|
-
Originally Posted by local
Don’t think anyone is making too many predictions, but the reasons for the impeachment are most definitely there, as to the outcome, there are many factors in play, the ultimate decision will reflect more on how various people feel that their political position will be affected.
Emphasising on the 6th Jan speech alone is not the full story by a long way, there are now 2 known highly illegal attempts to overturn the election result, both originating from Trump, both attempting to force officials into illegal action, as for the outcome we will have to wait and see.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
-
…sedition? or just a Tea Party?
…Indeed, the debate over whether to accept the outcome of a presidential election was only happening at the Capitol because a faction of the Republican Party had already embraced the same grievances as the rioters.
In The Atlantic, Tom Nichols dubbed this faction of lawmakers the “sedition caucus.” It lost on January 6, but its members are not going away. The question is what form their persistence will take. Are they the Republican Party’s future, or will they have to find a new home—perhaps in the Patriot Party or MAGA Party that Donald Trump reportedly wants to found?
Because the sedition caucus is embedded within the GOP, other Republicans are the only ones in a position to rein the group in. So far, many who opposed the election challenge and want to hold their party together are making an effort to restore constitutional norms. Others are still trying to play both sides. The reason so many are worried about the divisiveness of impeachment is not that it will divide the country, but that it will divide the Republican Party. It will force Republicans to go on record opposing some of their own. As the former GOP strategist Stephen Schmidt writes, that could lead today’s Republican Party down the path the Whig Party took two centuries ago, when it fractured over slavery.
— The post-Trump GOP … Hans Noel, associate professor of government at Georgetown University.
An extract from The Atlantic speculating on the next moves for the GOP.
[Aside: Q Local Southport forum has its very own “sedition” poster — ]
In case anyone is interested, the article makes some general points about for instance: FPTP; voter enfranchisement; group dynamics of 'big tent ' political parties which of course, have some resonance here in the UK.
Neither party’s institutions are well equipped to prevent factions from invading. Party leaders do have ways of managing conflict and avoiding nominees out of step with their values, but …
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by local
I sit with other simpletons such as Jeffrey Scott Shapiro the ex Washington state prosecutor who also doesn't think the Trump charge is valid.
Don't be so hard on yourself. You sit with those who omit one teensy-weensy distinction between criminal law vs impeachment.
Shapiro's statement is correct. In criminal law Trump's actions would not constitute a criminal offence. However impeachment is a political process and presidential actions don't have to be criminal to be impeachable. If a House majority and 2/3 of the Senate believe that Trump has violated his oath of office, then he will be found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours.
You can read the full article of impeachment here:
https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/ci...-%20011121.pdf
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
re: "Don't be so hard on yourself."
As I recall, Shapiro's WSJ article cited a precedent [Brandenburg v. Ohio] — the so-called 'Brandenburg test for incitement' — a startling decision, in itself.
As for Mr. Shapiro, braggadocio:
As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname “protester prosecutor” …
His CV: mostly, hack journalist who also practised a bit of law; partisan gadabout and media commentator.
In short, local's kind of guy .
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 3 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by seivad
Don't be so hard on yourself. You sit with those who omit one teensy-weensy distinction between criminal law vs impeachment.
Shapiro's statement is correct. In criminal law Trump's actions would not constitute a criminal offence. However impeachment is a political process and presidential actions don't have to be criminal to be impeachable. If a House majority and 2/3 of the Senate believe that Trump has violated his oath of office, then he will be found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours.
You can read the full article of impeachment here:
https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/ci...-%20011121.pdf
I'm sitting very comfortably when I assess the charge and come to the same conclusion as Shapiro,as to the politics I have already mentioned that Pelosi has conned quite a few gullible people into supporting it.
I have though seen a distinct change in mood to a wish to include Trumps back catalogue to make the charge stick.
You can of course take my challenge from the transcript link and point out where and indeed how he incited the crowd to do what they did.
Should I expect to be ignored or the challenge swerved?
Should someone be found guilty of offending opposing politicians is perhaps the bigger question, to some extent it will be part of the job and one of the things Trump was very good at.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by local
I'm sitting very comfortably when I assess the charge and come to the same conclusion as Shapiro,as to the politics I have already mentioned that Pelosi has conned quite a few gullible people into supporting it.
I have though seen a distinct change in mood to a wish to include Trumps back catalogue to make the charge stick.
You can of course take my challenge from the transcript link and point out where and indeed how he incited the crowd to do what they did.
Should I expect to be ignored or the challenge swerved?
Should someone be found guilty of offending opposing politicians is perhaps the bigger question, to some extent it will be part of the job and one of the things Trump was very good at.
Give over, Trump’s speech was the trigger and you know it, no-one could achieve that result from just one speech, he was urging on the already converted and primed mugs, all those who believed that they could somehow change the result of the election.
Trump played to the lowest denominator, just as incidentally did your other hero, Farage.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by silver fox
Give over, Trump’s speech was the trigger and you know it, no-one could achieve that result from just one speech, he was urging on the already converted and primed mugs, all those who believed that they could somehow change the result of the election.
Trump played to the lowest denominator, just as incidentally did your other hero, Farage.
Jeez, if Farage is anyone's hero, I've some lovely magic beans to sell.
Again, referring back to the Trump documentary, he's a toadying little arselicker. He grovels and ingratiates himself around those he sees as powerful. I think Trump was his favourite thick populist, but any will do.
A rabble rouser preying on fools. Again the image of a short kid dancing round and issuing threats while hiding behind the big bully comes to mind. Happily the world eventually corrects itself after these fascist or populist phases. He'll end up shouting into the void on one of the new ultra-right TV services, no doubt. GBTV or some such.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by silver fox
Give over, Trump’s speech was the trigger and you know it, no-one could achieve that result from just one speech, he was urging on the already converted and primed mugs, all those who believed that they could somehow change the result of the election.
Trump played to the lowest denominator, just as incidentally did your other hero, Farage.
Didn't know farage was my hero.
I do like the gentle swerve onto my point that the speech did not incite.
The new cumulative incitement position has it seems another supporter.
Better get Nancy to organise a rewrite
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Once again
It wasn't just that speech. There was a trail of incitement.
But when that crowd turned up, it was pretty much certain what they would do.
Did he moderate? Did he f!
When they set about what they were doing, which included some wanting to murder his VP, what did he do?
NOTHING
Your argument just doesn't stand up
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by bensherman
Once again
It wasn't just that speech. There was a trail of incitement.
But when that crowd turned up, it was pretty much certain what they would do.
Did he moderate? Did he f!
When they set about what they were doing, which included some wanting to murder his VP, what did he do?
NOTHING
Your argument just doesn't stand up
Steady on your nearly agreeing with me.
You are as others are building a cumulative incitement argument as the speech on the day didn't cut the mustard (my point all along)
Call Nancy they might reword the impeachment for you
Don't forget as i have already mentioned he has a first amendment defence in his right to free speech or to say things you don't agree with.
Saying I was robbed and fight it seems to neatly fit.
Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-i...=1611742601892
The reality is Nancy and her cohorts are looking to stop the Trump.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by local
Steady on your nearly agreeing with me.
You are as others are building a cumulative incitement argument as the speech on the day didn't cut the mustard (my point all along)
Call Nancy they might reword the impeachment for you
Don't forget as i have already mentioned he has a first amendment defence in his right to free speech or to say things you don't agree with.
Saying I was robbed and fight it seems to neatly fit.
Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-i...=1611742601892
The reality is Nancy and her cohorts are looking to stop the Trump.
The reality is that many from both sides want Trump stopped, the problem for Republicans is in that while they may want Trump out, they are also frightened of upsetting the MAGA extremist factions, I’m afraid the final decision will be based on politics rather than illegality.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Trump’s Coup Attempt Didn’t Start on January 6
"The attempted coup reshaped the debate over then-President Donald Trump’s attempts to steal the 2020 presidential election, focusing both opponents and defenders on the insurrection itself and what role he played in inciting it. …
…But that narrow focus on the insurrection has also allowed some of Trump’s defenders to derail the conversation by debating whether Trump was culpable for the actions of the mob on January 6. Letting him off on this count requires ignoring not only his speech that day, but also his weeks of telling people the election was being stolen from him; if that had been true, they might have been acting rationally in storming the Capitol, but he was lying to them all the while. As the Clark gambit illustrates, Trump’s speech to the mob was just one of many improper and illegal efforts to retain power. Trump’s attempt to overturn the election was amateurish and poorly thought-out, like most of his initiatives, but it was also sprawling, dangerous, and unacceptable." — David A. Graham at The Atlantic
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 2 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by sandGroundZero
" The attempted coup reshaped the debate over then-President Donald Trump’s attempts to steal the 2020 presidential election, focusing both opponents and defenders on the insurrection itself and what role he played in inciting it. …
…But that narrow focus on the insurrection has also allowed some of Trump’s defenders to derail the conversation by debating whether Trump was culpable for the actions of the mob on January 6. Letting him off on this count requires ignoring not only his speech that day, but also his weeks of telling people the election was being stolen from him; if that had been true, they might have been acting rationally in storming the Capitol, but he was lying to them all the while. As the Clark gambit illustrates, Trump’s speech to the mob was just one of many improper and illegal efforts to retain power. Trump’s attempt to overturn the election was amateurish and poorly thought-out, like most of his initiatives, but it was also sprawling, dangerous, and unacceptable." — David A. Graham at The Atlantic
Trump was as objectionable on the day he announced he would run as the day he was elected, to the day he went off to play golf.
That's who the Americans chose after Obama's failure and faced with him or Hillary.
Why you would seek to have him impeached for being what the American people voted for defeats me.
The consensus that "the speech" was not in itself enough to support the charge is welcome.
The Americans got exactly what they voted for.
A vomit inducer.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
In response to local's post #238
As candidate and as President, Donald Trump broke laws, violated conventional norms of behaviour and most deplorably he exploited racial hatred and stoked division to assist in his Presidential bids.
Trump was as objectionable on the day he announced he would run as the day he was elected, to the day he went off to play golf. | That's who the Americans chose after Obama's failure and faced with him or Hillary. | Why you would seek to have him impeached for being what the American people voted for defeats me.
The consensus that "the speech" was not in itself enough to support the charge is welcome.
The Americans got exactly what they voted for. | A vomit inducer. — post #238
If Obama was a "failure", Trump was a national calamity. You, local, have repeatedly called him "objectionable, a vomit inducer, emetic" and other derogatory epithets; yet you puke up excuses for Trump along with juvenile taunts aimed at his detractors.
Americans may have voted for Trump, and it is Americans who are seeking his second impeachment. On the face of it, it makes little difference to any of us residing in Southport whether Trump is impeached and barred from further participation, or not; except of course, that it matters to us America chooses to set a positive example to the world and contribute constructively in international affairs.
And one other thing: it matters to us that we have our own celebrity clown residing in 10 Downing Street who, with his BREXIT sidekicks, appear to share Trump's laissez passer attitude to Russian meddling in our political affairs — something that seems not to have troubled you.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by sandGroundZero
As candidate and as President, Donald Trump broke laws, violated conventional norms of behaviour and most deplorably he exploited racial hatred and stoked division to assist in his Presidential bids.
If Obama was a "failure", Trump was a national calamity. You, local, have repeatedly called him "objectionable, a vomit inducer, emetic" and other derogatory epithets; yet you puke up excuses for Trump along with juvenile taunts aimed at his detractors.
Americans may have voted for Trump, and it is Americans who are seeking his second impeachment. On the face of it, it makes little difference to any of us residing in Southport whether Trump is impeached and barred from further participation, or not; except of course, that it matters to us America chooses to set a positive example to the world and contribute constructively in international affairs.
And one other thing: it matters to us that we have our own celebrity clown residing in 10 Downing Street who, with his BREXIT sidekicks, appear to share Trump's laissez passer attitude to Russian meddling in our political affairs — something that seems not to have troubled you.
America made its choices so did we Boris or Jeremy, there was no contest and the vote was overwhelming you will have to learn to see the bigger picture and not take your frustrations out on those of us who see it.
Calling my correct and objective observations of Trumps excuses is just another shallow and thoughtless jibe.
I haven't excused him just not followed sheep like his barmy army of orange misters who are obsessed with him.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
|
Search Qlocal (powered by google)
Privacy & Cookie Policy
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Also website at southportnews.co.uk
Qlocal Supports Woodlands Animal Sanctuary
Booking.com
Supporting Local Business
Be Seen - Advertise on Qlocal
UK, Local Online News Community, Forums, Chats, For Sale, Classified, Offers, Vouchers, Events, Motors Sale, Property For Sale Rent, Jobs, Hotels, Taxi, Restaurants, Pubs, Clubs, Pictures, Sports, Charities, Lost Found
southport,
southport News,
|