[Second Impeachment] of the 45th President of the United States | Trial: 1pm 02/08/2021

1235736

Posts

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    edited January 10
    Chanus wrote: »
    i'm still not sure what it is Democrats are supposed to be able to do right now that they aren't already doing

    could have thrown out the articles of impeachment immediately after the capitol attack when everyone's blood was still hot and for just a tiny moment they put the twelfth dimensional chessboard away, instead of this made up "We have to not take pressure off pence", Pence was never going to use the 25th amendment, and anyone in Washington who said that was the reason was lying

    Takes time to write them accurately, to collectively work with lawyers and scholars to determine what charges are the most likely to stick and can be used in this situation, to conferred with their congressional bloc of literally hundreds to see who is on board with what charges, and to then get those charges out and published. Articles were rough drafted starting during the lockdown, essentially immediately, but that's not the final. Congress only went home to sleep at 4am Thursday morning. Pelosi, while drafts were being revised and updated on Thursday, used the time to turn that delay that would already have occurred back on Pence in her press conference. That was just staffers doing the initial work. Drafts were being updated and tweeted out throughout Thursday and were generally finalized Friday morning. Essentially, they got articles of impeachment written, caucused, and legally approved within about a day and a half, which is extremely fast. And then the weekend hit. First thing Monday we have the vote.

    Like, a lot of you seem to think that impeachment works like shouting Bankruptcy in the Office. Pelosi isn't playing some ninth level chess here, but nor did the house delay. I think there is plenty to criticize her for in that press conference, and do, because it seems to lead people in thinking she decided to not work and wait on Pence's pleasure when that's not how it works.

    Enc on
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    this argument is a flat circle

    i've explained mine several times now

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    i'm still not sure what it is Democrats are supposed to be able to do right now that they aren't already doing

    Not advocating for a 100 day pause. Which is basically just Clyburn but presumably he is floating that for colleagues

    Yeah, this feels like a trial balloon. High enough in leadership to be taken seriously without actual leadership having to actually take a stand on it.

    It feels like it's coming from some group more scared of McConnell fucking up their ability to get anything done once Biden is seated then anything else.

    Clyburn is leadership, shryke.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    RingomonikerJaysonFourrahkeesh2000GiantGeek2020
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    My only concern with impeaching under a McConnell controlled Senate is last time they set the rules to include things like "No new evidence". It would be nice to have better rules set for this impeachment.

    EncMild ConfusionSleepRaiju
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    i'm still not sure what it is Democrats are supposed to be able to do right now that they aren't already doing

    could have thrown out the articles of impeachment immediately after the capitol attack when everyone's blood was still hot and for just a tiny moment they put the twelfth dimensional chessboard away, instead of this made up "We have to not take pressure off pence", Pence was never going to use the 25th amendment, and anyone in Washington who said that was the reason was lying

    Takes time to write them accurately, to collectively work with lawyers and scholars to determine what charges are the most likely to stick and can be used in this situation, to conferred with their congressional bloc of literally hundreds to see who is on board with what charges, and to then get those charges out and published. Articles were rough drafted starting during the lockdown, essentially immediately, but that's not the final. Congress only went home to sleep at 4am Thursday morning. Pelosi, while drafts were being revised and updated on Thursday, used the time to turn that delay that would already have occurred back on Pence in her press conference. That was just staffers doing the initial work. Drafts were being updated and tweeted out throughout Thursday and were generally finalized Friday morning. Essentially, they got articles of impeachment written, caucused, and legally approved within about a day and a half, which is extremely fast. And then the weekend hit. First thing Monday we have the vote.

    Like, a lot of you seem to think that impeachment works like shouting Bankruptcy in the Office. Pelosi isn't playing some ninth level chess here, but nor did the house delay. I think there is plenty to criticize her for in that press conference, and do, because it seems to lead people in thinking she decided to not work and wait on Pence's pleasure when that's not how it works.

    The House can, in fact, work weekends if it wants to. It's not a fucking office job.

    The most insane thing was that immediately after an attack on the United States Congress by the President of the United States, both houses went into recess.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    AbsoluteZeroEncBloodsheedTicaldfjamKraintMosatiRingojoshofalltradesSleepCimmeriiBigJoeMjdarksunDee KaeHefflingGiantGeek2020AegeriArdolSkeithA Kobold's Kobold
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    My only concern with impeaching under a McConnell controlled Senate is last time they set the rules to include things like "No new evidence". It would be nice to have better rules set for this impeachment.

    Why would they need evidence? They are all eyewittnesses.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    this argument is a flat circle

    i've explained mine several times now

    Can you explain the reasoning for Clyburn's suggestion since you're on that team

  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    this argument is a flat circle

    i've explained mine several times now

    Can you explain the reasoning for Clyburn's suggestion since you're on that team

    i have

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    i'm still not sure what it is Democrats are supposed to be able to do right now that they aren't already doing

    Not advocating for a 100 day pause. Which is basically just Clyburn but presumably he is floating that for colleagues

    Yeah, this feels like a trial balloon. High enough in leadership to be taken seriously without actual leadership having to actually take a stand on it.

    It feels like it's coming from some group more scared of McConnell fucking up their ability to get anything done once Biden is seated then anything else.

    Clyburn is leadership, shryke.

    Clyburn is not Pelosi, Ebum. He's high enough that people will listen to him but he's not at the top of the food chain so Pelosi can just contradict him if she sees the need.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    i'm still not sure what it is Democrats are supposed to be able to do right now that they aren't already doing

    Not advocating for a 100 day pause. Which is basically just Clyburn but presumably he is floating that for colleagues

    Yeah, this feels like a trial balloon. High enough in leadership to be taken seriously without actual leadership having to actually take a stand on it.

    It feels like it's coming from some group more scared of McConnell fucking up their ability to get anything done once Biden is seated then anything else.

    I see the argument that - after noon on 1/20, there are so many important things to do that Trump necessarily falls down the list. COVID / economic relief, confirmations, even basic hearings and evidence collection around the impeachment.

    If Trump is barred from office at 12:01 1/20 or six months from now is irrelevant in and of itself, the only difference is the very important messages that need to be sent and that it does get done (or is mooted for various reasons).

    There is still a very good chance Trump does something in the next day or two, much less week and a half, that changes things or adds fuel to the fire.

    But I definitely want articles filed tomorrow. Senate might be super busy for a few months but they can work some longer days, not like they are doing 16 hour days of backbreaking physical labor.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    My only concern with impeaching under a McConnell controlled Senate is last time they set the rules to include things like "No new evidence". It would be nice to have better rules set for this impeachment.

    Why would they need evidence? They are all eyewittnesses.

    The evidence would be putting things connecting Trump to the attack on the record. Including, potentially, emails and notes dug up that could show that Trump or his cronies were involved in not sending aid to Congress and/or leaving the building under-defended.

    CelestialBadgerSurfpossumGiantGeek2020
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    i'm still not sure what it is Democrats are supposed to be able to do right now that they aren't already doing

    could have thrown out the articles of impeachment immediately after the capitol attack when everyone's blood was still hot and for just a tiny moment they put the twelfth dimensional chessboard away, instead of this made up "We have to not take pressure off pence", Pence was never going to use the 25th amendment, and anyone in Washington who said that was the reason was lying

    Takes time to write them accurately, to collectively work with lawyers and scholars to determine what charges are the most likely to stick and can be used in this situation, to conferred with their congressional bloc of literally hundreds to see who is on board with what charges, and to then get those charges out and published. Articles were rough drafted starting during the lockdown, essentially immediately, but that's not the final. Congress only went home to sleep at 4am Thursday morning. Pelosi, while drafts were being revised and updated on Thursday, used the time to turn that delay that would already have occurred back on Pence in her press conference. That was just staffers doing the initial work. Drafts were being updated and tweeted out throughout Thursday and were generally finalized Friday morning. Essentially, they got articles of impeachment written, caucused, and legally approved within about a day and a half, which is extremely fast. And then the weekend hit. First thing Monday we have the vote.

    Like, a lot of you seem to think that impeachment works like shouting Bankruptcy in the Office. Pelosi isn't playing some ninth level chess here, but nor did the house delay. I think there is plenty to criticize her for in that press conference, and do, because it seems to lead people in thinking she decided to not work and wait on Pence's pleasure when that's not how it works.

    The House can, in fact, work weekends if it wants to. It's not a fucking office job.

    The most insane thing was that immediately after an attack on the United States Congress by the President of the United States, both houses went into recess.

    Was that not to allow to time to sweep the building for bombs/bugs etc, before they come back?

    They could have convened somewhere else, but could easily have seen that take more than a day to set up.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    this argument is a flat circle

    i've explained mine several times now

    Can you explain the reasoning for Clyburn's suggestion since you're on that team

    i have

    Alright I read your explanation

    I think you're argument is incorrect and the Democrats should move as fast as possible, and 100 days might as well be never. In fact, doing it 100 days out will probably hurt them but doing it 2 weeks from now will still be fresh enough where people won't think this is just some petty shit

    OrcaTetraNitroCubaneRingonever dieBigJoeMElvenshaeAegeri
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    My only concern with impeaching under a McConnell controlled Senate is last time they set the rules to include things like "No new evidence". It would be nice to have better rules set for this impeachment.

    Why would they need evidence? They are all eyewittnesses.

    The evidence would be putting things connecting Trump to the attack on the record. Including, potentially, emails and notes dug up that could show that Trump or his cronies were involved in not sending aid to Congress and/or leaving the building under-defended.

    That sounds like it might take as much as 2 days.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    i'm still not sure what it is Democrats are supposed to be able to do right now that they aren't already doing

    could have thrown out the articles of impeachment immediately after the capitol attack when everyone's blood was still hot and for just a tiny moment they put the twelfth dimensional chessboard away, instead of this made up "We have to not take pressure off pence", Pence was never going to use the 25th amendment, and anyone in Washington who said that was the reason was lying

    Takes time to write them accurately, to collectively work with lawyers and scholars to determine what charges are the most likely to stick and can be used in this situation, to conferred with their congressional bloc of literally hundreds to see who is on board with what charges, and to then get those charges out and published. Articles were rough drafted starting during the lockdown, essentially immediately, but that's not the final. Congress only went home to sleep at 4am Thursday morning. Pelosi, while drafts were being revised and updated on Thursday, used the time to turn that delay that would already have occurred back on Pence in her press conference. That was just staffers doing the initial work. Drafts were being updated and tweeted out throughout Thursday and were generally finalized Friday morning. Essentially, they got articles of impeachment written, caucused, and legally approved within about a day and a half, which is extremely fast. And then the weekend hit. First thing Monday we have the vote.

    Like, a lot of you seem to think that impeachment works like shouting Bankruptcy in the Office. Pelosi isn't playing some ninth level chess here, but nor did the house delay. I think there is plenty to criticize her for in that press conference, and do, because it seems to lead people in thinking she decided to not work and wait on Pence's pleasure when that's not how it works.

    The House can, in fact, work weekends if it wants to. It's not a fucking office job.

    The most insane thing was that immediately after an attack on the United States Congress by the President of the United States, both houses went into recess.

    Was that not to allow to time to sweep the building for bombs/bugs etc, before they come back?

    They could have convened somewhere else, but could easily have seen that take more than a day to set up.

    Senate went into recess for 12 days. House for five. So no.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    joshofalltrades
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    So can someone state something definitively for me?

    If the House votes to impeach tomorrow, the Senate is obligated to take it up - however McConnell is able to shield his caucus from a vote depending on timing?

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    Enc
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    i'm still not sure what it is Democrats are supposed to be able to do right now that they aren't already doing

    Not advocating for a 100 day pause. Which is basically just Clyburn but presumably he is floating that for colleagues

    Yeah, this feels like a trial balloon. High enough in leadership to be taken seriously without actual leadership having to actually take a stand on it.

    It feels like it's coming from some group more scared of McConnell fucking up their ability to get anything done once Biden is seated then anything else.

    I see the argument that - after noon on 1/20, there are so many important things to do that Trump necessarily falls down the list. COVID / economic relief, confirmations, even basic hearings and evidence collection around the impeachment.

    If Trump is barred from office at 12:01 1/20 or six months from now is irrelevant in and of itself, the only difference is the very important messages that need to be sent and that it does get done (or is mooted for various reasons).

    There is still a very good chance Trump does something in the next day or two, much less week and a half, that changes things or adds fuel to the fire.

    But I definitely want articles filed tomorrow. Senate might be super busy for a few months but they can work some longer days, not like they are doing 16 hour days of backbreaking physical labor.

    Time gives Republican Senators time to rally around the flag and find excuses to ignore the treason. If there is ANY chance at conviction, it is by the end of the month.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    TicaldfjamjoshofalltradesElvenshaeAbsoluteZeroRaijuArdol
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    I want to know which members of the Trump administration and GOP coordinated with the Proud Boys and the Capitol Police, along with anyone else that planned or supported the attack materially or otherwise. That will probably take the longest to investigate, but I think it’s the most important part (aside from removing Trump from power of course).

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    shrykethatassemblyguyElvenshaeRaijuGiantGeek2020
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    The timeline has to be after McConnell, but before national opinion sours on doing something about Trump. As I mentioned a few pages back, I don't know if that sweet spot actually exists. I can understand the 100 day delay, and there is some merits to it, but I doubt at that point either you'll really get the GOP senators to back it unless 1) Trump and/or his supporters does more crazy bullshit to sour his reputation (which is probable but not guaranteed) or 2) a ton of insider evidence of the White House having a provable, documented, direct link to the attacks can be found in that time (which is a pretty big gamble that they find something that will be a smoking gun, even if it's 100% likely they did so).

    If you try before McConnell it will 100% fail because he won't let it succeed. If you do it right after McConnell, you will be running that during the news cycle for Biden's inauguration which does have some bad optics, though I don't think bad enough to really alter things given how fucked up things are right now.

    But I don't think we are going to get a conviction in any case, regardless of when it goes to the senate. I don't see 17 GOP Senators breaking with the bloc even when their own lives were put at risk, because voting for impeachment will likely drive their insane constituents to not only vote them out, but probably to threaten them and their families and they are mostly craven cowards to be part of the GOP caucus in the first place.

    The best we can hope for, I feel, is that we get a nice carosel of news showing just how evil these people, Trump included, are and hammer it home time and time again everywhere possible. If somehow Trump actually gets impeached and convicted, that would be grand. But I just don't see it happening unless he does something even more insane.

    OrcaJaysonFourGiantGeek2020
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    this argument is a flat circle

    i've explained mine several times now

    Can you explain the reasoning for Clyburn's suggestion since you're on that team

    i have

    Alright I read your explanation

    I think you're argument is incorrect and the Democrats should move as fast as possible, and 100 days might as well be never. In fact, doing it 100 days out will probably hurt them but doing it 2 weeks from now will still be fresh enough where people won't think this is just some petty shit

    i will say, since i've now been appointed a member of a team, i am not fully convinced waiting the 100 days is the right call, but i am persuaded there is a coherent reason for doing it other than "we don't actually want to do anything", which is the accusation i was speaking against

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
    SurfpossumEncshrykemonikerthatassemblyguyElvenshaeNobeardGiantGeek2020
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    i'm still not sure what it is Democrats are supposed to be able to do right now that they aren't already doing

    could have thrown out the articles of impeachment immediately after the capitol attack when everyone's blood was still hot and for just a tiny moment they put the twelfth dimensional chessboard away, instead of this made up "We have to not take pressure off pence", Pence was never going to use the 25th amendment, and anyone in Washington who said that was the reason was lying

    Takes time to write them accurately, to collectively work with lawyers and scholars to determine what charges are the most likely to stick and can be used in this situation, to conferred with their congressional bloc of literally hundreds to see who is on board with what charges, and to then get those charges out and published. Articles were rough drafted starting during the lockdown, essentially immediately, but that's not the final. Congress only went home to sleep at 4am Thursday morning. Pelosi, while drafts were being revised and updated on Thursday, used the time to turn that delay that would already have occurred back on Pence in her press conference. That was just staffers doing the initial work. Drafts were being updated and tweeted out throughout Thursday and were generally finalized Friday morning. Essentially, they got articles of impeachment written, caucused, and legally approved within about a day and a half, which is extremely fast. And then the weekend hit. First thing Monday we have the vote.

    Like, a lot of you seem to think that impeachment works like shouting Bankruptcy in the Office. Pelosi isn't playing some ninth level chess here, but nor did the house delay. I think there is plenty to criticize her for in that press conference, and do, because it seems to lead people in thinking she decided to not work and wait on Pence's pleasure when that's not how it works.

    The House can, in fact, work weekends if it wants to. It's not a fucking office job.

    The most insane thing was that immediately after an attack on the United States Congress by the President of the United States, both houses went into recess.

    I 100% agree with you here.

    fedaykin666
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    My only concern with impeaching under a McConnell controlled Senate is last time they set the rules to include things like "No new evidence". It would be nice to have better rules set for this impeachment.

    Why would they need evidence? They are all eyewittnesses.

    The evidence would be putting things connecting Trump to the attack on the record. Including, potentially, emails and notes dug up that could show that Trump or his cronies were involved in not sending aid to Congress and/or leaving the building under-defended.
    I think this is perhaps the most convincing reason for not moving quickly.

    The fact that Trump et al. were involved is "obvious," but actually compiling the documentation of that will likely take some time.


    Maybe not 100 days, but y'know.

    icon.png facebookIcon.png tumblrIcon.png
    is this how nations are born
    Mild ConfusionChanusRaiju
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    this argument is a flat circle

    i've explained mine several times now

    Can you explain the reasoning for Clyburn's suggestion since you're on that team

    i have

    Alright I read your explanation

    I think you're argument is incorrect and the Democrats should move as fast as possible, and 100 days might as well be never. In fact, doing it 100 days out will probably hurt them but doing it 2 weeks from now will still be fresh enough where people won't think this is just some petty shit

    i will say, since i've now been appointed a member of a team, i am not fully convinced waiting the 100 days is the right call, but i am persuaded there is a coherent reason for doing it other than "we don't actually want to do anything", which is the accusation i was speaking against

    They have at every point for the last 15 years hesitated and dithered when it comes to holding Republicans accountable for their misdeeds. They don't want to do anything because they are 100% convinced that confronting Republicans will hurt them electorally.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    TicaldfjamRingoJaysonFourBigJoeMElvenshaeAbsoluteZeroAridholMr RayArdol
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    if Schumer knows McConnell doesn't actually have the votes he needs to set the rules, and this actually is just deflection, i would be as upset about it as anyone

    but we don't have a way of knowing that and it would be pure speculation

    but if that were the case, then any argument for delaying becomes void to me

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
    Enc
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    this argument is a flat circle

    i've explained mine several times now

    Can you explain the reasoning for Clyburn's suggestion since you're on that team

    i have

    Alright I read your explanation

    I think you're argument is incorrect and the Democrats should move as fast as possible, and 100 days might as well be never. In fact, doing it 100 days out will probably hurt them but doing it 2 weeks from now will still be fresh enough where people won't think this is just some petty shit

    i will say, since i've now been appointed a member of a team, i am not fully convinced waiting the 100 days is the right call, but i am persuaded there is a coherent reason for doing it other than "we don't actually want to do anything", which is the accusation i was speaking against

    They have at every point for the last 15 years hesitated and dithered when it comes to holding Republicans accountable for their misdeeds. They don't want to do anything because they are 100% convinced that confronting Republicans will hurt them electorally.

    i do not for a moment disagree this is possibly the motivation here, but i do think the repercussions for not holding Republicans to account have hit them this time in a way it has never before

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
    EncGiantGeek2020
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    The 100 days thing feels like one of those D.C. trial balloons where you throw something out there just to take people's temperature on it. Which is why it's really important for it to be decried as a terrible idea.

    Phoenix-DDacCelestialBadgerOrcajmcdonaldshrykenever diemonikerBigJoeMElvenshaespool32AbsoluteZeroDoctorArchMr RayNobeardRaijuGiantGeek2020TofystedethAegeriArdolqwer12
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    and, again, there is an extremely slim possibility they can actually do anything at all in the Senate until all new members are seated, and i am not persuaded a symbolic failure is something that needs to be rushed

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
    dispatch.o
  • Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    I don't know if 100 days is the right length of time, but I can see two good reasons for setting the date to begin after Biden's presidency begins

    1-It puts all the pressure on Pence to remove Trump for the entire rest of his presidency. If he does not then there will be no wiggle room for him to argue that he totally would have if not for the possibility of impeachment removal going through.

    2-There is the off chance that if we set the trial to begin on Tuesday that Mitch would speedrun it again and have Trump "acquitted" before the end of his presidency. We know that emboldened Trump last time, and do you really want to see an emboldened Trump on inauguration day?

    Enc
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited January 10
    Marty81 wrote: »
    I don't know if 100 days is the right length of time, but I can see two good reasons for setting the date to begin after Biden's presidency begins

    1-It puts all the pressure on Pence to remove Trump for the entire rest of his presidency. If he does not then there will be no wiggle room for him to argue that he totally would have if not for the possibility of impeachment removal going through.

    2-There is the off chance that if we set the trial to begin on Tuesday that Mitch would speedrun it again and have Trump "acquitted" before the end of his presidency. We know that emboldened Trump last time, and do you really want to see an emboldened Trump on inauguration day?

    I agree that it must be delayed until we have the senate, and that there are two very important things we must pass first: another stimulus, and a covid vaccine package

    neither of those things should take anywhere close to 100 days and both things will actually pass without being filibustered

    override367 on
    Ticaldfjamdispatch.oElvenshaeRaijuGiantGeek2020
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited January 10
    I don't think it would be that bad optics to be going on alongside the inauguration either, as that is supposed to be a fairly low-key affair due to Covid restrictions.
    It's really just to make a few seconds of VT ahead of the "With President Biden sworn in, the impeachment procedings in the House gained a new sense of immediacy as X was called to testify..." headline

    Tastyfish on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    I don’t think anyone will seriously take the idea of Republicans feeling pressure to remove Trump when Democrats are talking about their own senate looking at it in May.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
    CelestialBadgerOrcaTicaldfjamKraintdispatch.oTetraNitroCubaneoverride367Bloodsheednever dieGONG-00Caedwyr101thatassemblyguyBigJoeMjdarksunMorganVElvenshaeNobodyspool32AbsoluteZeroDee KaeAridholHefflingNobeardGiantGeek2020Zombie GandhiAegeriqwer12
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Marty81 wrote: »
    I don't know if 100 days is the right length of time, but I can see two good reasons for setting the date to begin after Biden's presidency begins

    1-It puts all the pressure on Pence to remove Trump for the entire rest of his presidency. If he does not then there will be no wiggle room for him to argue that he totally would have if not for the possibility of impeachment removal going through.

    2-There is the off chance that if we set the trial to begin on Tuesday that Mitch would speedrun it again and have Trump "acquitted" before the end of his presidency. We know that emboldened Trump last time, and do you really want to see an emboldened Trump on inauguration day?

    McConnell is not bringing the Senate back to have a vote where a majority of the Senate (Dems + Romney + Murkowski + Toomey) votes to expel the president. And I do think there's a definite majority right now, but not a 2/3 majority. I'm under no illusion that Trump actually gets removed. And they already made impeachment contingent on Pence (which was dumb, as this is not a 25th amendment issue).

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    joshofalltrades
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    A 100 day delay is crazy. Either impeach him or don't. Biden's 100 day agenda isn't impacted, because that should be:
    Day 1: Overturn all the crazy executive orders Trump did
    Day 2-99: Get the house to start passing legislation. Some of it's already written and already passed the house.

    It's going to take a few days for the house to do that, so the Senate can afford a few days to conduct a trial.

    Cutting an insurrectionist movement off a the knees before it can even stand up should be the #1 priority of any regime that wants to stay in power. If it's already standing, like this one, that should be even more of a priority.

    CelestialBadgerOrcaFencingsaxdispatch.ooverride367BigJoeMdiscriderElvenshaeAbsoluteZeroRaijuqwer12
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular

    I will officially introduce two articles of impeachment against Donald J. Trump tomorrow.

    1) Abuse of power for attempting to overturn the election results in Georgia.
    2) Incitement of violence for orchestrating an attempted coup against our country.

    via MN Rep Ilhan Omar

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
    RMS OceanicEncdispatch.oMartini_PhilosopherMild ConfusionshrykeGONG-00monikerJaysonFourMillBigJoeMjdarksunElvenshaeAbsoluteZeroNobeardRaijuFoolOnTheHillGiantGeek2020TofystedethKoopahTroopahSkeithA Kobold's Kobold
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Also pretty sure only the impeachment trial of the literal sitting president takes precedence over everything else in the Senate. By the time McConnell lets the thing happen (i.e. the 20th) he won't be.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Ticaldfjam
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    edited January 10
    Marty81 wrote: »
    I don't know if 100 days is the right length of time, but I can see two good reasons for setting the date to begin after Biden's presidency begins

    1-It puts all the pressure on Pence to remove Trump for the entire rest of his presidency. If he does not then there will be no wiggle room for him to argue that he totally would have if not for the possibility of impeachment removal going through.

    2-There is the off chance that if we set the trial to begin on Tuesday that Mitch would speedrun it again and have Trump "acquitted" before the end of his presidency. We know that emboldened Trump last time, and do you really want to see an emboldened Trump on inauguration day?

    McConnell is not bringing the Senate back to have a vote where a majority of the Senate (Dems + Romney + Murkowski + Toomey) votes to expel the president. And I do think there's a definite majority right now, but not a 2/3 majority. I'm under no illusion that Trump actually gets removed. And they already made impeachment contingent on Pence (which was dumb, as this is not a 25th amendment issue).

    Again, that speech from Pelosi and what actually happened during that time are two different things. Saying impeachment was contingent on Pence was a real "seems-smart-but-actually-dumb," aka trademark Pelosi political calculus thing. The gears of impeachment were happening the entire time and never paused (and I'm not convinced have paused over the weekend, given they have to declare when they are doing the trial when they file and that's a real big question).

    Enc on
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    A 100 day pause on any action is beyond idiotic. There's no way that at that point it won't just look like petty politicking. I seriously doubt you'd even be able to get people like Romney or Murkowski (who are showing willingness now) on board at that point, and you'd probably even lose a bunch of Democrats as well.

    It's just....so stupid.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
    CelestialBadgerKraintdispatch.oTetraNitroCubaneDarkPrimusMarty81OrcajoshofalltradesSleepoverride367Bloodsheedshrykenever dieStabbity StyleMunkus BeaverthatassemblyguyBigJoeMjdarksunElvenshaeNobodyAbsoluteZeroAridholNobeardRaijuAegeriArdolSkeithA Kobold's Kobold
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    How likely is it that the people currently in charge of sending requested documents regarding this stuff to Congress will actually do so right now?

    For example, if there was any coordination between the police/White House/etc. can we expect anything about it to be handed over before the new administration replaces people.

    icon.png facebookIcon.png tumblrIcon.png
    is this how nations are born
    CelestialBadger
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »

    I will officially introduce two articles of impeachment against Donald J. Trump tomorrow.

    1) Abuse of power for attempting to overturn the election results in Georgia.
    2) Incitement of violence for orchestrating an attempted coup against our country.

    via MN Rep Ilhan Omar

    The Raskin/Lieu/Cicilline version with 200 co-sponsors is the one that's probably getting adopted.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    EncTicaldfjamPhoenix-DshrykeMunkus BeavermonikerMillRaijuKoopahTroopah
  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »

    I will officially introduce two articles of impeachment against Donald J. Trump tomorrow.

    1) Abuse of power for attempting to overturn the election results in Georgia.
    2) Incitement of violence for orchestrating an attempted coup against our country.

    via MN Rep Ilhan Omar

    The Raskin/Lieu/Cicilline version with 200 co-sponsors is the one that's probably getting adopted.

    likely yeah

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
Sign In or Register to comment.