Jump to content

Trump Impeachment 2: Insurrection Boogaloo


Sawbonz

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

Also, the Georgia phone call alone deserves conviction, without even getting into the whole capitol riot deal. He called up a state and tried to get them to change their vote count in his favor. Just that should get a 100-0 vote to make sure he can never hold office again. 

I still have no idea why that wasn't pursued right away. It was a no-brainer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Don’t forget Ole Tommy is the one Rudy was trying to call to get him to stall the proceedings on 1/6 when everything was going to shit but he accidentally left the voicemail on the wrong Senator’s phone.

It's like a cartoon strip: Butt Dial and Dial-a-Butt, such a pair!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

Also, the Georgia phone call alone deserves conviction, without even getting into the whole capitol riot deal. He called up a state and tried to get them to change their vote count in his favor. Just that should get a 100-0 vote to make sure he can never hold office again. 

Yes, this needs to be hammered home, and asked of every Republican senator.  "So you're OK with attempted extortion and overthrowing an election?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Yes, this needs to be hammered home, and asked of every Republican senator.  "So you're OK with attempted extortion and overthrowing an election?"

You know goddamned well that they'll get away with "just asking questions." The same way they get away with dozens of hearings over "BENGAZI" while saying "eh, we need unity, just let it go already" when it comes to insurrection and attempted election fraud.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Yes, this needs to be hammered home, and asked of every Republican senator.  "So you're OK with attempted extortion and overthrowing an election?"

"Why does the Republican Party fight for democracy in other countries, but not its own?" 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not taking the high road.  That's pragmatism.  The high road would be insisting that elected officials abide by their oaths and that the procedures put in place to curb abuses are utilized.  If nothing else the exercise will further reveal how broken our system has become. 


You’re right. High road was the wrong choice of words.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Sob* I don't like reading that, but there's some truth to it. I want him to be held accountable; time and time again these bastids have shown what happens. But if no conviction is the outcome, then yes--it may be even worse. The more that comes out, the more you see them charting the path to Fascist Takeover: Season Two.
Plus:
 


Dammit, I thought that said “Marjorie Taylor-Greene indicted”. Not “indicated”. You got me all excited for nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Tim Kaine:

“To do a trial knowing you’ll get 55 votes at the max seems to me to be not the right prioritization of our time.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-consider-impeachment-alternatives-censure/2021/01/27/fdfd9b6c-60bd-11eb-afbe-9a11a127d146_story.html%3FoutputType%3Damp

Democrats are exploring other options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Js1 said:

"Why does the Republican Party fight for democracy in other countries, but not its own?" 

Actually, Trump explicitly said that democracy and human rights are no longer part of our foreign policy concerns. So if you ask them that question, they’ll just say “We don’t!”

Edited by WhatTheBuck
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Actually, Trump explicitly said that democracy and human rights are no longer part of our foreign policy concerns. So if you ask them that question, they’ll just say “We don’t!”

Not part of our domestic policy concerns either I guess 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

From Tim Kaine:

“To do a trial knowing you’ll get 55 votes at the max seems to me to be not the right prioritization of our time.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-consider-impeachment-alternatives-censure/2021/01/27/fdfd9b6c-60bd-11eb-afbe-9a11a127d146_story.html%3FoutputType%3Damp

Democrats are exploring other options.

But new shit has come to light with more likely to soon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

From Tim Kaine:

“To do a trial knowing you’ll get 55 votes at the max seems to me to be not the right prioritization of our time.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-consider-impeachment-alternatives-censure/2021/01/27/fdfd9b6c-60bd-11eb-afbe-9a11a127d146_story.html%3FoutputType%3Damp

Democrats are exploring other options.

Spineless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any chance that a few Senators get challenged to recuse themselves from the impeachment for being involved (Tubberville, Cruz, Hawley, whomever was at Trump Hotel meeting on 1/5)?  Probably not but we can dream.

I think the best case scenario is the Republicans pull the Animal House Defense and march out.  I mean they are already trying to blame everyone in America.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Whoops! Social media strikes again!
 

Would it be possible for Tuberville to be kicked out of the Senate before he votes on anything?  He'd be the Mike Price of senators.

Edited by Bullneck
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Tuberville could announce he planned the insurrection and no one would do shit. 

He told Vanderbilt he was going for it on fourth and goal and he didn't do shit then either.

So yeah, when the *majority voted for him they knew what was in the contract and they're okay with the deal.

 

*not the Surly Alabama contingent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You can't impeach the president a year before the election!"

"You can't impeach the president two weeks before he leaves office!"

"You can't convict a former president!"

Evidently, once you get past year 2-3 of your presidency, you can do whatever the fuck you want, with zero consequences. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:
29 minutes ago, Grandioso said:
We can't go after Trump because optics. 
What will other countries think? That we aren't a joke and are done with fuckery?
 

Rubio is a fucking moron.

No, he's not.  He's a lot of things but he's not a "fucking moron."  Would serve the nation well to understand that.  Now, he's pandering to morons and he'll likely get primaried by a fucking moron...but he himself is not a fucking moron.  Keep an eye on him because people with his intellect and pandering hatred are dead fucking lethal.  He's one of the ten smartest people I've ever known and i once did flash cards with Nicole Ritchie.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rubio is a fucking moron.
Him and Lady G are clearly compromised with some serious shit. Add Cruz and a few others.

I don't know wtf trump has been up to these days, but squeezing these vermin has been a big part of his many calls and meetings from early in the morning /sniff/ to late at night / snort/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Born to Run said:

Him and Lady G are clearly compromised with some serious shit. Add Cruz and a few others.

I don't know wtf trump has been up to these days, but squeezing these vermin has been a big part of his many calls and meetings from early in the morning /sniff/ to late at night / snort/

They could simply be compromised by their craven lust for political power. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

They could simply be compromised by their craven lust for political power. 

I don’t buy the kompromat speculation because these guys have consistently proven they’re not vulnerable to shame or laws. If anything, they’re compromised by a terrorist Trump cult and if that’s true, they have no business in public office. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

General James has already gotten two favorable rulings about discovery on Trump/family/org. already.  I think at this point, she'll hang back and wait for the Impeachment Trial as a courtesy to the Senate and House Managers.  One of the kids or Jared is going to have take a serious fall for this, as in probably jail time.  But no way President Trump ever gets arrested or sees the inside of a jail, the country can't handle losing faith in free elections and the judicial system (the two hallmarks of America) in one year.  

I think it's a game of musical chairs at this point.  But I don't see anything serious happening until March at the earliest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Spineless

Maybe.

But if you know 17 Republicans aren't going to join you in conviction, the censure that also bars Trump from seeking election again accomplishes the goals of the Dems (punish Trump) and of Republicans (neuter Trump so he can't blow it all to hell in 2024). 

It's a Kaine/Collins proposal, so it's bipartisan already.  You only need a majority to pass it, though it would immediately end up in SCOTUS to determine if its Constitutional.  You have 51 votes to pass it already - all the Dems + Collins.  You need 60 to avoid a filibuster - you have 55 at least (Dems + Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse and Toomey).  

The 5 listed above plus 5 of the below to get to 60: 
Mitch
Thune
Blunt maybe? 
Portman, possibly (retiring)
Burr, possibly (retiring)
Any of the potential 2022 retirements: Grassley or Shelby

Edited by Js1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Red Five said:

"You can't impeach the president a year before the election!"

"You can't impeach the president two weeks before he leaves office!"

"You can't convict a former president!"

Evidently, once you get past year 2-3 of your presidency, you can do whatever the fuck you want, with zero consequences. 

Unless you are black and wear a tan suit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

force the trial

force the witnesses

make the traitors vote with everything on the table - at least some people will understand that these people are complicit/involved/leading this action.  Maybe some real change will happen (LOL)

 

if it takes a month, a year, 5 years - don't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t buy the kompromat speculation because these guys have consistently proven they’re not vulnerable to shame or laws. If anything, they’re compromised by a terrorist Trump cult and if that’s true, they have no business in public office. 
Timing of statements after the election looks to my eyes like Kompromat on Lady G, Cruz and a few others sufficient enough to warrant excessive risk of supporting sedition rather pissing Trump- it's like they got reminded. Instead of letting things cool down like Mitch has done and staying silent, they got poked into the same old shit.

Gun Tits and Crazy lady have to make thier mark right now and are true believers not craven operatives.

Cruz and Graham have secure senate seats for 4 and 6 years respectively. Why the pivot and orange fellacio?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

General James has already gotten two favorable rulings about discovery on Trump/family/org. already.  I think at this point, she'll hang back and wait for the Impeachment Trial as a courtesy to the Senate and House Managers.  One of the kids or Jared is going to have take a serious fall for this, as in probably jail time.  But no way President Trump ever gets arrested or sees the inside of a jail, the country can't handle losing faith in free elections and the judicial system (the two hallmarks of America) in one year.  
I think it's a game of musical chairs at this point.  But I don't see anything serious happening until March at the earliest.
I didn't lose faith in elections, I learned despite fuckery we can prevail. Get active where it matters and take shit back
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

I'm guessing the check bounced.

What a shame.  Thoughts, prayers.

 

 

No clue who these people are.  Apparently fairly prominent criminal lawyers in SC.  So Ladybugs is scraping the bottom of the barrel for his orange master.

Not only are these charges hard and probably "not fun" to defend, but inasmuch as he's no longer President, there isn't that infamy that some lawyers seem to like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

No clue who these people are.  Apparently fairly prominent criminal lawyers in SC.  So Ladybugs is scraping the bottom of the barrel for his orange master.

Not only are these charges hard and probably "not fun" to defend, but inasmuch as he's no longer President, there isn't that infamy that some lawyers seem to like.

Mr. Bowers has a history of defending SC politicians:

 

Quote

Former Gov. Mark Sanford turned to Bowers in 2009 when Sanford faced threats of impeachment for lying about leaving his job to visit his mistress in Argentina. He was censured instead.

Sandford calls Bowers a skilled attorney who is low key and measured, unlike Trump's previous counsel Rudy Giuliani.

"He's an incredibly competent person who is sort of the bombastic style that you see in Giuliani and some of the other lawyers who have surrounded Trump over the years," Sandford says.

Bowers has also defended two other South Carolina governors in ethics cases; Nikki Haley and Henry McMaster.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe.
But if you know 17 Republicans aren't going to join you in conviction, the censure that also bars Trump from seeking election again accomplishes the goals of the Dems (punish Trump) and of Republicans (neuter Trump so he can't blow it all to hell in 2024). 
It's a Kaine/Collins proposal, so it's bipartisan already.  You only need a majority to pass it, though it would immediately end up in SCOTUS to determine if its Constitutional.  You have 51 votes to pass it already - all the Dems + Collins.  You need 60 to avoid a filibuster - you have 55 at least (Dems + Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse and Toomey).  
The 5 listed above plus 5 of the below to get to 60: 
Mitch
Thune
Blunt maybe? 
Portman, possibly (retiring)
Burr, possibly (retiring)
Any of the potential 2022 retirements: Grassley or Shelby


Does censure bar him from running again? That’s the first I’ve heard of that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...