Trump Impeachment Public Hearings [serious discussion]

[TwitchySeal]

Authoritarians keep their power, and gain more, by abusing the power they already have.  They attack anyone who disagrees with them or threatens their power with harassment, smear campaigns, (sound familiar?) or worse.

You mean like the "Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia Russia" Scandal that was a flop

You mean the investigation that uncovered exactly how and who interfered in our election process, down to the bitcoin transactions and all of the different online identities the Russians used along with their real ones?  13 Russians, Trumps personal lawyer, his campaign chairman, deputy campaign chairman, National Security Advisor and a couple others that were part of his campaign were all indicted by grand juries and the Americans have either pled guilty or were found guilty by a jury of their peers.

How is that a flop?

The only reason anyone thinks it was a hoax or a scam is because Trump said so 10+ times a day for 2 years.  But it actually wasn't all about Trump the way he made it seem.  The investigation was into "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections".

3 1/2 years of trying to get rid of Trump was what it was all about.

I know that's what Trump said it was about, but it really wasn't.  It was about Russian interference in the election.  There were suspicious links between Trump campaign officials and Russian officials that were investigated as part of that, and the final report had a big section on all the ways Trump tried to stop or interfere with the investigation, but it actually was not 'all about trump'.

You should read it.  Just check out the introduction and Executive Summary of part 1 if you don't believe me.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

[1714626139]

1714626139

[1714626139]

1714626139

[1714626139]

1714626139

[1714626139]

1714626139

[Spendulus]

....
3 1/2 years of trying to get rid of Trump was what it was all about.

I know that's what Trump said it was about, but it really wasn't.  It was about Russian interference in the election.  There were suspicious links between Trump campaign officials and Russian officials that were investigated as part of that, and the final report had a big section on all the ways Trump tried to stop or interfere with the investigation, but it actually was not 'all about trump'.

You should read it.  Just check out the introduction and Executive Summary of part 1 if you don't believe me.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

It's what I'm saying, and what about two thirds the population believe. Half because they're for Trump and have seen this going on for 3 1/2 years, and 1/6 because they have been engineering this nonsense from the beginning, and publicly said so.

It's all been right out in the open.

[TwitchySeal]

....
3 1/2 years of trying to get rid of Trump was what it was all about.

I know that's what Trump said it was about, but it really wasn't.  It was about Russian interference in the election.  There were suspicious links between Trump campaign officials and Russian officials that were investigated as part of that, and the final report had a big section on all the ways Trump tried to stop or interfere with the investigation, but it actually was not 'all about trump'.

You should read it.  Just check out the introduction and Executive Summary of part 1 if you don't believe me.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

It's what I'm saying, and what about two thirds the population believe. Half because they're for Trump and have seen this going on for 3 1/2 years, and 1/6 because they have been engineering this nonsense from the beginning, and publicly said so.

It's all been right out in the open.

Yeah, the media (from left to right) + Trump hyped the shit out of it for 3+ years.  One side made it seem like Trump was just a Russian puppet and the other made it seem like Mueller had a team of angry democrats that would stop at nothing to end Trump presidency.

If you read the report, or the Russian indictments, you'll see there was actually a ton of other stuff going on, and they were able to figure out a very impressive amount of info on a group of Russians that were using every trick in the book to cover their tracks.   Trump just didn't want people to think Russia tried to help him get elected, even though they absolutely did, and he did a really good job of convincing millions of people to believe him.  

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

[Viper1]

Given most of the posts on this page and the previous page, I guess any serious Trump impeachment discussion has ended and is now devolving into conspiracy talk, Trump worship and the like. Awesome. I thought those that worship Trump and conspiracy theories had their own derivative thread to do that in.

[TwitchySeal]

Given most of the posts on this page and the previous page, I guess any serious Trump impeachment discussion has ended and is now devolving into conspiracy talk, Trump worship and the like. Awesome. I thought those that worship Trump and conspiracy theories had their own derivative thread to do that in.

Fair.  The 'serious' part of the discussion has definitely been going down hill.  Since the impeachment is over, I changed the subject to US Politics and updated the rules a little in OP in hopes a civil discussion can continue.

A thread for civil discussion on US national politics, formerly known as "Donald Trump has been Impeached [Serious Discussion]" and "Donald Trump has been Impeached, what's next? [Serious Discussion]"

Local Rules:
- No baiting, trolling or flaming.
- If you aren't interested in the opinions of those you disagree with, do not post in this thread.
- If you aren't willing to make an effort at being objective, do not post in this thread.
- No personal attacks, name calling, tantrums, circular arguments.
- Don't be an asshole.  
- No spam.

If you have a signature from a spammy signature campaign, and you make vague post about US politics, I'll probably just delete it.

If you don't like these rules, TECSHARE created a thread that isn't self moderated: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5201320.0

Please guys, at least make an attempt to consider each situation objectively ( ask yourself "would I have the same view of a specific situation if the parties were reversed?" ), avoid personal insults and responding to posts with political talking points from either side.


I don't like deleting posts, I'm doing it because there's obviously no intention of trying to have a serious discussion in these posts, not because I disagree with you.

Examples of things that will get your post deleted:

They even got their conspiracy theories to the Senate this time!! Impressive!!

The piss tape conspiracy wasn't half bad either.. Good entertainment..

What's next?
Trump's been Impeached.
What's next?
Twitch recommends cheating the Wall Street Journal
So what's next?
Flynn gets off.  What else is next?
Trump-Hate-a-GoGo.
State of the Union.
The babies cry about their Trump-hate.
Formal vote on "impeachment."
More Trump-hate.
Highest rating ever for Trump.
The reeking stink of the Trump-haters.
What else is next?

Ever heard of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution?

(don't bother babbling that it does not apply to Trump)

So, you've lost. I hope you and your similarly minded propagandists and socialist operatives are finally finished with this nonsense.

[dupeddonk]

...
You said he was genuine to himself, sincere to himself, and true to self.

I'm not arguing whether or not his vote was 'good' or 'bad', just saying that I believe the explanation he gave for why he voted guilty was sincere, unlike most of the attacks coming his way now.

Agreed. It's only left to consider what the "SELF" was. Was it sick, twisted character of a power hungry narcissist?

He explained exactly why he voted the way he did.  I've already posted the video and transcript...
....

I'm agreeing. It's perfectly fine if he finally comes out of the closet as a sick, twisted, Authoritarian liberal a-la-Soros gender, and "votes his conscious."

Authoritarians keep their power, and gain more, by abusing the power they already have.  They attack anyone who disagrees with them or threatens their power with harassment, smear campaigns, (sound familiar?) or worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_Vladimir_Putin_in_Russia

I don't see how voting to remove someone you believe is abusing their power to win an election makes you authoritarian.  Quite the opposite in fact.

Are you calling him 'liberal' as in it's just an insult you use, or do you actually think he is actually not a conservative?  

He's never been a conservative. Although you could conjecture that his stands are the result of a political trying to give something to voters of all persuasions.

But why do you want to keep talking about him? He is done, over with. I hear the Utah house is close to censoring him for that little display in Wash. DC. The story isn't over, but it's over as far as any nation wide relevance or impact.

Romney is not a conservative is one of the craziest things ive ever heard.
Hes always been a conservative. could say he was more conservative than either Bush.  are you saying he isnt a conservative because her didnt vote Trump not guilty?  That doe not make him not a conservative.

[KingScorpio]

...
You said he was genuine to himself, sincere to himself, and true to self.

I'm not arguing whether or not his vote was 'good' or 'bad', just saying that I believe the explanation he gave for why he voted guilty was sincere, unlike most of the attacks coming his way now.

Agreed. It's only left to consider what the "SELF" was. Was it sick, twisted character of a power hungry narcissist?

He explained exactly why he voted the way he did.  I've already posted the video and transcript...
....

I'm agreeing. It's perfectly fine if he finally comes out of the closet as a sick, twisted, Authoritarian liberal a-la-Soros gender, and "votes his conscious."

Authoritarians keep their power, and gain more, by abusing the power they already have.  They attack anyone who disagrees with them or threatens their power with harassment, smear campaigns, (sound familiar?) or worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_Vladimir_Putin_in_Russia

I don't see how voting to remove someone you believe is abusing their power to win an election makes you authoritarian.  Quite the opposite in fact.

Are you calling him 'liberal' as in it's just an insult you use, or do you actually think he is actually not a conservative?  

He's never been a conservative. Although you could conjecture that his stands are the result of a political trying to give something to voters of all persuasions.

But why do you want to keep talking about him? He is done, over with. I hear the Utah house is close to censoring him for that little display in Wash. DC. The story isn't over, but it's over as far as any nation wide relevance or impact.

Romney is not a conservative is one of the craziest things ive ever heard.
Hes always been a conservative. could say he was more conservative than either Bush.  are you saying he isnt a conservative because her didnt vote Trump not guilty?  That doe not make him not a conservative.

romney is a flag in the wind and a constitutionalist

[Spendulus]

.....]He's never been a conservative. Although you could conjecture that his stands are the result of a political trying to give something to voters of all persuasions.

But why do you want to keep talking about him? He is done, over with. I hear the Utah house is close to censoring him for that little display in Wash. DC. The story isn't over, but it's over as far as any nation wide relevance or impact.

Romney is not a conservative is one of the craziest things ive ever heard.
Hes always been a conservative. could say he was more conservative than either Bush.  are you saying he isnt a conservative because her didnt vote Trump not guilty?  That doe not make him not a conservative.

Okay, how about he's a conservative and a liberal?

[eddie13]

Can you explain what that means?

THanks.

Trump got a massive amount of votes in the NH primary compared to the past examples of votes for incumbents..
Shows excellent voter turnout for Trump by about double the last few incumbents, who all won..

[TwitchySeal]

Friendly reminder of local rules:

Local Rules:
- No baiting, trolling or flaming.
- If you aren't interested in the opinions of those you disagree with, do not post in this thread.
- If you aren't willing to make an effort at being objective, do not post in this thread.
- No personal attacks, name calling, tantrums, circular arguments.
- Don't be an asshole.  
- No spam.

If you have a signature from a spammy signature campaign, and you make vague post about US politics, I'll probably just delete it.

If you don't like these rules, TECSHARE created a thread that isn't self moderated: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5201320.0

edit:

Eddie, I didn't mean to delete your post of the NH Republican primary results.  Sorry about that.

I can't find the exact image you posted, but here are the results according to google.

[eddie13]

It was more comparing to previous winning incumbent results than to other options on this election..

[squatz1]

It was more comparing to previous winning incumbent results than to other options on this election..

I think this is a pretty good mixture of Trump having a very energized base and that he has so much support from members of the party. Plus the fact that he did send out many campaign surrogates, and used Iowa and New Hampshire as a dry run to see if they'd be able to 'get out the vote' when November comes. This was a show of force by the Republican party, and it was VERY successful.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/new-hampshire - NH was also VERY tight when it came in 2016, they may be trying to flip it.

This is also a way to get air time, as you get to throw this stat around and the media displays it everywhere as advertising for you.

[dupeddonk]

really crazy last month and right now pretty much all bad news for trump

he didnt want biden and if he got biden he was counting on it being close so that he could say they rigged it against bernie
for years he pointed at the stock market as proof for why people need to vote for him
he keeps saying corona is not a big deal and things are not going to get any worse

i was border line depressed when it looked like it would be bernie or trump.  so relieved right now bernie is all but gone.

[TwitchySeal]

Welp, here we are...again - after being impeached for Inciting an Insurrection, Trumps second trial in the Senate kicked off today. It's expected to finish this weekend, but it's possible it goes into next week.

The trial opened with a video of what happened on Jan 6th: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivVOPWrFfW4

Most of the day was spent debating whether or not it's constitutional to have an impeachment trial for a president after he's no longer in office.  6 Republicans joined the 50 Democrats to vote yes, 56-44.

Republicans voting yes: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney ,  Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Pat Toomey, Bill Cassidy.

Cassidy was a pretty big surprise, he gave an interview afterwards saying that the legal defenses 'disorganized and random' argument it what swayed him to vote yes.

The next big question will be if they decide to call witnesses or not.  

[PrimeNumber7]

Cassidy was a pretty big surprise, he gave an interview afterwards saying that the legal defenses 'disorganized and random' argument it what swayed him to vote yes.

Many of the lawyers who represented Trump in his last impeachment trial have declined to do so this time around because it is of their opinion that this trial is nothing more than political theater.

My best guess is Trump will not get convicted, but if he does, I would say that any conviction will be thrown out by the SC.

The next big question will be if they decide to call witnesses or not.

I am not sure how this is even a decision. The House called no witnesses and held no hearings. I am not sure how anyone would consider voting to convict without any evidence.

[franky1]

Cassidy was a pretty big surprise, he gave an interview afterwards saying that the legal defenses 'disorganized and random' argument it what swayed him to vote yes.

Many of the lawyers who represented Trump in his last impeachment trial have declined to do so this time around because it is of their opinion that this trial is nothing more than political theater.

My best guess is Trump will not get convicted, but if he does, I would say that any conviction will be thrown out by the SC.

The next big question will be if they decide to call witnesses or not.

I am not sure how this is even a decision. The House called no witnesses and held no hearings. I am not sure how anyone would consider voting to convict without any evidence.

bush, obama, lincoln and all other 'presidents' still get honours and privileges after their contract. meaning its harder to actually just treat them like normal citizens after. hence the lack of arrest and no 'conviction'

the impeachment is about stripping a president(current or former) of all honour and privilege and to remove them from ever having a chance of office again. .. and then normal criminal law can apply to them

this impeachment is stage 1 of striping trumps title.
later and separately he could be arrested, charged and convicted for crimes.

impeachment is not a process of criminal conviction. its a civil process of terminating any civil protections/privileges/titles/access to office

the whole criminal action is separate and after impeachment.

[PrimeNumber7]

the impeachment is about stripping a president(current or former) of all honour and privilege and to remove them from ever having a chance of office again. .. and then normal criminal law can apply to them

There is no part of the constitution that allows for the Senate to impeach a former President. The constitution allows for the Senate to remove a President from office, however, Trump cannot be removed from office because he does not currently hold the office of the President.

[franky1]

the impeachment is about stripping a president(current or former) of all honour and privilege and to remove them from ever having a chance of office again. .. and then normal criminal law can apply to them

There is no part of the constitution that allows for the Senate to impeach a former President. The constitution allows for the Senate to remove a President from office, however, Trump cannot be removed from office because he does not currently hold the office of the President.

, and strip him from honours and privilege
, and prevent from future office
, and then liable to future court actions for criminal charges

, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States
Any officer is convicted on impeachment is immediately removed from office, and may be barred from holding any public office in the future. No other punishments may be inflicted pursuant to the impeachment proceeding, but the convicted party remains liable to trial and punishment in the courts for civil and criminal charges.

[_Miracle]

Welp, here we are...again - after being impeached for Inciting an Insurrection, Trumps second trial in the Senate kicked off today. It's expected to finish this weekend, but it's possible it goes into next week.

The trial opened with a video of what happened on Jan 6th: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivVOPWrFfW4

Most of the day was spent debating whether or not it's constitutional to have an impeachment trial for a president after he's no longer in office.  6 Republicans joined the 50 Democrats to vote yes, 56-44.

Republicans voting yes: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney ,  Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Pat Toomey, Bill Cassidy.

Cassidy was a pretty big surprise, he gave an interview afterwards saying that the legal defenses 'disorganized and random' argument it what swayed him to vote yes.

The next big question will be if they decide to call witnesses or not.  

I skipped the video portion on purpose. Did they include Trump’s comment during the last debate regarding Proud Boys and Antifa?

“Disorganized and random” is accurate and the referrals to The Federalist Papers were odd and out of place for the point they were trying to make.
It was disappointing but not surprising to see only a handful of the GOP voting for an impeachment trial.
On the same but other note, Why his Georgia phone call isn’t enough to keep him from holding any public office again (aka: impeached) is also disappointing.

[TwitchySeal]

Cassidy was a pretty big surprise, he gave an interview afterwards saying that the legal defenses 'disorganized and random' argument it what swayed him to vote yes.

Many of the lawyers who represented Trump in his last impeachment trial have declined to do so this time around because it is of their opinion that this trial is nothing more than political theater.

I'm pretty sure this is not true, but if you have any sources I'd be interested in seeing them. I know Dershowitz called it political theater, but he didn't say that's why he isn't on the team.

There are multiple reports that some of the lawyers from impeachment #1 consider what he did indefensible and according to Keith Whittington, a politics professor at Princeton University:

“I’m not terribly surprised that top tier conservative attorneys who a Republican president might normally turn to would not be interested in jumping on this particular grenade.  Those who might have been sympathetic to defending the president in other contexts such as his first impeachment don’t necessarily want to defend what he’s done here -- both because they aren’t easy to defend and they’ll tarnish people’s professional reputation down the road.”
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-struggles-to-build-legal-team-as-impeachment-trial-nears

My best guess is Trump will not get convicted, but if he does, I would say that any conviction will be thrown out by the SC.

This was discussed when he was impeached the first time.  Legal experts seem to agree that SCOTUS does not have the authority to overturn an impeachment due to separation of power and the fact that the constitution gives the house sole power to impeach and the senate sole power to convict.  I agree he probably won't be convicted though, my guess is the final vote will be 55-45 in favor of convicting (they need 2/3).

I am not sure how this is even a decision. The House called no witnesses and held no hearings. I am not sure how anyone would consider voting to convict without any evidence.

There's tons of evidence.  Footage of the attack, his speech, records of all of his public statements and social media posts, plus every member of the Senate is basically already a witness.

the impeachment is about stripping a president(current or former) of all honour and privilege and to remove them from ever having a chance of office again. .. and then normal criminal law can apply to them

There is no part of the constitution that allows for the Senate to impeach a former President. The constitution allows for the Senate to remove a President from office, however, Trump cannot be removed from office because he does not currently hold the office of the President.

The House has sole power to impeach.  The Senate has sole power to convict.  Impeachment results in two thing: removal from office and the ability for congress to make him ineligible to run for office again.

By claiming that he cant be convicted if he leaves office after being impeached would allow for officials to commit impeachable offenses without being held accountable by simply leaving office.

There's also precedent from like 100 years ago, so this wouldn't be the first time.

I skipped the video portion on purpose. Did they include Trump’s comment during the last debate regarding Proud Boys and Antifa?

“Disorganized and random” is accurate and the referrals to The Federalist Papers were odd and out of place for the point they were trying to make.
It was disappointing but not surprising to see only a handful of the GOP voting for an impeachment trial.
On the same but other note, Why his Georgia phone call isn’t enough to keep him from holding any public office again (aka: impeached) is also disappointing.

I believe they only included stuff from Jan 6th.  The video is intense.  I encourage anyone that thinks what happened isn't a big deal or that Trump played no roll in what happened to watch it.

There's a decent chance Trump is indicted for what he tried to do to the Georgia SS.

, and then liable to future court actions for criminal charges

I don't think being impeached would have much affect on criminal charges.  Like you said, the two are supposed to be completely separate.  It's possible prosecutors are waiting for the impeachment process to conclude before filing charges though, but I don't think it matters what the outcome is.