Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
@"AGRforever" said:
@"Vikergirl" said:
@"purplefaithful" said:
I thought this did a pretty good job of defining the state of things (today anyways). So much could change between now and 1/20....I dont think we've seen the last seditious acts unfortunately.
To many Senate Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, there's no question in their minds: President Donald Trump committed impeachable offenses.
But getting McConnell and at least 16 other Republicans to convict Trump after he's left office is another question entirely.
"There is no love lost within the Senate Republican Conference for Trump," said one GOP source familiar with internal discussions. "Everybody is ready for this end. But there is a really open question about how many people will vote to convict him after his term will have expired."
Several senior GOP sources told CNN on Thursday that many Republicans are torn over whether Trump's actions warrant the unprecedented step of prohibiting him from ever serving in office again after he leaves the White House next week.
Republicans say it will ultimately be up to a combination of factors -- the case built by House impeachment managers, whether new information comes out about Trump and the deadly Capitol riot and whether emotions are still raw when it comes time to vote -- to determine whether Republicans will break ranks and end Trump's political career for good.
Privately, Republicans have reviewed internal polling showing Trump's support cratering among GOP voters since Election Day -- especially since last week when he incited a violent mob of his supporters to riot in the Capitol leading to the deaths of five people, two sources said. But even after he leaves office, he is bound to still maintain significant sway with the GOP base, something Republicans facing reelection -- and potential primary challengers -- will be forced to confront.
Republicans are by and large split into several camps. Some, like Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, oppose the proceedings because, they argue, it's constitutionally dubious to convict a President once he leaves office, a position many Republicans are bound to take.
"I doubt we can even have a trial for a former President, which is what we are dealing with here," GOP Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota told CNN on Thursday.
Others, such as Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, are likely to align with many House Republicans who said that the impeachment proceedings will further divide the country.
"An impeachment vote will only lead to more hate and a deeply fractured nation," Scott, who is facing voters in 2022, said this week.
Yet, some Republicans say that it's critical to lay down a marker to make clear that Congress will not stand for future presidents who may follow Trump's path -- and that the President's actions crossed a clear line that must never be replicated again.
"I believe that this President has committed an impeachable offense," Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski told Alaska television station KTUU on Wednesday, adding that it would be "appropriate" for the Senate to bar him from holding office again."I think that is one of the most consequential actions that we should take, and I think that would be appropriate."
In a statement Thursday, Murkowski said she would "listen carefully" to the arguments before making a decision on her vote, but said the House acted "swiftly, and I believe, appropriately with impeachment."
McConnell, for one, has privately told his colleagues he is genuinely undecided and will keep an open mind when listening to the arguments presented by House Democratic impeachment managers, according to people familiar with the matter. He wants to let the passions of the moment cool down and let the trial play out before taking a position that many view will be the key in swaying Senate GOP votes -- and determining whether Trump is convicted.
"There is no difference in the (GOP) conference that there are potentially impeachable offenses here," the first Republican source said. "I think almost everybody believes that."
Indeed, many remain sharply critical of Trump's remarks to his supporters at the rally last week that preceded the Capitol riot.
"If anything, he urged in a very emotional situation, very inappropriate action by people that appear to be his supporters," said Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican, after the rioters stormed the Capitol.
Republican senators, who are out of Washington until next week, are mostly keeping quiet ahead of the trial. More than a dozen Senate GOP offices either declined or did not respond to requests for comment Thursday on the House's approval of an article of impeachment, which charged Trump with inciting an insurrection and was backed by 10 House Republicans.
They say one thing and do another. Empty words are meaningless. How many times have we heard something was outrageous and nothing was done about it? Actions speak louder than words.
Even a hardened liberal would have to admit that impeaching a president with what 6 days left in his term and a minority in the senate is nothing but political theater, no?
No. An impeachment conviction disqualifies him from ever running for office again, which I'm sure you would agree is an important thing. The 6 days is irrelevant.
And will remove any post presidential benefits
Quote: @"Vikergirl" said:
@"AGRforever" said:
@"Vikergirl" said:
@"purplefaithful" said:
I thought this did a pretty good job of defining the state of things (today anyways). So much could change between now and 1/20....I dont think we've seen the last seditious acts unfortunately.
To many Senate Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, there's no question in their minds: President Donald Trump committed impeachable offenses.
But getting McConnell and at least 16 other Republicans to convict Trump after he's left office is another question entirely.
"There is no love lost within the Senate Republican Conference for Trump," said one GOP source familiar with internal discussions. "Everybody is ready for this end. But there is a really open question about how many people will vote to convict him after his term will have expired."
Several senior GOP sources told CNN on Thursday that many Republicans are torn over whether Trump's actions warrant the unprecedented step of prohibiting him from ever serving in office again after he leaves the White House next week.
Republicans say it will ultimately be up to a combination of factors -- the case built by House impeachment managers, whether new information comes out about Trump and the deadly Capitol riot and whether emotions are still raw when it comes time to vote -- to determine whether Republicans will break ranks and end Trump's political career for good.
Privately, Republicans have reviewed internal polling showing Trump's support cratering among GOP voters since Election Day -- especially since last week when he incited a violent mob of his supporters to riot in the Capitol leading to the deaths of five people, two sources said. But even after he leaves office, he is bound to still maintain significant sway with the GOP base, something Republicans facing reelection -- and potential primary challengers -- will be forced to confront.
Republicans are by and large split into several camps. Some, like Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, oppose the proceedings because, they argue, it's constitutionally dubious to convict a President once he leaves office, a position many Republicans are bound to take.
"I doubt we can even have a trial for a former President, which is what we are dealing with here," GOP Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota told CNN on Thursday.
Others, such as Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, are likely to align with many House Republicans who said that the impeachment proceedings will further divide the country.
"An impeachment vote will only lead to more hate and a deeply fractured nation," Scott, who is facing voters in 2022, said this week.
Yet, some Republicans say that it's critical to lay down a marker to make clear that Congress will not stand for future presidents who may follow Trump's path -- and that the President's actions crossed a clear line that must never be replicated again.
"I believe that this President has committed an impeachable offense," Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski told Alaska television station KTUU on Wednesday, adding that it would be "appropriate" for the Senate to bar him from holding office again."I think that is one of the most consequential actions that we should take, and I think that would be appropriate."
In a statement Thursday, Murkowski said she would "listen carefully" to the arguments before making a decision on her vote, but said the House acted "swiftly, and I believe, appropriately with impeachment."
McConnell, for one, has privately told his colleagues he is genuinely undecided and will keep an open mind when listening to the arguments presented by House Democratic impeachment managers, according to people familiar with the matter. He wants to let the passions of the moment cool down and let the trial play out before taking a position that many view will be the key in swaying Senate GOP votes -- and determining whether Trump is convicted.
"There is no difference in the (GOP) conference that there are potentially impeachable offenses here," the first Republican source said. "I think almost everybody believes that."
Indeed, many remain sharply critical of Trump's remarks to his supporters at the rally last week that preceded the Capitol riot.
"If anything, he urged in a very emotional situation, very inappropriate action by people that appear to be his supporters," said Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican, after the rioters stormed the Capitol.
Republican senators, who are out of Washington until next week, are mostly keeping quiet ahead of the trial. More than a dozen Senate GOP offices either declined or did not respond to requests for comment Thursday on the House's approval of an article of impeachment, which charged Trump with inciting an insurrection and was backed by 10 House Republicans.
They say one thing and do another. Empty words are meaningless. How many times have we heard something was outrageous and nothing was done about it? Actions speak louder than words.
Even a hardened liberal would have to admit that impeaching a president with what 6 days left in his term and a minority in the senate is nothing but political theater, no?
No not at all. There has to be consequences and accountability for all the damage that has been caused. They can't just let this slide, that would be completely and utterly unacceptable. The majority of American voters would agree. You don't just say ok he is a traitor to the United States but we aren't going to do anything. Screw that.
when they start holding all those responsible for protest that turn ugly, then lets talk about last week, the cause doesnt matter. you cant get all wound up when it suits your political agenda and then turn a blind eye when it doesnt and be taken seriously. like nancy when she was riling up the sj protesters and all the talk about defunding police, but when that angry mob got near her neighborhood she was calling for protection.. fuck that fake noise.
you want to fix whats wrong in this country, stop the hypocrisy by both sides and start calling out all the bull shit equally and things will eventually simmer down, failure to do so will only ensure a wave again at election time by those that feel that their voices arent getting heard and they are being unjustly treated. as we saw in 2016... there are a lot of those people out there regardless of skin color.
What's this choice thats being hypocritically preached?
Our choice as a country is not to move-on for unities sake
OR
Bring to justice/hold accountable a seditious president
Call out and cast a spotlight on politicians who helped facilitate a lie and harmful narrative for their own personal/political gains
ID and prosecute domestic terrorists.
We must do all of the above.
Oh, and fix an economy at it's worst since FDR, get Americans out of breadlines and deal with a generational pandemic that has been horribly managed by the outgoing administration.
Quote: @"BigAl99" said:
And will remove any post presidential benefits
This is an answer to everyone that responded "no". I don't want
this to be a pissing match. I'm trying really hard this year to not go
there. I'm not right, hell I'm probably wrong, but I'll give you
perspective from my vantage point. I don't expect anyone to even
remotely change their minds. But in the matter of polite discussion so
we can all try to see things from each other's vantage point. Here it
goes:
I get it. Trump is a shithead. I
get the torched earth philosophy. I've personally used it before. When
I've used it, it never really accomplished something positive. So I'm
not sure it was worth the effort and all the negative that comes with it
in the end.
Double dog impeaching him in the house
knowing you don't have the votes in the senate seems like a waste of
time and money. There isn't enough time to vote on impeaching him while
in office, so at best we're talking after he's out of office anyway.
The GOP wont eat their own until it becomes politically expedient to do
so and even if you hold a trial in the new senate there's no telling if
enough senators will crossover or not?
Taking
away his right to run again doesn't change much. He wont win even if
he does run. Last week sealed that. In fact if you really want
liberals elected you probably want him involved in fucking up the GOP as
long as possible. Let him be an asshole and run as GOP and then switch
to 3rd party and ensure you have elections wrapped for a decade.
I
haven't really looked into what the "post presidential benefits" are.
The guy probably has enough money that the only thing you'd be taking is
pride points. He could open his own Donald Trump visitor center if he
wanted.
But end of the day and maybe this
doesn't matter to you guys/gals. You're going to even more embolden
his supporters if you impeach him after he's out of office. Some of the
guys that are on the edge of doing fucked up stuff might actually do it
if you take "their President" away. Personally for me I just don't see
the benefits outweighing the negatives.
Quote: @"Vikergirl" said:
https://twitter.com/DavidBegnaud/status/...71456?s=19
i am sure that sentiment is echoed by every cop that had to deal with the "mostly peaceful" protests all year long.
remember all the businesses that were boarded up prior to the election? remember all the riots in those cities right after the election? who were they preparing for?
lets quit pretending like this is a one sided issue when it comes to shit stains destroying our country and "terrorizing" the people, its this one sided narrative of shit that led to Trump getting elected in the first place.
Quote: @"BarrNone55" said:
@"mblack" said:
Think about this:
1. There are more troops now outside the capitol than in Iraq or Afghanistan.
2. This is the first time troops have slept outside the Capitol to guard it.
Let that sink in
Are we great yet?
Nope, not yet...
![[Image: 38020256-9147273-image-a-36_1610658529618.jpg]](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/01/14/21/38020256-9147273-image-a-36_1610658529618.jpg)
Quote: @"Skodin" said:
He was going to "march with them" after this speech (and then got in his motorcade and drove back to the WH)
You need to give Trump a break on this, his bone spurs acted up.
Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
@"Vikergirl" said:
https://twitter.com/DavidBegnaud/status/...71456?s=19
i am sure that sentiment is echoed by every cop that had to deal with the "mostly peaceful" protests all year long.
remember all the businesses that were boarded up prior to the election? remember all the riots in those cities right after the election? who were they preparing for?
lets quit pretending like this is a one sided issue when it comes to shit stains destroying our country and "terrorizing" the people, its this one sided narrative of shit that led to Trump getting elected in the first place.
With all due respect Jimmy, it’s definitely a two-sided narrative:
1). people protesting against police brutality, unnecessary violence against people of color that’s often lethal in non-threatening situations, angry at the difference in how cops treat whites vs minorities (Exhibit A: Jan 6)
VS
2). People rioting at the capitol, some armed, some with the intention to assassinate members of Congress, all with the mission to stop the election and take the capitol .... who had been egged on by a President who has falsely accused fraud with no evidence and convinced his followers it was stolen from them .... had just given a speech to repeat his lies of fraud and told them to march on the capitol, so they did .... killing 5 people yet the mob ended up being allowed to just waltz right into the chambers vs an undermanned police staff with many who just moved aside and made almost no attempt to make any arrests - only 14 arrested.
DUDE! Seriously, those two are equals?
|
![[Image: Eru4EQFWMAE5N3H?format=jpg&name=medium]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eru4EQFWMAE5N3H?format=jpg&name=medium)