Whilst Biden and Harris are busy doing their jobs, there's an Impeachment Hearing going on... (#125)

[Roussette]

Previous thread...
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/a4145424-Moving-on-its-Biden-Harris-Administration-time-124?msgid=104553726#104553726

Interesting to read of Cass Sunstein being appointed into DHS ...

An interesting analysis of a possible future
www.economist.com/united-states/2021/02/06/adam-kinzinger-is-making-a-lone-stand-against-donald-trump

Pmk

[quote ListeningQuietly]An interesting analysis of a possible future
www.economist.com/united-states/2021/02/06/adam-kinzinger-is-making-a-lone-stand-against-donald-trump[/quote]
“The devil’s ultimate trick for Christianity…is embarrassing the church”

@DGRossetti

Interesting to read of Cass Sunstein being appointed into DHS ...

Jeff Hauser. Revolving Door Project ( Watchdog group) is said to have described Sunstein as an: “incomprehensibly prolific academic and pundit” who “claims expertise in everything.”

“I can think of nothing in Sunstein’s record that gives me confidence he can fix a deeply broken department like the Department of Homeland Security or that he has a particular commitment to migrants,” Hauser said. “We need to get past the idea that because people are deemed important, it’s important that they get an appointment.”

Biden's known him for decades, back to Obama days. I hope so much that there is a good reason for appointing him, but I can't think of one apart..... from " safe pair of hands".

PMK

I, like most on here no doubt, cannot understand how it is possible to acquit Trump.

He lied for weeks about a stolen election. He riled up his base. He gave a speech and told his supporters to go to the Capitol. The rioters /insurrectionists were in no doubt why they were doing what they did and for whom they were doing it. It's an open and shut case, surely?

As per the Economist article I linked
its not about what we think
its about what will stop them rom facing a challenge at primary election time.

As Michel Barnier said years ago
we know what the right thing is to do
we just do not know how to get re elected after doing it

@DuncinToffee

Lindsay Graham tweeted

The 'Not Guilty' vote is growing after today.

I think most Republicans found the presentation by the House Managers offensive and absurd.

This makes me think that it may well have fallen: telling lies is how that person works, and probably, like Trump, he thinks that telling a lie will make it so.

@McEwan

I, like most on here no doubt, cannot understand how it is possible to acquit Trump.

He lied for weeks about a stolen election. He riled up his base. He gave a speech and told his supporters to go to the Capitol. The rioters /insurrectionists were in no doubt why they were doing what they did and for whom they were doing it. It's an open and shut case, surely?

Ah, well you see McEwan you are relying on reason and logic.

As a commentator said last night "Logic and Politics are not friends in the US"

www.rawstory.com/wall-street-journal-trump-2650472299/

"Mr. Trump told an apocalyptic fable in which American democracy might end on Jan. 6, and some people who believed him acted like it," they write. "Once the riot began, Mr. Trump took hours to say anything, a delay his defenders have not satisfactorily explained."

LISTEN NOW: THE NEW RAW STORY PODCASTUS NEWSOPINIONVIDEOGET THE NEWSLETTERAD-FREE LOGIN

WSJ editorial: Trump will never live down 'disgraceful' conduct even if he's not convicted
Brad Reed
February 11, 2021

WSJ editorial: Trump will never live down 'disgraceful' conduct even if he's not convicted
The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board on Thursday delivered a damning verdict on former President Donald Trump's "disgraceful" conduct during the January 6th riots at the United States Capitol building.

At the start of the editorial, the editors credit House impeachment managers for "laying out a visceral case that the Capitol riot of Jan. 6 was a disgrace for which President Trump bears responsibility."

The editors note that Trump continued to escalate his rhetoric even as court after court found his campaign's claims of mass voter fraud to be utterly meritless.

Tired of ads? Want to support our progressive journalism? Click to learn more.
"Mr. Trump told an apocalyptic fable in which American democracy might end on Jan. 6, and some people who believed him acted like it," they write. "Once the riot began, Mr. Trump took hours to say anything, a delay his defenders have not satisfactorily explained."

01:08
02:03

The editorial concludes by stating that Trump's conduct during the riots should end any future political ambitions, even if it doesn't result in his conviction.

"Now his legacy will be forever stained by this violence, and by his betrayal of his supporters in refusing to tell them the truth," the editors write. "Whatever the result of the impeachment trial, Republicans should remember the betrayal if Mr. Trump decides to run again in 2024."

Sorry about the bad copy and pasting

All the Trumpists are spinning like mad. I see that Jason Miller is out on the airwaves again. (Interview with Sarah Baxter, Sun Times at the weekend.) According to him, Trump is totally chilled. Not at all concerned, he says. This reminds me of the toddler pretending he likes the naughty step. Take away my favourite toy? See if I care.

The Dems' presentation of the case against him is aimed at a far wider audience. If the American public continues to swing against Trump and Rep voters follow big-name donors in withdrawing their support, rats will be falling over themselves to leave the sinking ship.

The idea that Trump should be tried in a criminal court is ridiculous. Surely the point of impeachment is that a President is different from a private citizen, with exceptional power and exceptional responsibilities. He should therefore be held to a higher standard with a lower burden of proof. You wouldn't lock up the local loud-mouth for inflammatory language directed at prominent politicians. Different when they come from the guy standing at the podium adorned with the Presidential seal.

False equivalence seems to be the tactic of choice for the defence. Whataboutery Rules OK.

Btw a pp said Raskin was wearing a yarmulke. He's not, is he? Just losing his hair. It's driving me mad. V distracting. Like Anderson Cooper's new haircut.

If politicians won't act, the public will (isn't that part of the American dream). Boycotts of businesses that have ties with Trump cultists maybe ?

Thymeout oh yes, Jason Miller is all over everywhere like a very nasty rash that needs ointment. His private life surpasses even Trump in the disgusting piece of shit stakes. So if he says Trump is buoyant despite the hearings, I would think quite the opposite.

Trump will end up in court
for other things

the job of the Democrats at the moment is to show the whole country how he acted
and let the whole country see how their elected representatives act
and from what I see they are doing that REALLY well

.

PMK

Thank you so much for keeping these threads going, @Roussette. I am finding I am back to my normal from when Trump's election campaign started, and only worrying about what is going on in the USA when Trump and his MAGA/GOP minions are "Top of the News", so largely ignoring Biden and Harris as they are normal, professional, people who are working for their country and its democracy. (This leaves me more time to worry about Brexit and Covid, but you can't win 'em all!)
This means, though, that I am back on these threads because of this second Trump impeachment. Like many others, I am gobsmacked at the thought that despite the compelling evidence of Trump's so many forms of guilt being given by the House Impeachment Managers, it is becoming increasingly clear that the GOP members will not find Trump guilty of sedition/incitement/treason/insurrection because it is not in their own best interests, never mind the best interests of their own country. That's why I want to know if a criminal prosecution is possible @Thymeout, because I see him getting away with it and I want him to be held accountable somewhere. (I am also the one who mentioned Jamie Ruskin's yarmulke - it's even worse if it's a bald patch like a tonsure, don't you think? )
I think it was on Twitter, not on these threads, that I saw mention of what I've been thinking - that the GOP had better be careful what they do here, because the next election, they might be faced with Democrats insisting, in the face of all clear evidence, that they won and the GOP is stealing the election? (Of course, you have to set aside the fact that it is probable the Democrats wouldn't behave like that, because it is beneath them. But the GOP probably wouldn't get conscience.)

The Republicans who are arguing that Trump should be tried in a criminal court instead of facing impeachment, know full well that Trump would just say that he has presidental immunity as the insurrection took place whilst he was still President.

So going forward, does this mean a President can behave however he/she wants towards the end of their Presidency, and find themselves in a strange catch 22 legal grey area where they cannot be found guilty of anything?

So going forward, does this mean a President can behave however he/she wants towards the end of their Presidency, and find themselves in a strange catch 22 legal grey area where they cannot be found guilty of anything?

Only a Republican one.

Best let the pantomime play out, but is there any scope for pressure from outside the US on this ? If not political, then commercial ? After all, who'd risk too much money in a country so close to the edge of political paralysis ?

Surely you can't have immunity of any kind, President or not, if you are commiting a treasonous act like inciting domestic terrorism and a riot which resulted in several deaths (so far, the policemen who committed suicide in the days after the attack on the Capitol seem to have been forgotten. Is because they killed themselvesout of shame because they were part of it or because of the way they were treated by the rioters, does anyone know?)?

Surely you can't have immunity of any kind, President or not

It's not immunity as such, but yes the role and powers of POTUS - and how to deal with transgressions - are set in stone in the constitution. Which provide for the political process of impeachment which can result in removal from office.

However, once removed from office, it's my understanding that POTUS is then subject to criminal law. It's why Nixon got a pardon.

Agree with all you've posted Jai

Thinking of all that has happened, it looks back in history at Nixon, when his Aides pleaded with him to resign and he did, but impeachment is toothless when dealing with the likes of Trump when it would be viewed as a 'failure' to his paper thin ego.

Every now and then the Impeachment Manager now speaking on the Floor fixing someone, out of shot, with an icy stare. Do hope it's the likes of Cruz, Tuberville, Hawley etc....