You are here: Home | Forum | Trump impeachment: Senate trial to start
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.
BREAKING: 45 Republican Senators just voted to end the “unconstitutional” impeachment trial of former U.S President Donald Trump.
Republican Senator Rand Paul states:
BREAKING: 55 Senators vote to continue trial....
Tbh its not much of a 'trial' if everybody has decided how they're going to vote in advance regardless of evidence. The main thing influencing some Republucans is threats to their safety unless they vote the right way.
Even Rumpole of the Bailey would struggle against such odds...
The Democrats are probably going to go ahead anyway to try and get Republicans to cast their vote for posterity.
What will be interesting in the next couple of years is the degree to which the 5 senators who are breaking with the Republicans will vote with the Democrats on other measures. Murkowski, Collins, Romney, Sasse and Toomey.
Romney I think won't. He is a classic Republican and having already run for President and in safe seat being the Mormon Senator from Utah he is just able to do this on conviction. I don't know much about Sasse and Toomey.
But Murkowski and Collins are interesting. They're the ones who - along with McCain - stopped the Republicans form repealing Obamacare. They're already quite detached from the wider Republican Party and have strong personal votes in their home states. Collins has only just been re-elected even after being an anti-Trump Republican. Murkowski is so detached from the party that in 2010 she lost the State's Republican Primaries only for the people of Alaska to elect her anyway by writing in her name on the ballot! Which is even more impressive when you consider for a write-in vote to count they had to spell her namely correctly. So you have two Senators there who are not dependent on the Republican Machine or even the Republican base in their own states.
If Trump maintains his hold over the Republican Party then these senators may be looking across the aisle to the Democrats. If not a party switch then at least being independent senators who swing between the parties. We're talking about a Republican Party in which McConnell would be in trouble as Senate Minority Leader as he is insufficiently Trumpian.
Tbh its not much of a 'trial' if everybody has decided how they're going to vote in advance regardless of evidence. The main thing influencing some Republucans is threats to their safety unless they vote the right way.
Even Rumpole of the Bailey would struggle against such odds...
Stop taking the piss Mr K.
45 Republicans voting to throw out Impeachment means the votes are not there for conviction. 55 is a pointless number. 67 is required. It’s not going to be a good day for the Dems. They’re Idiots.
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,906
Re: Trump impeachment: Senate trial to start
I don’t know. They might have hoped to win round enough republicans but they can’t have been banking on it. Given Trump’s antics in his last days in office and especially that speech before the capitol insurrection I think they will have felt compelled to impeach, and even without a subsequent conviction they have been seen to do the right thing. Even without a conviction Trump’s legacy is to be the only US president to be impeached twice.
I don’t know. They might have hoped to win round enough republicans but they can’t have been banking on it. Given Trump’s antics in his last days in office and especially that speech before the capitol insurrection I think they will have felt compelled to impeach, and even without a subsequent conviction they have been seen to do the right thing. Even without a conviction Trump’s legacy is to be the only US president to be impeached twice.
And both will have been acquitted.
He’s been impeached By a partisan Democrat House that never got over their crooked one losing. 10 Republicans only went with Second impeachment. Out of 200, that’s an insignificant amount. His speech is protected under 1st Amendment rights. I saw the speech, it did not suggest any violence and he did say march peacefully.
He’s been impeached By a partisan Democrat House that never got over their crooked one losing. 10 Republicans only went with Second impeachment. Out of 200, that’s an insignificant amount. His speech is protected under 1st Amendment rights. I saw the speech, it did not suggest any violence and he did say march peacefully.
Dems have incited violence, they are no angels.
They've incited violence by winning the election and deposing his holiness?
They've incited violence by winning the election and deposing his holiness?
Get with the programme, we’re not talking about the election.
We’re talking about what of Democrat incitement to violence? …
Cory Booker incited violence when he called for his supporters to get ‘up in their face’ of Congress people.
No Democrat will ask whether Democrat Maxine Waters incited violence when she literally told her supporters, and I quote, that ”if you see a member of the Trump administration at a restaurant, at a department store, at a gas station, or anyplace, you create a crowd and you push back on them.”
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,906
Re: Trump impeachment: Senate trial to start
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
Get with the programme, we’re not talking about the election.
We’re talking about what of Democrat incitement to violence? …
Cory Booker incited violence when he called for his supporters to get ‘up in their face’ of Congress people.
No Democrat will ask whether Democrat Maxine Waters incited violence when she literally told her supporters, and I quote, that ”if you see a member of the Trump administration at a restaurant, at a department store, at a gas station, or anyplace, you create a crowd and you push back on them.”
Is that not incitement?
Context is important. Was Maxine Waters addressing an angry mob, some of whom were armed, and did they immediately show signs of doing what she said? If yes, did she immediately move to calm them down again or did she remain silent until much later?
Lots of people say lots of stupid stuff. Sometimes people say stuff that suggests people should act in a violent manner. But there are specific conditions that have to be met before actual criminal incitement can be proven beyond doubt in court.
I think Trump has a case to answer, based on the evidence. That's not to say he's guilty, but the evidence is strong enough that it should be tried. Of course as it will be tried in the Senate, it will be settled on politics and not on evidence. In this case the politics that decide it are internal Republican concerns. Do GOP senators like the idea of Trump threatening to stand for nomination in 2024? Do they feel threatened if they act against him? That sort of thing.
So does it have to be that the idiots act on your words before it’s an issue?
So you’re not guilty of inciting violence until a violent act takes place?
Trump said nothing more inflammatory that what was said in those links, in some cases less inflammatory, but the difference was “some” knobheads took it upon themselves to act like knobheads.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending Trump but I hate hypocrisy. Everybody should be held to the same standard.
__________________
The wheel's still turning but the hamsters dead.
So does it have to be that the idiots act on your words before it’s an issue?
So you’re not guilty of inciting violence until a violent act takes place?
Trump said nothing more inflammatory that what was said in those links, in some cases less inflammatory, but the difference was “some” knobheads took it upon themselves to act like knobheads.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending Trump but I hate hypocrisy. Everybody should be held to the same standard.
If there's something these individuals should be charged with, then I'm sure they would have been by now.
So does it have to be that the idiots act on your words before it’s an issue?
So you’re not guilty of inciting violence until a violent act takes place?
Trump said nothing more inflammatory that what was said in those links, in some cases less inflammatory, but the difference was “some” knobheads took it upon themselves to act like knobheads.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending Trump but I hate hypocrisy. Everybody should be held to the same standard.
If you are the leader of the 'free world" maybe you should be held to a higher standard than any old rabble rouser? He told the 'knobheads' he 'loved them', so it wasn't exactly a reprimand for killing a few innocent bystanders in the Capitol.
Join CF
You are here: 
