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

Yes, I think this impeachment hearing and the slick job the Managers have done is aimed at the world, the country, and wavering Republicans, because... unless something untoward happens, the worst of them think it's all OK and he had nothing to do with it. Despite incontrovertible evidence.

FridayNightAtThdBronze, yes, and this time they can't laugh at it and say they didn't know.

Ps I hope it was clear that it was a quote from 2016 and not last Wednesday

DuncinToffee

Sorry, I thought it was a recent quote, I didn't see it was from 2016! But it shows he's been prepared to incite his base for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if he did try to run again, and if the GOP support him now, they are going to have to deal with that.

@TheNorthWestPawsage

And all a bit "Catch 22" as well.

If senators believe that the trial is unconstitutional, then they have no power to vote on the ultimate verdict. So they should put their money where their mouth is and recuse. If they cast a vote at all, they are acknowledging the trial’s jurisdiction.

There were reports that the trial of Charles I was being studied very closely - certainly videos about it started ascending the YouTube channels I watch.

I just saw a 4 year old clip on CNN of Ted Cruz condemning Trump for encouraging violence during his 2016 campaign (Cruz was running against him for the nomination).

He said "When you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discord."

He's such a hypocrite. I would love for someone to ask him what his thoughts on this clip are now, and whether he stands by what he said.

Senators are the jury in a trial.
18 of them left the court room during yesterday's hearings.
A juror who did that would be removed from the trial.

Maybe those 18 senators should forfeit the right to vote

ListeningQuietly

Senators are the jury in a trial.
18 of them left the court room during yesterday's hearings.
A juror who did that would be removed from the trial.

I was thinking exactly that yesterday. How can you make a considered decision if you don't hear all the evidence? The Senators should either be present for the whole thing, or not be allowed to vote.

@ListeningQuietly

Senators are the jury in a trial. 18 of them left the court room during yesterday's hearings. A juror who did that would be removed from the trial.

Maybe those 18 senators should forfeit the right to vote

It's all very well pointing at these senators. But - as I tried to highlight yesterday - this is on us all. (And I include UK subjects along with US citizens in this shit)

Someone voted these people into office.

Remember, the promise "democracy" gives you, is that you get to peacefully remove representatives who fail you.

Once you lose that, it's when, not if you have heads on spikes. And I would have thought of all the countries in the world, the US - whose own revolution lead to the French revolution and an establishment of the US oldest alliance - would know that.

Here's a brief thought from a sadly missed UK politician:

1. What power have you got?

2. Where did you get it from?

3. In whose interests do you exercise it?

4. To whom are you accountable?

5. How can we get rid of you?

There are still parts of the world that will put heads on spikes. You don't need a history book, you need an atlas.

Empires always fall from within first.

DGRossetti

*It's all very well pointing at these senators. But - as I tried to highlight yesterday - this is on us all. (And I include UK subjects along with US citizens in this shit)

Someone voted these people into office.*

Unless they had form for certain behaviours before they were elected the first time, then I don't think you blame the voters for things their elected officials do whilst in office.

Re-election is another matter. If people vote to keep someone in office who has show to be corrupt or immoral during their term, then yes, that is on the voters.

So using Trump as an example....The American people are on notice. He has shown them what kind of politician he is, and if they ever vote him in again to any kind of public office, then the fallout is on them.

Trump was probably a bad example to use there. Even before he became President, he showed the depths he would stoop to, and they voted him in anyway.

Re-election is another matter. If people vote to keep someone in office who has show to be corrupt or immoral during their term, then yes, that is on the voters.

Based on what I've seen happen in Portugal, it is a likely prospect that 45 could become 47 regardless.

Unless they had form for certain behaviours before they were elected the first time, then I don't think you blame the voters for things their elected officials do whilst in office.

But you can. I would be amazed if there was much different between the UK and US terminally thick, but in the UK it's not hard to find someone who doesn't know who they voted for, because they "always vote ".

If you vote for a symbol, not a person, then you are culpable. And you will get the leaders you deserve while inflicting them on us.

A votes a weird thing. Totally worthless as an individual. And totally lethal in formation.

And the US lacks the excuse that Germany had pre-Hitler of an electoral system that needs coalitions.

All it takes for evil to triumph is good men do nothing

And when good men do something and evil is still able to prevent it having any tangible result, whose fault it that one? Because that is the position in the USA at present, as far as the Senate is concerned.

@ListeningQuietly

Senators are the jury in a trial. 18 of them left the court room during yesterday's hearings. A juror who did that would be removed from the trial.

Maybe those 18 senators should forfeit the right to vote

Apparently they HAD to be present during Trump's first impeachment trial but covid allowances mean this time they don't. Ted Cruz was pictured sitting in a room off the Senate Hall. He could have been watching a video feed. Or he might have been playing Candy Crush

It's a conundrum and a mess. I don't see any way out of it, given the current GOP's behaviour and the fact they will probably still be re-elected. There seems to be an on-going shift in morals and ethics (not specific to the US) and "Christianity" is becoming less and less modern Christian and more and more brutally "Biblical" in some cases.

DGRossetti

It's fairly common for politicians to lie or promise certain things to get into office and then change their stance on matters once they're in. People have no way of knowing what their elected offical will backtrack on until it's too late, and then it's a case of waiting until the next election to potentially vote for someone else instead.

There's also a real lack of decent parties and leadership in the UK at the moment, so people end up voting for the least worst of the bunch, knowing that whilst they may do things you don't agree with, it could have been worse.

I'll probably get another from you for this. I obviously don't understand politics as well as some posters on here, but I do get a lot from reading this thread.

Incidentally, France is not the oldest ally of the USA; Morocco beat France to it. The treaty with Morocco was in 1777, has never been broken and remains in force to this day, even though the Americans were a bit busy fighting the British at the time and didn't send an ambassador to Fez until 1786. The US treaty with the King of France (not the state or government) was in 1778 -- and ceased to exist when the French monarch was executed by the French in 1793. There was no US treaty with the First Republic of France until after the war between the two nations in 1798-1800.

(Tony Blair described the USA as "Britain's oldest ally" when they were no such thing: he meant Portugal, obviously, with an official alliance since the Treaty of Windsor in 1386, and an unofficial one for a while before that, what with the English helping to liberate Lisbon from the Moors during the Crusades and Portugal helping England earlier during the Hundred Years' War.)

It's fairly common for politicians to lie or promise certain things to get into office and then change their stance on matters once they're in. People have no way of knowing what their elected offical will backtrack on until it's too late, and then it's a case of waiting until the next election to potentially vote for someone else instead.

While true, if the people that were lied to continue to vote by rosette then it's irrelevant. You can lie to get elected safe in the knowledge that you will be re-elected no matter how shit you - or the party you keep in government does. And at that point they system is broken and we return to what everyone on this thread who isn't thick can see.

It leads to revolutions.

Maybe not this year. Or decade. but eventually the system will implode. As have all others before it.

No taxation without representation the cry went.

Incidentally, France is not the oldest ally of the USA; Morocco beat France to it

I generally make that statement to annoy people (waves at Tony Blair) whose total lack of knowledge of history, coupled with a matching lack of desire to learn said history, means they assume it's Britain.

However that's my "what I learned today" fact

DGRossetti

While true, if the people that were lied to continue to vote by rosette then it's irrelevant.

I agree with this. That's when the voters are culpable, and have played a part when their officials do the wrong thing. It's the point I was trying to make about re-election in my earlier post.

During this election in America, many Republicans (Cruz, Hawley, Graham et al) have shown what they stand for. So if any of them are re elected in 2022/24 then it's not because people have been misled.

@FridayNightAtTheBronze

DuncinToffee

Sorry, I thought it was a recent quote, I didn't see it was from 2016! But it shows he's been prepared to incite his base for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if he did try to run again, and if the GOP support him now, they are going to have to deal with that.

Reading that post by itself did sound as if it was from last Wednesday, sorry

At the time of posting it linked in with the context of Trump inciting violence since the beginning, I have to be a bit more careful when just copying tweets.

DuncinToffee

Don't worry! I should have known, as it would have been all over the news if he'd said that recently.

I’ve watched a large chunk of the House managers presentations, but missed the first parts each day.

Has anyone, in the presentations this week or in the media at any point up to now, ever brought up Trump omitting the word “enough” from the following sentence in his video address to the nation on 13 January:

“But I cannot emphasise that there must be no violence, no law breaking and no vandalism of any kind.”

Seeing all the evidence presented so clearly, it really makes me feel sick that they’re not going to vote against him.

I’m not looking forward to hearing what bullshit the defence team waffle on about today, not conducive to starting the weekend in a chilled note!

Biden speaks about the impeachment
twitter.com/CNN/status/1360227730730741760
to see what my Republican friends do, if they stand up

Any GOP Senator who repeated Stop The Steal dare not vote to convict Trump.
If he is guilty, so are they