The 2nd Impeachment of (former) President Donald J. Trump (Page 6/9)
blackrams FEB 13, 06:54 PM
These people need to be recalled or rejected at the first opportunity.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

There was simply no evidence to support the Impeachment Charges.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-13-2021).]

rbell2915 FEB 13, 07:08 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

These people need to be recalled or rejected at the first opportunity.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA)

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE)

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

There was simply no evidence to support the Impeachment Charges.

Rams




Burr, I hope it was worth it, you turncoat.
blackrams FEB 13, 07:21 PM

quote
Originally posted by rbell2915:


Burr, I hope it was worth it, you turncoat.



Open minds looking at the evidence versus the charges would acquit.
Apparently, you drank too much of the coolaide.

This coming from someone that never liked DJT.

CNN's opinion:

Why Democrats blinked in the Senate impeachment trial
On Saturday morning, Democrats appeared to score a coup: Winning a surprise vote on calling witnesses in the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump.
On Saturday afternoon, Democrats agreed to end the trial without calling any witnesses.


If that seems odd to you, well, you are far from alone. The Democrats' rapid backtrack left almost everyone not in the Senate scratching their heads, wondering why the party blinked when it appeared to be on the verge of getting more testimony that would shine a light on exactly what Trump knew and when he knew it during the January 6 riot at the Capitol.

(Sidebar: Senate Democrats will point to the fact that they got a statement from Washington GOP Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler detailing her side of an angry call between House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Trump on the day of the riot. Sure. But why not depose Beutler as a witness?)

So, why did they do it? And then undo it?

The obvious answer is that President Joe Biden (or his surrogates) made clear to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer that he did not want this trial dragging on -- especially if the outcome is not in doubt.

Biden has largely avoided commenting about the ongoing trial other than to say that he is interested in seeing how Republicans vote on whether to convict or acquit Trump. But, behind the scenes, the Biden folks have made no bones about their desire for the trial to conclude quickly so that the attention of the country (and the Congress) can return to the President's efforts on battling the Covid-19 pandemic and the Senate can refocus on confirming his Cabinet nominees.

Calling witnesses would, without any question, have lengthened the trial -- likely by a considerable amount of time. In the aftermath of the vote, Republicans aligned with Trump were saying that they had a list of 300 witnesses they would try to call. And there appeared to be a desire among the centrist wing of the Democratic Party -- West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, in particular -- to allow both sides to call an equal number of witnesses.

And, remember, that the Senate is coming up on a week-long President's Day recess, meaning that if Democrats had stuck to their guns on witnesses, the trial could have extended into into early March (or much later).

There also wasn't any obvious path to convicting Trump -- even if there were more witnesses. The expectation going into Saturday was that there were five or six Republican senators who would likely vote to convict -- and that number solidified after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had suggested he was keeping an open mind on Trump's guilt, said Saturday morning that he would be voting to acquit.

With McConnell on the "acquit" side, the chances of Democrats securing the 17 Republican votes they would need to convict Trump were, roughly, zero.

Given that, spending additional days (or, more likely, weeks) deposing witnesses would be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

So, yeah, I get it. But what I don't get is why Democrats voted FOR witnesses Saturday morning. All of these pitfalls were totally visible for Senate Democrats before they voted.

By voting in favor of witnesses before voting against them, Democrats hamstring their own case. If hearing from witnesses would have helped House impeachment managers make their case that Trump had incited the Capitol riot on Saturday morning, why was just putting Herrera Beutler's testimony into the record fine and dandy by Saturday afternoon?

It all had the feel of a non-serious move by Democrats. And a very weird way to end an impeachment trial in which Trump's conduct -- and the ongoing timidity of Senate Republicans to break with him -- was on full display until Saturday morning.



In other words, they knew they weren't going to win the impeachment and not reach their goal of never having to face a Candidate Trump again. And, that was their whole goal.
I honestly don't think DJT can win another election (but, that's just my opinion) unless, the Dems put up another HRC as their candidate. Or one similar to her.
CNN has never been a Pro-Trump organization. But, they finally came around to seeing the true Dem agenda and admitting it.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-13-2021).]

blackrams FEB 13, 07:50 PM
Oops, double post, sorry about that.

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-13-2021).]

MidEngineManiac FEB 13, 08:03 PM
https://babylonbee.com/news...g-impeachment-attack
randye FEB 13, 08:28 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:


CNN's opinion:

Why Democrats blinked in the Senate impeachment trial
On Saturday morning, Democrats appeared to score a coup: Winning a surprise vote on calling witnesses in the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump.
On Saturday afternoon, Democrats agreed to end the trial without calling any witnesses.





As usual, CNN's opinion has the same value as a skid-mark in a homeless bum's underwear.

Leftists are notorious for ignoring the law of unintended consequences and "they got played".

The truth of the matter is that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, in a master stroke of Congressional procedural gamesmanship, voted to allow the Leftists witnesses and even helped round up Republican votes to agree. After the vote he gleefully reminded them that it will now drag this charade out for many weeks to come and completely tie up the Senate while they cross-examine the Leftist's witnesses and then call a whole roster defense witnesses for the former President.

The eventual outcome would not be changed but Senate Republicans were more than happy to help Lefties stall Dementia Joe's agenda for many weeks, if not a couple of months, longer.

The ever-stupid Senate Leftists instantly felt the cold, hard, hand of unintended consequences around their throats and back-pedaled as fast as they could.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/n...Ezek?ocid=uxbndlbing

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-13-2021).]

blackrams FEB 13, 08:55 PM

quote
Originally posted by randye:


As usual, CNN's opinion has the same value as a skid-mark in a homeless bum's underwear.

Leftists are notorious for ignoring the law of unintended consequences and "they got played".

The truth of the matter is that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, in a master stroke of Congressional procedural gamesmanship, voted to allow the Leftists witnesses and even helped round up Republican votes to agree. After the vote he gleefully reminded them that it will now drag this charade out for many weeks to come and completely tie up the Senate while they cross-examine the Leftist's witnesses and then call a whole roster defense witnesses for the former President.

The eventual outcome would not be changed but Senate Republicans were more than happy to help Lefties stall Dementia Joe's agenda for many weeks, if not a couple of months, longer.

The ever-stupid Senate Leftists instantly felt the cold, hard, hand of unintended consequences around their throats and back-pedaled as fast as they could.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/n...Ezek?ocid=uxbndlbing




Thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't aware of Senator Graham's move. I really would like to see Speaker Pelosi testify under oath and with perjury penalties applicable for lying.

Rams
rinselberg FEB 13, 10:10 PM
"[Mitch] McConnell would have happily considered finding Trump guilty, were it not for Mitch McConnell"

I like that. The banner at the top.

It's from WaPo, and I will now provide the Internet page link as a "pro forma" or matter of record.

"McConnell would have happily considered finding Trump guilty, were it not for Mitch McConnell"
Philip Bump; op-ed for the Washington Post; February 13, 2021.
https://www.washingtonpost....not-mitch-mcconnell/

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-13-2021).]

randye FEB 14, 12:21 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Mitch McConnell




Translation: "He didn't vote the way we wanted him to and he didn't rally other Republicans to vote the way we wanted them to...Boo Hoo Hoo"...so now we shall mock him and create juvenile, snarky, article titles That will show him!, plus the rest of the Leftie sheep really eat this mindless sh*t up"

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-14-2021).]

theBDub FEB 14, 12:32 AM

quote
Originally posted by randye:


I have pointed out many times before that Leftists form their opinions and make their decisions based largely or primarily on emotion / feelings.

Very little, if any, objective factual data and analysis is involved. Critical thinking is absent.

They have significant problems with discerning opinions and emotions from objective facts and see all of them with equal value.

They can hold and earnestly believe two or more completely contradictory and irreconcilable ideas in their heads simultaneously and apparently be completely unaware or unconcerned by it.

This how they see and scrutinize the world around them and consequently how they assume others do as well, so it is unsurprising that they would make emotion the most integral part of their shampeachment presentation.




I (mostly) agree. But I’d also argue that not only are leftists emotional and contradictory, the right-wing is worse.

How do you reconcile small government with a large military?
How do you reconcile small government with drug laws?
How do you reconcile small government with oil and farming subsidies?
How do you reconcile small government with abortion laws?

Leftists have some terrible ideas, but I definitely find them more ideologically consistent than Republicans, who seem to say things that their Representitives never actually believe in or vote for.