he paid off his accusers, that has been brought to light. Bankruptcies are not crimes, that is a historical fact, regardless of the intent of the "ruptee". The rich can pay to hide their crimes. Remember, it was the IRS who brought down Al Capone. When all else fails, call in the IRS.
                https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2017/ … asion.html

                1. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  While he can't be charged with this, he should be - he had NO vaccination plan.  None, Nada.  I wonder how many people have died because of that incompetency??  Overall, I think Trump is responsible for 300,000 of the 400,000 dead Americans and 90% of the next 100,000 that are supposed to die between now and Feb 13th.

                  Can you imagine, for a pandemic that he lied to America that it would go away "soon", another 100,000 Americans will die in the next 23 days.  And still I hear so many of his zombies still think Covid is hoax or agree with his lie that the deaths are overstated.

                  America will suffer the pain of this twice impeached, single-term, mentally ill disgraced demagogue for decades to come.  And yet 70,000,000 so-called Americans would want to do it again.

                2. Sharlee01 profile image85
                  Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Just living in the now, today world. It is well known he could not be charged with a crime while president. I was pointing out as of yet in his life he has not to this day been charged with a crime. He very well might be. I don't think it fair or kind to just say matter of fact that he will be charged with a crime. I certainly would hate to live in a world one can be slandered with crimes that they have not or may never be charged with. Time to stop, and wonder what it would be like if we were treated in that
                  fashion.

                  In regard to the IRS, I trust if he has committed any tax crimes they will charge him or would have charged him before he became the president. He has never been charged with a tax crime or actually any crime, and he is 70 some years on this earth. But, whatever. The fact doesn't seem to matter much anymore. Would it not just be better to see if he is charged with crimes before slandering him. What if he has not committed any crimes? Have some been unfair in slandering him?

                  1. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Sharlee, do you consider defamation a crime?  Do you consider fraud a crime?

                    1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                      No, I don't consider defamation of one character a crime.  However, I do feel it is socially unexcepted and feel it fair if defamed, to initiate a civil lawsuit and seek damages against the perpetrator.

                      I consider fraud a crime and I am aware crimes of fraud are covered by both criminal and civil laws.

                      I feel one must distinguish between a criminal charge and a civil charge.  I am very aware of the different criminal cases that the State Of New York is looking at in regard to Trump. I am also aware Trump has had multiple civil suits throughout his life. Which it appears he paid his way out of. I am aware of no criminal charges ever being brought against the man as of yet. I see where you are headed, in my comment, I neglected to be more specific. I should have been more precise in my terminology. My train of thought was that Trump as of yet has not been charged with a criminal charge.

      2. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Everyone of these people need to be investigated and indicted if needed:

        "Steve Bannon evoked the beaches of Normandy. Michael Flynn drew comparisons to Civil War battlefields and spoke of Americans who died for their country. Roger Stone called it a struggle "between the godly and the godless, between good and evil." Rudy Giuliani called for "trial by combat." Ali Alexander said it would be a "knife fight.""

        ""All hell is going to break loose tomorrow," Bannon, Trump's former top White House adviser, promised listeners of his podcast -- called "War Room" -- on January 5."

        ""We are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women," he added, "and we are probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you will never take back our country with weakness.""

        "What we have is influential, powerful people influencing the President and pushing out messages that are radicalizing large chunks of the population," said Heidi Beirich, chief strategy officer for the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism"

        1. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          All the men you mentioned needing to be investigated have been investigated.

          Maybe it's time to just move on. Clean slate with the new administration. To continue to investigating certain citizens that are either under investigation or have been investigated seems unproductive. And will ultimately make Biden's administration marred with "let's get even"... Instead of let's move on and try to pull together.

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Not for inciting sedition they haven't.

            It amazes me you simply want to "move on" from an attempted violent coup of our nation and pretend it didn't happen or was no big deal.

            If someone kidnapped your child and you got him or her back.  Would you just "move on" or seek justice?

            1. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              No, Once again I have said multiple times I think the entire matter of the Capitol riot should be investigated. Your analogy is hyperbolic.  You entirely missed the context of my comment.  Here is our back and forth... 

              MY ESOTERIC WROTE:
              Everyone of these people need to be investigated and indicted if needed:

              "Steve Bannon evoked the beaches of Normandy. Michael Flynn drew comparisons to Civil War battlefields and spoke of Americans who died for their country. Roger Stone called it a struggle "between the godly and the godless, between good and evil." Rudy Giuliani called for "trial by combat." Ali Alexander said it would be a "knife fight.""

              "All hell is going to break loose tomorrow," Bannon, Trump's former top White House adviser, promised listeners of his podcast -- called "War Room" -- on January 5."

              "We are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women," he added, "and we are probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you will never take back our country with weakness."

              "What we have is influential, powerful people influencing the President and pushing out messages that are radicalizing large chunks of the population," said Heidi Beirich, chief strategy officer for the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism"


              MY  RESPONSE Sharlee --- All the men you mentioned needing to be investigated have been investigated.

              Maybe it's time to just move on. Clean slate with the new administration. To continue to investigating certain citizens that are either under investigation or have been investigated seems unproductive. And will ultimately make Biden's administration marred with "let's get even"... Instead of let's move on and try to pull together

              As you see I was referring to a different investigation entirely.
              https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4171423

    3. Valeant profile image88
      Valeantposted 12 months ago

      Shar clearly wants to thoroughly investigate the Capitol insurrection, just not if it involves the people responsible for inciting it.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Quick question --- Realistically, just how are you going to prove
        "Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn,  Roger Stone, or Rudy Giulian contributed to inciting a riot at the Capitol? This seems very unrealistic.  Do you realize how hard it would be to provide evidence of intent? When I speak of an investigation in regard to the Capitol riot.  I am referring to anyone that physically participated in the violence or proven to have planned the attack.

        I just will never become accustomed to or figure out your selective way of thinking.  It always seems so unrealistic.

        I have nothing more to say on the subject. Don't agree or care for my opinion, I guess that's your problem.

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          I don't need to prove anything, the prosecutors do.  They need to take statements such as the one Giuliani made when he told the angry mob, "“If they ran such a clean election, they’d have you come in and look at the paper ballots.(they did) Who hides evidence? .(they didn't) Criminals hide evidence. Not honest people. Over the next 10 days, we get to see the machines that are crooked (they weren't), the ballots that are fraudulent (they weren't), and if we’re wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we’re right, a lot of them will go to jail. Let’s have trial by combat.”" (which he yelled at the mob)

          To that the prosecutor's can add all the months of lies Giuliani told to those that Trump called to march on the Capitol.  Giuliani and Bannon and Jr. and Trump spent months inciting these people.  And guess what they did, they heeded their lies and invaded our Capitol.  (but no big deal, move on)

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            I think any case of incitement would be very hard to prove in a court of law. Very easy in the court of the media.  Just my opinion

            1. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              I will agree, it is very hard, but they have to try, there must be justice.

    4. Valeant profile image88
      Valeantposted 12 months ago

      Yeah, let's come into a thread called, 'Impeaching Donald Trump - Again' and ask that people stop talking about Trump, even though his impeachment is something still on the horizon.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        This is a public forum, I was simply offering MY ESOTERIC a suggestion...  And let him know I am over a conversation I find has been played out. That's my right., get it?

        I have no problem having a discussion on current events. I think we have well- discussed the many "previous and pending crime accusations". I find it funny that so many pundits are considering that Trump supporters need deprogramming. Laugh -- Laugh - Laugh

        Give it a break, move at the moment Trump has not been charged with any criminal charges. You can hope... But I am not interested in discussing if comes.

        Suggestion --- What' you guy up to in his first days in office?

        1. Valeant profile image88
          Valeantposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Yeah, that's your right.  But you have that right to go start those threads elsewhere on this site.

          For many, Trump's illegal actions will remain relevant due to his impeachment and the impending New York investigations that had to be delayed due to him holding the Office of the Presidency. 

          People like MyEsoteric and I will be very interested to see if the incoming Attorney General chooses to file criminal charges for those Obstruction of Justice claims made in the Russia Investigation.

          If this does not interest you, why don't you move along and just stop posting in this thread?  It's a simple solution.  Instead, you need to whine about how we should all want to be like you and start bashing Biden at every turn.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            "If this does not interest you, why don't you move along and just stop posting in this thread? " Let me count the ways... One such thought was being polite to My E...  and actually, I have posted a thread on the second impeachment --- current factual news. TDS is not pretty,  time to move on, sooner or later we all must. or take the risk of really looking --- well you know.

            And Let me point out something you may have not caught ---  This thread was on point until page 5. It was then MyE added a twist that led us into a new area of discussion. It was not I that strayed. It was formed that comment on I was simply being courteous to his comments.
            https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4171398

            1. Valeant profile image88
              Valeantposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              You just can't stop, can you? 

              I doubt MyE finds your posts polite either.  An attempt to distract from his topic, likely.

              Keep us posted where you got your degree in psychology.  Until then, I'll just assume your TDS mention refers to your own diagnosis of Trump Demagogue Syndrome.  We have the cure, it's called 81 million votes.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Reread my comment I edit it.  Not willing to take your obvious bait. So obvious. You differently
                can't keep up with the internet "Big Dogs" --- Takes skill... 
                differently -- (in a way that is not the same as another or as before.)

                1. Valeant profile image88
                  Valeantposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Not a bait, a suggestion.  I followed all the posts in the thread, I know what you were trying to do.  You're trying to deflect attention away from Trump's crimes to talk about Biden.  My suggestion is that you don't need to do that in this thread.  There will be plenty to talk about relating to this topic in the upcoming weeks and months.

                  And since I can spell basic words like 'definitely,' I think I may have a bit more skill than you give me credit for.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    I was very direct in my comments that I felt it time to move on. MyE was reverting to (https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4171398) conspiracy theories in my view. The people he mentions have not been connected to the Jan 6th riot in any respect. As I offered the actual link to when the subject went off the rails and who took it off the rails. The thread was actually to my surprise going along wonderfully on the subject. You may want to address MyE why he felt he needed to divert the subject to Fylnn, Bannor ---- etc.

                    I placated, made attempts to be courteous.  I speed type on a phone as a rule. So you may need to become accustomed to my errors.  In this case, I meant to use the word differently to make my point about you being different than the "Big Dogs".

                    differently ---  in a way that is not the same as another or as before you. You know, IMO you are unlike the internet big dogs when it comes to tossing out bait.

              2. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Get lost...

          2. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            You don't need to speak for MyE. He certainly does well with getting his point out. I like that, I respect that.  You asked why I don't move along?   As a rule, reply if addressed, that simple.  I think MyE does just fine without your help.

            Actually, MyE has posted a thread on Biden. Perhaps you should check it out. I certainly did. He put a lot of thought into the thread I would hope some would share their views on Biden's first days.

    5. Valeant profile image88
      Valeantposted 12 months ago

      The Trumpism is strong with this one.  Going so far as to try and explain away an obvious mistake as intentional, to make up for the fact that there is a failure to check posts for accuracy before publishing them - all while projecting your own faults onto others.  No wonder the defense is so personal.

    6. Valeant profile image88
      Valeantposted 12 months ago

      Should be interesting watching Trump's lawyers attempting to discredit Trump's own supporters.

      https://www.yahoo.com/news/supporters-w … 09708.html

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        I think the entire trial will be interesting legally. I am most interested in hearing the back and forth, especially would like to know if impeaching a president after he has left office.    Wondering if it will be deemed constitutional.   IT is a perfect case for TV. It will be all about judging words, and yes, right up my alley the context of what was said in full.

        1. Valeant profile image88
          Valeantposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          I have heard, but could not find any cases to back up the claim, that they have impeached judges after they have left office so as to bar them from ever being able to sit on the bench again. 

          If, and I stress if since I could not find those cases, that precedent exists, it will confirm the legality of impeaching someone after they have currently left office.

          Another angle you could take if you are the prosecution is that since Trump receives government resources such as protection and post-presidential salary, you could argue he is still a government official.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            I for one am looking forward to watching. I can't find much about the Constitutional implications. I wouldn't think the House feels they have a good leg to stand on in regard to the Constitution.

            1. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Why is that?

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                I should have been more implicit --- I think some may feel as the wording stands in the Constitution it could lessen their chances of winning. I should have perhaps said ---  I wouldn't think the House feels they have a good leg to stand on in regard to the wording of the  Constitution.

                I have done further reading, and at this point, I think it will all depend on the individual Senators to vote their opinion on the wording in the Constitution. Some may feel the word "president " was used for a purpose, and the words past presidents were omitted to assure past presidents could not be impeached.

                It also appears if Trump loses, he can take a Constitutional complaint to the Supreme Court on that very wording.

          2. IslandBites profile image89
            IslandBitesposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            The only precedent I could find:

            The principal precedent is the 1876 impeachment of Secretary of
            War William Belknap. Belknap resigned over allegations he received kickbacks. The House impeached him after his resignation.

            The House approved (without objection) the resolution impeaching Secretary Belknap, establishing the House’s position that it may impeach an official who does not currently hold office. The impeachment then moved to the Senate for trial, where Secretary Belknap asserted through counsel that because he was now a private citizen and no longer an officer of the federal government, the Senate lacked the authority to bring him to trial. The House managers asserted otherwise, arguing that because Belknap was Secretary of War “at the time all the acts charged in said articles of impeachment were done and committed ... the House of Representatives had power to prefer the articles of impeachment, and the Senate have full and the sole power to try the same.”

            The Senate heard three days of arguments on the topic after which it determined by a vote of 37 to 29 that Secretary Belknap was “amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office before he was impeached.” Following the trial, a majority of Senators voted to convict Belknap, but no article mustered the two thirds majority necessary for conviction. He was ultimately acquitted.

            https://crsreports.congress.gov/product … B/LSB10565

            1. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Good find.

            2. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              I think this is key, absent a court opinion - "The Senate heard three days of arguments on the topic after which it determined by a vote of 37 to 29 that Secretary Belknap was “amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office before he was impeached.

              I would think, should it go to the Supreme Court, they would look to this vote as guidance since the Constitution itself is silent.

        2. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Which is a very interesting question.  Who will deem it constitutional or not?  It has never been settled.  Most constitutional lawyers says there is no prohibition in the Constitution against at least completing an impeachment after an official leaves office.  They also think Trump may have a tough row to hoe in the Supreme Court since the contextualist he nominated, plus Alito and Thomas, will look to see if the Constitution prohibits it. Failing that, they will look to see what the founders said or wrote about it.  Failing that, they may do what Scalia did and turn to English law which clearly allowed for impeachment after the fact.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            In regards to who will judge if the charge is not constitutional --- Both sides present their case, the Senate will be the deciders via their final vote. It will be up to each Senator to vote their conscience if the charge is constitutional.

            I have just taken Alan Dershowitz's opinion thus far. It appears there are questions due to wording in the Constitution in regard to the word "president" can be impeached. It has no mention of a president that has left office. It is also possible if Trump losses he can't present the case to the SC on a Constitutional basis. Whatever the outcome this may set precedent for further impeachments. Hey, we are living through a very historic time. This trial will be very interesting.

            https://www.npr.org/2021/01/22/95970005 … l-answered

            1. My Esoteric profile image86
              My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Nor does it mention "It has no mention of a president that has not left office."  Nor does it say only a "sitting" president, or words to that effect.  Once a president, always a president whether they occupy the Oval office or not, I would think.

              Yes, I suspect Trump will, if he is convicted of inciting an insurrection, take it to the SC.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, we agree on the wording. It will be up to the individual to decipher meaning. Will some take the wording as written or will they assume the word was used to indicate a president present or past.

                Yes, Trump's character would indicate he if things don't go his way he will head for the SC.

                1. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  If by "individual" you mean individual Senators, I can't agree.  At a minimum, they should do as before (or take the Belknap vote as is) and vote on whether it is constitutional or not.  If the majority says it isn't, then it is over - for that is within the Senate's power to do. 

                  If, on the other hand, it passes as Constitutional, then Every Senator must take that as the baseline and not try to use that reasoning to squirm around not voting to impeach because they are afraid what Trump might do to them.

                  If they vote not to convict, it must be because they truly don't believe the actions of Trump in the months prior to and on the day of the insurrection doesn't amount to incitement.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    "If they vote not to convict, it must be because they truly don't believe the actions of Trump in the months prior to and on the day of the insurrection doesn't amount to incitement."

                    I think it is more complicated, I think some will consider their true opinion, feeling Trump's words incited an attack on Government. While others will consider only if the impeachment was Constitution. Some will consider both...  And you are correct some will worry about what Trump could do to or for their careers.

      2. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        From the article:
        "Chansley called the FBI the day after the insurrection and told agents he traveled “at the request of the president that all ‘patriots’ come to D.C. on January 6, 2021,” authorities wrote in court papers."

        Interesting use of the term "patriot."

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          And then there is this from that same article - "At least five supporters facing federal charges have suggested they were taking orders from the then-president when they marched on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6 to challenge the certification of Joe Biden's election win. "

          To Incite - "encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behavior)."  To incite somebody to do something there must be the "inciter" and the "incitee" (to make up a word).  If the incitee doesn't perceive the words of the inciter to be a call to action, then the inciter would only be guilty of inflammatory 1st amendment language. 

          But, if the incitee acts on that language, then the inciter is probably criminally guilty. 

          In this case, according the insurrectionist, they were acting on behalf of what they thought Trump was asking them to do.  Easy-Peasy.

    7. Benoitsmidget profile image79
      Benoitsmidgetposted 11 months ago

      They will aquit Trump, because it has been proven that the insurrection was planned before Trump gave his speech, and also because if they try to indict him, they would have to do the same with Maxine Waters, Ayanna Presley et al. However, I do find your article well written.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, it was all planned before his speech.  That's why they have to go back further in time and try to change the meaning of different words than a political exhortation to "fight!" or "March on the capital and talk to you legislator.".  That doesn't cut it any more, so something else must be spun into "incitement".

        1. Valeant profile image88
          Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          All?  Highly doubtful when you hear the statements of many of his supporters who claim to have answered his call and then stormed the Capitol after his direction.  These insurrectionists clearly only got the memo after hearing Trump speak.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.html

          https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zo … -like-hell

          https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol … ton-2021-1

          And if Trump's legal team chooses to use the 'insurrection was planned weeks before' defense, it should be interesting to ask those people on live television why they planned it.  Their answer? To stop a stolen election, something Trump promoted for months on his social media accounts.  Still seems like inciting.

          1. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            As you say, I suspect a lot of the evidence will be the insurrectionists own words where they tell you straight out that Trump was their inspiration, that they were doing it at Trump's orders.

            They will play the recordings of the traitors saying they came to Washington because Trump told them to.

            They will play the video where you can hear the crowd going wild and were ready to attack as Trump urged them on from the podium. 

            Yes, it was planned - at Trump's strident urging from Oct through Dec and then on Jan 6.

          2. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Worth the read about how one woman got out from under the Qanon-Trump spell.

            https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/03/tech/qan … index.html

          3. My Esoteric profile image86
            My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Another shift to reality - CNN is first and Fox is third and falling (it is about time)

            https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/media/fo … index.html

      2. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Proven by whom?  How?

    8. Benoitsmidget profile image79
      Benoitsmidgetposted 11 months ago

      Why is what Trump said or did any worse than what Maxine Waters or Ayanna Presley said?? The hypocrisy of the left is astounding.

      1. Valeant profile image88
        Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Did either organize an insurrection?  Did they organize an armed group that proceeded to takeover our nation's Capitol as Congress was in the process of certifying an election that did not go their way?  Did they spend months spreading a lie that the 2020 election was fraudulent and then tell their followers to go to the Capitol and fight?  Did their followers leave that speech and then go looking to assassinate the Vice President of the United States?

        It's not even close to Maxine Waters saying people need to 'form a crowd, pushback on them (Trump's cabinet) and TELL them they are not welcome.'

        Your false equivalency in trying to support a violent coup of our government is ridiculous.

    9. Valeant profile image88
      Valeantposted 11 months ago

      So, Trump's programming of his base over months, assembling them on January 6, and then telling them to go down to the Capitol at the exact moment Congress is set to certify electoral votes and fight like hell could not have been a cause for the violent insurrection?  What you are willing to excuse, in the name of Trumpism, is beyond scary.

      As for Georgia, you do have a point.  Lindsey Graham could also be among those being investigated for his role in attempting to influence Raffensperger.  It will be interesting to see if it's both Trump and him.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Hey, I was very diplomatically making an attempt to point out it's not so smart to read into anything one might hear from media. It seems as if some are very "programmed " to add to what they read and hear.  Not sure who the DA of Fulton county will net and investigate. Seems she is scared to mention Trump.

        Once again (realize it takes a few times to soak in, no problem) I never condoned or supported what went on at the Capitol. I am against impeachment for what I see as political reasons, especially when the Democrats know the outcome. As I have said red meat.

        1. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Since you oppose this impeachment, is there ANYTHING a president can do  in the last month of his term (especially a Republican one) that would meet your bar for impeachment?

          From where I sit, you can't do anything worse than what Trump did, even murder.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            It's not that I object to the impeachment. I object to the non-sensical reason for holding an impeachment when they know the outcome. It stands to accomplish nothing in the end but making the Democrats look like they are impeaching Trump as a political ploy. Intelligent people can see right through this ploy, same as the first impeachment, he will be acquitted... and be on his way. But the Dems once again have tossed out red meat for hungry devotees.  Waste of time and money.  But that's what Dems do best. LOL

            1. Valeant profile image88
              Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Considering it was the most bipartisan impeachment in history, and even Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy publicly stated Trump had culpability for the Capitol attack, thinking that the GOP was finally ready to hold Trump accountable for his illegality was far from non-sensical.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                All may be true. But as I said the Dems know what the outcome will be. Just a cheap political ploy. I am not saying it will not keep the base happy. But, what do you really think the majority of clear thinking Ameican's think of this ploy, we have other big problems. Problem Biden was bragged he was going to work on. I see he is fallen short on getting the vaccine out and thinks we instead need a glove factory. Oh, and to wear a mask while out of doors. WOW ! great suggestions, that should really work to rid us of COVID.  Thank God we have some vaccine at this point. My God are we in trouble.

                1. Valeant profile image88
                  Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Considering the Majority leader of the GOP Senate was putting blame on Trump at the time of impeachment, the odds that the GOP had finally had enough when Trump incited his supporters to threaten their lives seemed decent.  The majority of clear thinking Americans support this ploy as 56% of them want Trump convicted - the other 44% of sycophants think along your lines.

                  Biden has issued the most amount of Executive Orders to start a presidency - seems he's doing the work.  We're less than a month into his term and it's looking like a nearly $2 trillion relief package is going to get done in two months, something it took a Republican-led Senate to get done in nine months.  And he's noted that no Covid plan existed before he was inaugurated, something he would have been able to plan for had Trump's people not obstructed the transition.  For a self-proclaimed medical expert, you expecting him to solve Covid in three weeks is rather ridiculous.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Two months... I wonder how some that need that cash feel about two months.  Nine months, that was Nancy's fault completely. Yes, still Trump impeding Joe. How long can I expect to hear that? My oh my liberals always play the blame game. The truth is (and I provide links to Eoc to back this fact) the majority of the people that worked on Operation Warp Speed are still working on Joe's team.  Gen. Gustave Perna is still in charge of vaccine distribution. No obstruction, Joe just has no idea the scope of this pandemic. Like I said he is off in all directions --- building a glove factory, etc. thank God he left Trump's team in place because it does appear bugs are being handled.


                    " the other 44% of sycophants think along your lines."

                    Sycophants?  Who would I be trying to please in this incident, and how do to gain personal advantage by supporting or not supporting the impeachment?    Not sure you chose the right word, maybe you were reaching for the word   Trumpian?   

                    This would seem to be a much more important poll IMO ---Right Direction or Wrong Track
                    35% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction
                    Monday, February 08, 2021

                    Thirty-five percent (35%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey for the week ending February 4, 2021
                    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public … rack_feb08

                    Shocked to see this occur so soon.

                    1. Valeant profile image88
                      Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Love how you claim liberals always play the blame game immediately after you blame Pelosi.  The hypocrisy lady strikes yet again.

                      And sycophant seems appropriate enough.  When so many believe Trump's base is a cult, the word fits just fine.  And you seemed to believe your opinion was in the majority, the point was to show that it is not.

                      I'm not even sure what you were trying to claim by citing the ridiculously far-right Rasmussen polling.  But if you looked at Realclearpolitics who averages all the polls across the spectrum, you see both right and wrong moving closer to the middle.
                      https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll … y-902.html

    10. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 11 months ago

      Trumpers look the other way when their man invents a lie, foments the lie, calls for violence in support of the lie, and gleefully allows his supporters to kill and destroy before he calls them off and tells them he loves them. Some Trumpers characterize holding him accountable for creating an insurrection against their own country as a "nonsensical reason for holding an impeachment."

      What would be a sensible reason for holding an impeachment trial? What if the insurrectionists who were hunting down Pence had gotten ahold of him? Trump tweeted that Pence was a "coward" after the Capitol had been breached and while his violent followers were hunting down Pence. Video evidence shows these insurrectuinists reading Trump's tweets in real time and shouting them out to the angry mob.

      Think about that.

      A moral, responsible, sane president would be urging his followers to stand down and leave the Capitol. Trump egged them on for hours.  Trump waited until people were killed before he finally told them to stop, and then he told his killer followers he loves them.

      In whose world is this not impeachable behavior?

      Are you defenders of Trump really ready to say this behavior, by a President of the United States should not suffer consequences?

      Really?

      1. IslandBites profile image89
        IslandBitesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        They dont care. It is a cult.

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, the "patriots" chose love of Trump over love of country.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Oh my, so dramatic...

            1. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Glad you think so. All indications are that Trump will get away with inventing the Big Lie and fomenting the anger and violence surrounding it while his deluded extremist followers take the fall.

              The next demagogue will have a green light to do the same and will probably be smarter about it.

              Gotta love American justice. The rich and powerful get off Scot free while the "patriots" end up in prison.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, one must love American justice and those that actually make our laws, and skirt them to suit their own agenda's. Today in the hearing the defense showed their own vidio of what those on the left have saw fil to say. Each and every example was very clear, one could in no way mistake their words, the very context of their words... They were threatening, asking, and threatening violence. Not dog whistle, clear threats. I have never, and I mean never heard a threat from Trump, ever.  So, if you want justice in regards to words... These disgusting human beings need to get in line.

                "All indications are that Trump will get away with inventing the Big Lie and fomenting the anger and violence surrounding it while his deluded extremist followers take the fall."

                Fomenting violence? Look to the left, their words are direct -- Blow it up,   Threating two supreme court justices, get up in their faces,  they do what they do.  Hopefully, you saw the entire clip. Yeah, maybe they all will get away with it. The left has done nothing for four years but spread pure hate.  They are hateful hypocrites.

                Trump did not mince his opinion, he did not ask for violence in fact just the opposite.  You heard no words out of his mouth that could compare to what many on the left have said, like I said you want to hear words that clearly denote violence you have a listen to the video that the defense offered today. Sickening, vile, and they should not be representing anyone let alone American's!  The defense offered truth today and defended Trump using our laws, our constitution. Not fluffy stories that the left-skewed for drama.  Today we saw our laws at work.

                " Gotta love American justice. The rich and powerful get off Scot free while the "patriots" end up in prison."

                So does that justice apply to all the persons that were on the video the defense offered?  Each and everyone on that clip's words is clear, no dog whistles clearly asking for a violent act. NO "well maybe they meant this or that. No, very clear context. So, ask yourself how do I explain or defend such violent rhetoric?  These words came from the mouths of our Congress people, even our VP.

                1. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  History.

                  Did you watch the prosecution as well?

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I have watched every minute of the hearing.

                2. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  I am sorry, did the defense show that each of those Democrats spent months lying to their supporters to rile up their anger?

                  Did the defense show that the people those Democrats were talking to was an angry mob, many who were known to be violent criminals, that they first called to show up on some date in the future to march on some part of gov't?  No they didn't.

                  You bought a false equivalency hook, line, and sinker.  Why?

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I figured 'why bother?' It's just more of what we've been seeing since Trump was elected.  No one besides Trump created a Big Lie, pounded it into his supporters' souls, day in and day out, for months, until they were angry and outraged. No one set a date and time for a rally to coincide with a congressional action he didn't want and conveniently located just down the street, urged his supporters to go there, called his VP a coward after the Capitol was breached by his angry mob who were already hunting for Pence with zip ties in hand, then not do a damned thing to call off the mob until hours later after death and destruction had already occurred.

                    Oh yeah, it's exactly the same. In the mind of a child, maybe.

                    1. My Esoteric profile image86
                      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      I will be interested to how the Trump apologists here will explain away this latest revelation from a Republican congresswoman where Trump yelled at Minority Leader McCarthy, who was calling Trump to call off his mob, something to the effect that "I guess my mob cares more about the election than you do" (my words but close).

                      https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics … index.html

                      I also watched where a Trump lawyer effectively called Republican Senator a liar by deny that Tubberville ever talked to him.

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I have not bought anything. I look at full facts. The persons that were presented on that video spoke violent words, there was no mistaking the context of their words. As I said, no dog whistles, just clearly stated words. I would think if you did not realize that it might be you that bought into a false narrative.  Words do matter, but context matters more. These persons are as guilty of harsh political speech as Trump was. It's dangerous no matter who is guilty of using that kind of verbal tactics

                    Alexandria, Virginia, U.S. On June 14, 2017, during a practice session for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity in Alexandria, Virginia, James Hodgkinson shot U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, U.S. Capitol Police officer Crystal Griner, congressional aide Zack Barth, and lobbyist Matt Mika. The representatives had been practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. James Hodgkinson, a 66-year-old man, asked a passing congressman—South Carolina’s Jeff Duncan—whether Republicans or Democrats were on the field practicing.

                    WORDS CAN BE DANGEROUS, no matter what party they originate from.

                    1. My Esoteric profile image86
                      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Who sent Hodgkinson there?  Which Democratic politician suggested he go to the baseball field to shoot Republicans??  Your offer is a perfect example false equivalency! 

                      What "facts" are you looking at?  Everyone of them points to Trump inciting an insurrection (which Trump's lawyer said it wasn't).

                      Why didn't you present "facts" that proved the Democrats who used the word fight were directing the people (many of them simply said words like "I will fight for you" and not "go fight for me") they were directing them to to go stop a government action?

    11. Valeant profile image88
      Valeantposted 11 months ago

      Well, this was interesting....

      The authors found that 40 percent of the more than 400,000 American virus deaths as of mid-January could have been averted if the U.S. had a mortality rate in line with those of the other G-7 nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the U.K.).

      https://www.yahoo.com/news/top-medical- … 53943.html

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Interesting article, I found it non-bias and laid out some interesting facts. America for many decades as the author pointed out has been lacks in healthcare for all. It has a system that needs fixing and has been ignored, as the author pointed out over forty years.

        Very good analysis of minorities' special problems, and how they have truly been ignored.  I did check out the stats on the countries that fared better Japan and Canada clearly did do very well containing COVID. However, the UK, Italy, and France did not appear to do well just comparing the death rates per million ... US 1456 -  UK 1686 -- France 1231-- Italy 1535. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

        So yes, some certainly had better stats, some not so much. All and all good informative info.

    12. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 11 months ago

      "Let today be the day that we reclaim the definition of patriotism."

      Yes.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Rah-Rah-Rah!

    13. Valeant profile image88
      Valeantposted 11 months ago

      https://hubstatic.com/15413927.jpg

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        I did!  I saw it!  I watched some of the closing arguments from prosecution today, and watched news and pundits commenting.

        All three produced the same result: Democrats have done a fine job of projecting a very emotional argument, appealing to fear more than anything else, but precious little (actually zero) in the way of actual facts.  No calls to be armed, no calls to kill anyone, no calls for damage, not even any real planning.  Just spin of political rhetoric to something else.  And, of course, the only honest thing said; it is important to Democrats that they never again face Donald Trump in the political arena.

        1. Valeant profile image88
          Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Nothing would please us more if Donald Trump ran again. 

          1.)  He's got a whole wing of the Republican party that is fracturing away. 2.)  He guarantees a huge turnout from the Democrats who have seen his autocratic ways. 
          3.)  He won't have Twitter as they have banned him for life, so his lies and exaggerations won't get the same attention they did in previous elections.  4.)  Many know they cannot trust him to manage a crisis - actually, multiple crises.
          5.)  He is someone who emboldens white supremacists and inspires domestic terror against Governors and Congress.

          But based on his lifestyle of little sleep, poor exercise, and horrible diet, the odds of his health allowing him to run again in 2024 was already slim to none.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Speaking of little sleep - do you think those Democrats in Congress will lose sleep over voting the party line rather than where reason, truth and honesty lead them? 

            Or are they so used to it that it won't bother them at all?  Or (third option) there isn't enough reason, truth or honesty left in the party to matter?

        2. My Esoteric profile image86
          My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Even if "No calls to be armed, no calls to kill anyone, no calls for damage, " were true, they don't have to prove it for an impeachment.  All they have to do is that he incited the insurrectionists to attack the capitol and the words from the rioters today prove that in spades.

          The simple fact that you are sticking your head in the sand to hide from is they did what they did because Trump told them to.  That is what they believe.  But to go even further - a president cannot say the words he said without committing an impeachable offense.  A private citizen can for sure, but not a president who took the oath of office.

          What is cool is the evidence the managers presented is probably sufficient to convict him of inciting a riot in a criminal court as well.  I sure hope DOJ tries.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            LOL  Hell will freeze over before their emotional arguments and video clips of a riot can convince an unbiased jury of wrongdoing.  Not when the same words have been used by politicians since the beginning of the country.

            But I DO find it curious that the only people that can understand the "secret code" Trump used are the far fringe radicals...and Democrats.  Is there a connection there?

            1. MizBejabbers profile image88
              MizBejabbersposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Gosh Wilderness, what have you been smoking? There have been numerous cases of politicians getting in fights and committing assault or murder in capitols all around the country. (I've given a few websites citing my sources for this in other forums so I'm not going back and reciting.) The point is, the assailants were usually tried and convicted of murder. Trump just incited somebody else to do his dirty work.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, I know he did.  If, at least, you "interpret" his coded language in just the right way, giving priority to the fear that a few maniacs raised in the legislature.  The prosecutor has made that abundantly clear.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image85
        Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Lots of smoke and mirrors...  One must stand back, take a breath and realize the Democrats are doing this for show, politics. They know the outcome. They are wasting time, money, and look foolish to many citizens.

        I want Congress to get to work on the pressing problems such as stimulus.  We don't need a cheap dramatic production, we need them to do their job. So, it odd no one in that hearing brings up the fact we have American's so dissatisfied they were willing to become violent. Smoke and Mirrors. Take my word they all have taken note of the fact American's are no longer willing to put up with the present Government --- Hence the Capitol being surrounded by razor wire and troops.

        And this is now America. A government that needs protection from its own citizen. Yeah, you don't hear anyone bringing that up...

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          So, you think the anger and violence displayed on January 6 had little or nothing to do with Trump?

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            To be truthful, I think these people that committed the crime of attacking the Capitol and appeared to be there to be violent, and possibly harm people were there to support Trump, and doing it in his name. I do not think at all Trump intended to incite a riot at any time. He has been pro-law enforcement as well as condemned the summer violence every chance he has had. But yes, the Jan 6th attack ultimately was connected to Trump. Some of his supporters took it upon themselves to riot in his name. And I do not think he should have continued his voter fraud claims once he saw he has exhausted all legal avenues. He could have pushed for a special counsel or a short investigation,  He chose to continue his unproven allegations without thought of how individual supporters would handle the rhetoric. I consider his judgment poor in regards to how he handled his loss. I don't believe he planned the riot or gave that speech to incite the riot.

            After the past few days, I feel really very ashamed of our Government. It's very clear that our system is failing, and I think it's failed because our representatives do not have our best interests any longer. I am speaking about both sides. All they clearly care about is keeping their own party in power.

    14. Valeant profile image88
      Valeantposted 11 months ago

      Why were all the people in D.C. on January 6th?

      One candidate decided he would not follow precedent and participate in a peaceful transfer of power.  That candidate would have to be an idiot to not be aware that many of his supporters are members of violent militias.  Organizing a rally that includes many of these people, then telling them to march to the Capitol and fight is either incitement or stupidity.  And by voting to acquit, the GOP is declaring that they are fine with someone of that caliber holding the highest office in the land, again.  That's either complicity or negligence, take your pick.


      https://hubstatic.com/15414002_f1024.jpg

    15. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 11 months ago

      "Further, we now have real PROOF that Trump new about the attack on the Capitol as it was happening and REFUSED to do a damn thing about it.  I bet he was hoping in his evil heart that Pence and Pelosi would be killed if he didn't do anything."

      I must have missed something --- what proof was presented that showed Trump knew about an attack was being planned on the Capitol? Is this an example of your selective thinking, or did I miss the evidence?

    16. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 11 months ago

      The Dems ongoing rhetoric for years has promoted violence. They kept violence nightly all summer and still today in Portland. Are you kidding? They promoted hate nightly on CNN and MSNBC.

      "Words like a punch, kill, shoot, beat, get in their faces, blow up, push back, hit the streets...  " - Are you seriously saying some those words (punch, kill, shoot, beat) came out of the mouths of Democratic politicians?  No, I don't think so."

      I said DEMS to include  Dem supporters as well  Dem politicians. And they stirred up violent rhetoric the moment Trump walked into the WH. That's a fact, watch the video I have added. You will witness Dem supporters and Dem politicians unmistakably stirring up violence. So, climb off your high horse. They said some very disgusting things. Far worse than anything Trump has ever said.

      Come on ---  the video that was shown yesterday of the Dems supporters, as well as our own Congress representatives that you support in Washington, were the very stars of that disgusting video.   Maybe you better put your fingers in your ears when you listen to the video and hum. It would appear you either did not watch the hearing or you don't comprehend well any longer.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J31rXRjryFA

      And no I have never heard Trump say, "put a bullet in him, get up in the face of a congressman and push back,  (We need to be ready and able to throw a punch. Nancy Pelosi .) ( I will go and take him out tonight... Maxine Waters) ("You will pay the price." Chuck Schumer )  Make them pay!" And so much more! nasty violent rhetoric.

      What a bunch of ugly hateful human beings.   enjoy the video

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Do you think the gatherings in those videos were "planned"?  Were the people listening "gathered" for a reason? 

        Or did the thousands of listeners somehow just spontaneously arise out of thin air?

        Or, on the other hand, the secret, coded message book was different from the secret code book Trump used.  Sure wish we could find those secret code books...

        1. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, I would love to find that codebook. LOl, I have read the Dem's Playbook page by page. I have witnessed it page by page for many years.  I love the new page they added --- accuse, open a  congressional impeachment hearing without evidence even if unconstitutional, and try to investigate the president's wrongdoing while they proceed with the hearing. What the hell happened to have a case built before accusing, having evidence, and witnesses to justify the hearing?  I see today the Dems now want to have witnesses. I knew when I saw the breaking McCarthy report today they would pull this. So, who do you think that first witness will be?

          My God and these fools wonder why some felt it time to have a riot at our Government House. I don't condone violence, but it is clear we have some that are willing to fight for change. Now that should wake us all up. But no, our Government sees their way clear to ignore the anger of the people and have a second unconstitutional impeachment. And once again use the new page out of the playbook --- we will try to find the evidence as we go...  This is a good feed for the deadheads. I think that's the Chapter one can find this cheap ploy under --- " Impeachment --  Great Feed For Deadheads".

          This is so ridiculous. My gosh how the hell stupid has our society become? I am so over this.

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            How stupid has our society become? Pretty darn stupid.

            There are people who still believe  that Trump is single-handedly fighting a Satan-worshipping cabal of pedophiles and that the election was stolen. A bunch of them stormed the Capitol and are now facing criminal charges.

            Imagine that!

            1. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Not sure where you gleaned your opinion from. I have not come across anyone that holds your belief that "There are people who still believe that Trump is single-handedly fighting a Satan-worshipping cabal of pedophiles and that the election was stolen."

              It seems you're projecting what you feel trump supporters think.  I never can figure out people that do that. However,  hey it's great you shared, it gives me insight into how you think.

              And yes, citizens attacked the Capitol, you can say that all day. It's a fact, there is no denying it.  My point was it's odd on one ask how we came to this point and actually start considering we have a real brewing problem.  That actually should concern us as a nation.

              1. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                There are millions of them - they are called crazy Qanon.

                1. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  I guess she doesn't read up on those who have been arrested or watch video of interviews with Trump rally goers.

                2. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  And 43 of the are QOP senators.  Now Americans must work hard to 1) get these traitors out of office and 2) start a Constitutional Amendment that removes Impeachment from the Constitution since it now has zero meaning.

                  That said, I just heard Mitch McConnell basically call for civil and criminal trials against Trump.

            2. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Bad, isn't it?  Why, we still have people believing that Trump incited a riot by using common political rhetoric that others have used forever. 

              Or at least they say the believe it while using it as an excuse to prevent the people from ever electing him again.  Have to wonder if they truly believe such a thing or if it is just another political ploy...their own words indicate a political ploy, not belief.

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                If that were the only thing he did you might have a point. But, since you are ignoring the bulk of the evidence, you don't.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Unfortunately your "evidence" is just more exaggerated events that others have also done.  The only difference this time (and it isn't so different for that matter) is that there was a riot (as we saw all year), that the powerful of our nation were scared and that they had an opportunity to assign blame to their primary political opponent.

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Really? What president knew his VP was being hunted by an angry mob of his own supporters and instead of calling them off he egged them on?

                    Who else did that? I missed it.

                2. Valeant profile image88
                  Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Precisely.  The amount of information Dan ignores in trying to make his claim is ridiculous.

                3. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Bingo!

      2. My Esoteric profile image86
        My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        What a false reality you live in.  Prove that more than one or two Democratic politicians do anything close to what you claim.  Truth Matters.

        "I said DEMS to include  Dem supporters " - ISN'T it nice you keep changing the frame of reference.  The issue is what Trump said.  They you moved to Democratic politicians, and now you move on to "DEM supporters."  Will the next deflection be to the "whole world"?

        1. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Just watch the video in all its glory -- Proof, they are on video in all their glory. I also quoted a few words for word. I did not change anything. I clearly was referring to Dems supporters as well as Dem politicians. I did not change a word in my comments.

          I certainly did not claim only Dem politicians made derogator violent statements. Like I said and the video gives proof of what each said.

          Perhaps you should read the ongoing conversation to reorient yourself to what I did say. You just go on and on. You make no sense.  Again here is a link to the ugly hateful words Democrats spewed to promote their sick rhetoric. 

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J31rXRjryFA

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            For someone who constantly talks about context, you sure are ignoring a lot of context. That's okay. We have you on records as being okay with a President egging on an angry killer mob while ignoring pleas from fellow Republicans to call them off.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Ummm, no.  You have her on record as not falling for the spin, exaggerations and outright lies being used to "prove" incitement. 

              Much like the "case" against Trump, you don't seem to understand the difference between disagreeing with opinions presented as truth and events which actually happened.

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Oh, so she does think he should be convicted for his behavior? Because if she doesn't, she and every senator who voted to acquit said a President can go ahead and do that again without consequence.

                A green light was just given for the next wily demagogue who will undoubtedly be smarter and more skilled than Trump

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Like I said; before convicting "for behavior" you must prove (in a reasonably honest setting) that the behavior led to something wrong.

                  They have completely failed to do so.  Not even a close call - showing vids of a riot does NOT mean that anything Trump said or did caused the riot, but that's nearly all the prosecution had to offer.  Just scary (and sad) videos and sound bites.  The closest thing they could offer as proof was statements of criminals trying to excuse their behavior and get a lighter (or no) sentence; something that in any other setting would carry zero weight.

                  A President (and anyone else in the country, including all politicians) can do exactly what Trump did.  Hold rallies, exhort the people to fight and tell them to peacefully march for what they want. 

                  On the other hand you obviously disagree that such things should have a consequence, and that the consequence be very grave indeed.  Most of us disagree with that, though - a very good thing for politicians and those holding protests.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Again, as is his habit, Wilderness ignores all of the evidence - especially the evidence where the rioters said Trump told them to do it.  (I will hear crickets on that, I am sure.)

              2. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                I was under the impression you didn't watch the case against Trump, so you don't even know the facts.

                1. IslandBites profile image89
                  IslandBitesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  It's never stopped him before. smile

                  1. Live to Learn profile image74
                    Live to Learnposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    It's better to discuss the subject matter than to focus on the individual. I know the left, as a whole, has forgotten that. But, change happens one person at a time.

                    1. profile image0
                      PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Wilderness is lecturing us about the facts after not watching the proceedings.  It is perfectly logical and acceptable to point out that this is a pattern of his.

                2. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  I saw some of it.  I saw the vids of the riot, the vids of Trump saying such awful things.  I heard that some of those accused of criminal action are trying to say that Trump "made" them do it (is there a person in prison anywhere that doesn't blame someone other than themselves?).

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    See, you're already twisting. They said they were doing it for Trump,not that h e made them.

                    Did you see that Trump tweeted that Pence was a coward just ten minutes after Trump was specifically told by McCarthy that Pence was a target and in danger? Did you see that Trump then waited several hours before calling off his mob? Did you see that McCarthy pleaded with Trump to call them off and he told McCarthy that the rioters cared more about the election than McCarthy (siding with the rioters)? Did you see that Trump still waited hours before calling off the mob? Did you see McConnell say the House managers proved their case?

                    1. My Esoteric profile image86
                      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      "Did you see ...."  He doesn't care what the facts are you know.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Sorry, you lose here as well, Wilderness.  They were saying this long before they were arrested.

                    1. wilderness profile image94
                      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Yep.  Long before arrested.  And long after the highly publicized effort to find and arrest them.

                      Your point?  That criminals will never lie?

            2. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              We have you?  " We have you on records as being okay with a President egging on an angry killer mob while ignoring pleas from fellow Republicans to call them off"

              And perhaps you could point that comment out to me. Perhaps this is a comment you turned upside down, shook it up, and came up with what you wanted to read. LOL

              I will wait for you to provide that I said anything close  ---- "We have you on records as being okay with a President egging on an angry killer mob while ignoring pleas from fellow Republicans to call them off."

              "We have you"  ---  Sorry groupthink makes me gag, yuck. Just being honest.

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Oh, so you agree with the senators who voted to convict Trump?

                1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                  Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Again you can't produce the statement you claimed I made. I pointed out the other day how when you are cornered you make an attempt to put words in other's mouths...   Here is your last comment that you claimed were my thoughts.

                  "We have you?  " We have you on records as being okay with a President egging on an angry killer mob while ignoring pleas from fellow Republicans to call them off"

                  Did you come up with a quote where I shared that thought? 


                  I agree on the case that was put forth of the hearing being unconstitutional is right on.  I believe the Dems pulled another scam impeachment. I think they did it to stop him from running again. I think they knew the outcome from the minute it came into their heads to impeach Trump again. I think the Dem care about nothing but power. I believe they will have the country failing within six months.  I think it won't matter to many that had little to lose anyway.  I don't believe Trump planned a riot in any respect. Zero.

                  Guess that should clear up what I think about both impeachments.

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    If you don't think Trump should be convicted then you are saying future presidents can do what Trump did. Just one of the things he did is ignore pleas from McCarthy to call off the mob, then immediately (within 10 minutes) tweet that Pence is a coward, right after being told that Pence was running for his life. Then, he waited hours before calling off the mob.

                    Future presidents now have a green light to do that and so much more. I guess you agree with that since you agree with acquittal.

                    1. wilderness profile image94
                      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Can you describe the rationale in deciding that because Trump failed to gather 1,000 Secret Service members and enter the capital himself to confront the rioters means he incited them in the first place?  I'm a little lost in understanding any real connection between the two, even given the obvious impossibility of "calling off" the riot once it had started.  (Or did you think that all those rioters carried miniature TV's with them, and watched them without fail, in order to receive new orders?)

              2. My Esoteric profile image86
                My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                You keep defending Trump in what he did - proof enough.

            3. Valeant profile image88
              Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Even Fox News' Chris Wallace understands context...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0vRm9B6lng

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Everyone understands the context, except die-hard Trumpers. And they wonder why we consider them to be cult members. They are loyal to a man, more than they are loyal to their country or to the truth.

    17. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 11 months ago

      Hate to break it to you Trumpers, but you didn't incite a riot if there was no riot.

      Where was that riot for Elizabeth Warren? I missed it. lol

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        But if there is a riot (anywhere at all?) then Trump "incited" it by using the same language Warren did, with the only difference being that Warren is liberal and so did not face the wrath of liberals.  Plus, of course, that all important "code" that only liberals can "interpret.

        Got it.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          You would think by now they would see they have very skewed comprehension ability. No really

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Wow, you've become a master of projection, almost as good as your hero. Congrats!

            big_smile

            1. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Hey, just my opinion. I take it all in, I learn as I go, I pick up nuances, subtle qualities that help me understand a person's personality.  Yes, some do appear not to comprehend the subject they are discussing. I can honestly say I have become very accustomed to knowing how some will respond here to my comments.  There are few surprises.   You  project with simplistic insults that you feel will get a rise in some fashion.  -  like almost as good as your hero. Congrats!

              To me, this shows, proves you join in groupthink, your comments are simple and used by other liberals frequintly.

    18. emge profile image81
      emgeposted 11 months ago

      This impeachment is a farce. I have no doubt about it, that actually it is not Congress that is impeaching Donald Trump, but China.  I wonder if anybody has thought about it.

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Yeah, it's China!

        lol

    19. Valeant profile image88
      Valeantposted 11 months ago

      57-43 vote.  Burr and Cassidy flipped.

      1. IslandBites profile image89
        IslandBitesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        McConnell is a nasty little man. That speech at the end. SMH

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Had to record it so I just now saw it. Agree.

          1. Valeant profile image88
            Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            I'm going to use the Senate impeachment defense next time I'm charged with a crime.  You know I'm guilty, but pretend you're a Republican Senator and acquit me any way.

            1. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Mitch stands up and admits Trump is guilty after a cowardly vote to acquit. He just admitted his own dereliction of duty.

              1. Valeant profile image88
                Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Or he just undermined the entirety of the rule of law.  The Senate voted that it was Constitutional.  So Mitch is basically saying that he does not need to abide a ruling of his own chamber and can decide to ignore their own rulings.  Mitch just basically set a precedent that his chamber's orders do not need to be adhered to.

                1. GA Anderson profile image90
                  GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  The Senate doesn't have the authority to determine constitutional questions. Of course, they can decide constitutionality, as they did in this case, but that decision is not beyond challenge. I think that if Trump had been convicted, then this case would go to the Supreme Court. Where I think it would be found to be an unconstitutional action.

                  GA

                  1. Valeant profile image88
                    Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I agree that it should have been the Supreme Court, and Trump could have appealed to them. 

                    But, as long as the Senate took a vote on it, and approved it in their own chamber, Senators using that as a reason for acquittal goes against their own decree.

                    What's to stop me from saying I don't want to follow new tax laws because the Supreme Court has not ruled them Constitutional yet?

                    1. GA Anderson profile image90
                      GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      I went on a Google walk-about to see if I was planting my flag in sand. I have concluded that my opinion appears as valid as contrary ones. Re: The constitutionality issue.

                      Two cases were most cited; the 1876 Bewlknap case and the 1993 Judge Nixon case.

                      I came away with three considerations.

                      1. As My Esoteric noted our Courts have made clear they have no standing, relative to an impeachment power issue, to judge a Senate determination.

                      2. In both Belknap and Nixon, the Senates declared constitutionality by a simple majority, but in both cases, conviction failed due to the lack of a 2/3 majority.

                      3. Relative to #2, the constitutionality of the Senates' declarations was a matter for each Senator to decide for themselves with their vote. And in both cases a large enough minority was not convinced the Senates' determinations were right.

                      The linked Vox article has a simple summation that applies to all the cases cited:

                      Significantly, the Court’s opinion in Nixon does not mean that legal arguments about whether or not Trump is vulnerable to impeachment are irrelevant. It simply means that it is up to each senator to decide for themselves whether the Constitution permits Trump to be convicted, and that the courts should not second-guess those decisions."

                      The Belknap case

                      Vox on the Judge Nixon case and Cornell Law on the JUdge Nixon case.

                      GA

                  2. My Esoteric profile image86
                    My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    "The Senate doesn't have the authority to determine constitutional questions. " - Except when the Constitution gives them that authority as in this case - "sole authority" has meaning to me.

                    What the Supreme Court has authority to review is legislation passed by Congress (judicial review established under Marbury vs Madison), and not individual votes establish by Senate rules, which, repeating myself obviously, the Constitution gives the Senate in case of impeachment.

                    1. wilderness profile image94
                      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Does not SCOTUS frequently review decisions by lower courts, decisions on whether an action was constitutional or not?  Perhaps the "Muslim" ban from Trump, or the "cages" and children?  Maybe the decision to keep migrants out of the country?  Sure seems to me that the Supreme Court very often reviews actions/events for constitutionality, not just laws enacted by the government.

                    2. GA Anderson profile image90
                      GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Relative to this particular Impeachment issue, I found I was wrong, the Senate does have the power to declare constitutionality issues—but only relative to their conducting actions, such as the decision that a conviction trial of a non-seated official is constitutional.

                      My understanding of that has changed, but my understanding that the final determination of that constitutionality is still solely the power of each individual Senator. They are within their rights to agree or disagree with the body's majority determination.

                      I think the links in my response to Valeant support this understanding.

                      GA

                2. My Esoteric profile image86
                  My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Which is exactly what Trump was trying to do - overturn a legitimate vote.  Well, to paraphrase you, McConnell and 42 other Trumplicans just said votes in the Senate do not matter anymore, they can be ignored.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Does that mean that asking for recounts, or asking for investigations of voter irregularities, shall never again be allowed?

                    I doubt it.  At least not as long as your chosen candidate wins.

                    1. My Esoteric profile image86
                      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      non sequitur

              2. GA Anderson profile image90
                GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Since the constitutionality of impeaching a non-seated president is unsettled, would it still be a dereliction of duty if the question was finally decided to be unconstitutional by something like a Supreme Court ruling?

                I agree with McConnel. I do think Trump is responsible and I don't think the Senate convicting a private citizen of impeachment charges is constitutional.

                I also agree with him that there are other more appropriate judicial avenues available to address this now. It may be telling to see what happens next.

                GA

                1. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Well, since the Senate ruled it was constitutional, isn't he bound by that ruling unless it is proven otherwise?

                  Also, Trump was impeached while he was still President. Are you saying a President can do whatever he wants in the last weeks of his presidency and Congress cannot hold him/her accountable simply because there isn't enough time, or, as in this case, because the president's party declared they will not being him to trial before his term ends?

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    "Well, since the Senate ruled it was constitutional, isn't he bound by that ruling unless it is proven otherwise?"

                    I had not realized that the Senate had that authority.  Can you quote the Constitution where that is laid out?  Where it says the Senate, not the President, the House or the Supreme Court is responsible for determining the constitutionality of an action?

                    1. Valeant profile image88
                      Valeantposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      By your own logic, GOP Senators could not use Constitutionality as an excuse to acquit Trump then.  Thanks for making our case for us.

                    2. My Esoteric profile image86
                      My Esotericposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Here, I will copy what I wrote to GA about that:

                      "The Senate doesn't have the authority to determine constitutional questions. " - Except when the Constitution gives them that authority as in this case - "sole authority" has meaning to me.

                      What the Supreme Court has authority to review is legislation passed by Congress (judicial review established under Marbury vs Madison), and not individual votes establish by Senate rules, which, repeating myself obviously, the Constitution gives the Senate in case of impeachment.

                      "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments"  Gee, I wonder what "sole" means?

                  2. GA Anderson profile image90
                    GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    The Senate can declare anything to be constitutional with a simple majority vote.  That does not make it so. McConnel voted against that constitutional declaration, so I don't think he is bound to accept the Senate's ruling.

                    I was surprised to hear Impeachment Manager Joe Neguse call the jurisdiction issue, (the constitutionality issue), a "technicality." I think an issue's constitutionality is much more than just a technicality. And that the Democrats view it as such affirms my belief that their effort wasn't constitutional.

                    Regarding your question about what Congress can do, in cases such as this, I think their authority to seek accountability—in the Congress—may well be constitutionally limited. As is shown by this case. That may not sound 'right or fair', but that is the constitutional rule we have.

                    But that doesn't mean there is no other avenue for accountability.

                    My view is that impeachment was and is intended to protect our nation, not extract punishment. Congress might be upset that 'they' can't get their 'pound of flesh', but that doesn't mean it can't still be gotten by other means.

                    GA

                    1. profile image0
                      PrettyPantherposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                      Protecting our nation would be holding a President accountable for inciting an insurrection while in office.

                      I am no constitutional scholar but it seems the majority of them disagree with you and Mitch.

                      How convenient for McConnell that he  can delay the trial then claim unconstitutionality.

                      Greasy MF.