Impeachment

However, as I've explained previously, he knowingly pushed false allegations and told people that they have no recourse but to push Congress and the VP to do something illegal, leaving violence as the only recourse if they don't.
I am surprised you think ALL of the allegations are false. The poster board being put up on windows to hide the votes being tallied, the changes in election process contrary to legislative intent, forgiving the need to match voter signatures, etc. are valid complaints, especially in light of the historical fight by Libs against voter verification. The evidence seems pretty clear. The magnitude of the effect is unclear. What "illegality" did Trump encourage the crowds to push Congress and Pence to commit? What specifically did he do or say?

I didn't see angry mobs ready to storm the Capitol over Russia. The BLM riots were bad, but they were largely led by activists, not politicians.
The Russia conspiracy by the Dems was pure horse hockey and I believe the masses recognized the untruthfulness of that claim. Obviously, the easily and willingly led lemmings of the Dems, such as OUBubba and SH, were going to parrot the lies, but those lies were obvious, weak and ineffective. Ultimately, pushing that line of falsehoods blew up in the faces of many anti-Trumpers/Democrats. It certainly weakened an already sorry group of distrusted media and Democrat leaders such as Nadler, Schiff, Swalwell, Schumer, and many others.

BLM has huge Democratic support through organizations such as "Democratic Alliance". Funding is in the 100s of millions of dollars. Dem organizations pay for protestors on a regular basis. Putting it nicely, it's a stretch to say the Democrats, and Democrat politicians are/were not leading that movement, and many politicians are involved in the funding efforts. Their support included funding, bail money for rioters, failure to prosecute, preventing law enforcement from acting to stop the riots, support for "defunding police", actual verbal support of the "peaceful protests", and lack of condemnation of the riots. Nadler actually said "they didn't exist" Hell, identity politics is their schtick. It's what they do.
 
Actually this is an interesting scenario. I would say it would look really bizarre for then same party to both impeach Trump and then pardon him. Does a POTUS even have the authority to pardon in the case of impeachment of a former POTUS? I suspect not since this is not a criminal trial in the judiciary.
Ford did it for Nixon...although there was a resignation by Nixon before impeachment proceedings could get underway in the House. However, there is no evidence of a crime having been committed that has been offered up yet and the daily news from the DOJ and FBI clearly suggest the events were planned long before the 6th rolled around on the calendar. And since that puts the kibosh on the Democrats premise that it was THE speech that served as the basis for the 'insurrection' giving rise to the impeachment sham, Nancy would do well to simply put the documents in a shredder and move on. This should never see the light of day in the Senate, especially since Bills of Attainder are not permissible...

As to Seattle's question, Pecos is not the one creating terms and definitions to divide groups. Your post, on the other hand, did precisely that. The left has a very serious problem with the insistence that we have 74 million Nazis/White Supremacists/Racists roaming the nation and that everyone who voted for Donald Trump is in one or more of those those three categories.

The House proceedings included rule changes to expressly permit attacks on PERSONALITY! I've seen more class exuded in a seventh grade race for student council than House Democrats put forth last week.
 
Clownshow


Look who showed up when he heard that

EsW6CaNUUAAbXW3
 
It's funny to me that the MSM and Dems really believe they can convince 17 out of 50 Republican Senators to vote for conviction when they could only muster 10 out of 212 Republican Representatives to vote for impeachment. Especially when you consider the context that the House impeachment vote was a week after the Jan 6th riot while Trump was still in office. Also, it now appears that Cheney has committed political suicide by voting for impeachment. That will be a harbinger for any Republican Senators who are thinking about doing the same. I suspect in the end they will get votes from Romney, Murkowski, and possibly a couple others.

This trial will end in an acquittal with Trump declaring victory. Plus it delays important cabinet confirmations and will kill any chance of bipartisanship in his first 100 days. The current crop of Democratic leaders may be the dumbest in modern history.
 
I actually expect the Senate to vote against Trump.

The Swamp doesn't forget. He actually named them and half way did things against them. That can't be allowed.
 
I’m kinda in the same camp. As I’ve stated before Trump was not in the professional DC political crowd and they all hated him, hated that he won, and will unite to destroy him.
 
The establishment Republicans may despise Trump but they they will not sign their own execution order. If they vote to convict then it likely results in the Trump supporters forming a third party. The Republican party will not recover for a generation.
 
The establishment Republicans may despise Trump but they they will not sign their own execution order. If they vote to convict then it likely results in the Trump supporters forming a third party. The Republican party will not recover for a generation.

I'd like to see him convicted, but I agree. I don't think they'll do it, because the downside is much bigger than the upside. I think Romney, Murkowski, and Collins will vote to convict. I could see Pat Toomey and Richard Burr voting to convict as well because they're not seeking reelection. However, that's no where near enough to convict.
 
Mr. Deez - I appreciate your insight but am a little confused about "I'd like to see him convicted." Can you clarify that statement? What exactly did President Trump say that would warrant conviction?
 
Mr. Deez - I appreciate your insight but am a little confused about "I'd like to see him convicted." Can you clarify that statement? What exactly did President Trump say that would warrant conviction?

If you scroll back through the thread, I stated my rationale.
 
I'm guessing it's part of this
I've explained previously, he knowingly pushed false allegations and told people that they have no recourse but to push Congress and the VP to do something illegal, leaving violence as the only recourse if they don't. It's not incitement, but it's bad enough to shitcan him from national politics.

Yes, he asked / told VP Pence to not certify the election but where or when did he say that violence is the only recourse?
 
ia
That statement by that Prof is so on point.
He asks the University pres who is loudly condemning the protests in DC Why he, the president, didn't write condemnation of those who burned and destroyed our cities for months including businesses and lives of Americans.
I would like to ask the same of the Trump haters here who are all indignant about the DC protests now calling for arrests of every Trump supporter who was there.
Show us your same indignation from back then.
ia thanks. Great article
 
Look up Dawit Kelete, the guy who hit accidentally a protester on a highway and killed her during a BLM March. He has been in jail for 6 months waiting trial.
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top