Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[F5 Dave]

Oh we gonna do this, we gonna do that, we gonna nail him with ....,

Aqquited which is even better than not guilty, EPIC.....

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Um, hello? What bit of they need the Republicans to vote do you not understand? All they have to do is be so spineless that they cant turn on their leader even though he is poisoned the party.

Well guess what? They were too scared that they would have nothing as they were the arse kissers left and used to taking it from him. That's why he didn't bother to show up.

[pete376403]

Maybe the "aquittal" such as it was, may turn out to be a good thing. If trump goes ahead with his maga party, that would split the vote between the maggots and the repubs, leaving a clear run for the dems in both houses

[Bonez]

Um, hello? What bit of they need the Republicans to vote do you not understand? All they have to do is be so spineless that they cant turn on their leader even though he is poisoned the party.

Well guess what? They were too scared that they would have nothing as they were the arse kissers left and used to taking it from him. That's why he didn't bother to show up.

Oh look the KB Knitting Circle Ladys are crying in their PC Tips again.

[F5 Dave]

No this means he still owns the Republicans. He doesn't need to split. So he will stay with the conventional money.

He could win in 2024. Because; Stupidity.

[Laava]

He doesn't need to split.

Remains to be seen if Melania has a bit more say in that...

[F5 Dave]

He'd just go get a new one. He cares for no one except his ego.

Butt fuk is he stupid.

[TheDemonLord]

Yes, by all means impeach or charge them for breaking the law - just make sure they are in a jail cell right along Trump. But they won't, just like the republicans won't do the right thing in terms of Trump, because lets face it, only the little people face consequences in the US. By and large, the bigwigs never pay consequences unless they pissed off the wrong people.

Well, Hold up your horses there a moment Bud, there's a few hurdles that we have to address first...

Let's take the first instance: Maxine Waters

If you take a literal reading of what she said - she directed people to go and commit a crime - that is clear incitement.

Next, let's take Kamala Harris

Again, if you take a literal reading of what she said - she told people who were Rioting, to keep fighting, not quite as clear cut as Maxine, but still very clear incitement.

In order to Convict Trump, however, there is an extra hurdle that you have to jump that you don't for the previous 2: which is the very specific and definite qualifier of 'Peacefully and make your voices heard' - in order to 'prove' incitement, based on a literal interpretation of what was said, you need to find a way around that part.

If you do that, then literally every political speech, ever given, in history could be considered Incitement.

However, I want to circle back to this - because when the Republicans were in power, none of them charged Maxine Waters or Kamala - and the key question is why? The Answer is that to anyone who is a native English speaker, given the context of what was said, it is crystal clear that none of these statements were directing people to commit crime. They were calls for Political Protest - and whilst I hold no love for the causes championed by Maxine and Kamala - the right to protest is sacrosanct.

There is a very clearly understood context and a very clearly understood intent and an ascribing of good faith that allows Politicians to make passionate speeches about issues they care about, When Kamala says to keep up the fight, the objective listener knows that she is talking about the political fight and not the acts of violence.

And even though the right-wing pundits will deplore her for encouraging rioters and looters - they do not rise to the level of trying to convict her, because of the aforementioned conventions.

This was an absolute Farce, the damage the Democrats have done to the process of Impeachment has virtually guaranteed that it will never be the effective check-and-balance that it was intended to be in the future.

That does not surprise me one bit, bit hard to defend eh.

It's entirely irrelevant to the issue.

[TheDemonLord]

Nah.

Conventional wisdom seems to dictate:
If you’ve got the facts, you simply repeat 'Peacefully and make your voices heard'
If you’ve got the law, you pound the law.
If you’ve got nothing, you pound the table.

If you're the Democrats, you digitally manipulate the evidence, because you've got less than nothing

There, I've fixed it for you.

[TheDemonLord]

No this means he still owns the Republicans. He doesn't need to split. So he will stay with the conventional money.

He could win in 2024. Because; Stupidity.

It depends on whether or not he can sort out the Neo-conservative wing of the Republicans. Those are the ones that have interests that are contrary to the Trump-style agenda.

In many ways, it's a similar schism that occurred in the UK Conservative party over Brexit: The liberal conservative wing (the JRM types), who want the least amount of government to interfere the least amount in the citizen vs the international conservative wing who see increasing co-operation with the EU and other supra-national institutions as the way forward.

And I find your last comment, since you aren't a Trump fan, interesting:

If you truly believed that Joe Biden was the most statistically popular President of all time, why would you say "He could win in 2024"....

[TheDemonLord]

In my opinion the trial was just as importantly for the benefit of the American public. Court of public opinion is very powerful. Everyone knew, Dems included, that trumpy would once again sleaze his way out of accountability regardless of the evidence brought against him.
Bring on the criminal court cases and let’s see him slither out of those.

If that was the case, why would they (the Democrats) bring digitally altered 'evidence' to the table?

It's one thing, as you say, to hold a solemn Court hearing, with evidence brought against him and see that justice is not done.
It's another thing when the prosecution has to fake the evidence because their case is non-existent.

It was an absolutely stupid move on the part of the Democrats.

[sugilite:Me]

Well, Hold up your horses there a moment Bud, there's a few hurdles that we have to address first...

Let's take the first instance: Maxine Waters

If you take a literal reading of what she said - she directed people to go and commit a crime - that is clear incitement.

Next, let's take Kamala Harris

Again, if you take a literal reading of what she said - she told people who were Rioting, to keep fighting, not quite as clear cut as Maxine, but still very clear incitement.

In order to Convict Trump, however, there is an extra hurdle that you have to jump that you don't for the previous 2: which is the very specific and definite qualifier of 'Peacefully and make your voices heard' - in order to 'prove' incitement, based on a literal interpretation of what was said, you need to find a way around that part.

If you do that, then literally every political speech, ever given, in history could be considered Incitement.

However, I want to circle back to this - because when the Republicans were in power, none of them charged Maxine Waters or Kamala - and the key question is why? The Answer is that to anyone who is a native English speaker, given the context of what was said, it is crystal clear that none of these statements were directing people to commit crime. They were calls for Political Protest - and whilst I hold no love for the causes championed by Maxine and Kamala - the right to protest is sacrosanct.

There is a very clearly understood context and a very clearly understood intent and an ascribing of good faith that allows Politicians to make passionate speeches about issues they care about, When Kamala says to keep up the fight, the objective listener knows that she is talking about the political fight and not the acts of violence.

And even though the right-wing pundits will deploy her for encouraging rioters and looters - they do not rise to the level of trying to convict her, because of the aforementioned conventions.

My God man, even when I try to agree with you, you still find a way to keep arguing - your a sick muthfucka (I'm serious, it is a illness). Hear me backing up a dump truck and tipping the tray full of excrement on your front lawn, don't worry it is peaceful shit, so no harm done. Trump knew exactly what he was doing and as Husa pointed it out had been planned by him for a long time. I have no doubts that the "alleged" reports he was gleeful at the results were true. I believe even you know that it was planned, you just looooove to argue and that is about it. Your response above is living proof.

This was an absolute Farce, the damage the Democrats have done to the process of Impeachment has virtually guaranteed that it will never be the effective check-and-balance that it was intended to be in the future.

It was a farce right from Clinton really, who gives a fuck what pollie blew his load where. Even McConnell said Trump was at fault, it was just he felt the procedure was unconstitutional - like he really gives a fuck about the constitution, just another wanker pollie.
What I believe (and will never have proof, so maybe do some actual work today DL) happened was, while it was all fresh in the repubs minds after the invasion, they will have told the dems "he has gone to far this time, if you impeach, we will vote the same". Then they lost their spines again when they calmed down. The dim witted dems fell for their sincerity, and pressed ahead. They had trump off the front page news at long last, then the fucking idiots went and put him back up their again.. they are morons of the lowest order. Pelosi has to go, she has a really nice rack for her age and all, but yeah, she has to go.

It's entirely irrelevant to the issue.

I never said it was related - though now I think about it, it was, it was aimed at getting his thickest supporting cast of idiots to go down and do his dirty work "Wow, Trump will be right there beside me, I will go and fight with him" lol. However, I asked you directly what you thought of it, leadership? Honesty? Why did he say it? BTW, If you bring up that bullshit "New Yorker bluster" diatribe again I will puke in my cornflakes and put you on ignore.

[TheDemonLord]

My God man, even when I try to agree with you, you still find a way to keep arguing - your a sick muthfucka (I'm serious, it is a illness).

The problem was where you agreed with me.

You couldn't and more importantly would not draw a distinction between:

1: Telling people to commit a crime (go out and harass)
2: Telling people to keep rioting
3: Telling people to peacefully protest

My Objection to this whole scenario has been about the application of Rules:

The Democrats seek the most vindictive and tightest interpretation of what is 'incitement' when it comes to Trump, but they are more than happy to do much much worse when it's from their own team.

And this is even accounting for own-group preference.

You never raised, to the point of considering it illegal, any of the rhetoric that I've posted previously from the likes of Illahn Omar, AOC etc. And nor have I.

My point is that you do not extend to Trump the same courtesy that you extend to others, whereas as much as I find the aforementioned detestable, I allow them the same courtesy I extend to everyone else. Political speech is just that, now sure - I think they should shut the fuck up, I think they shouldn't be allowed to be in office if they hate the country so much, I think that anyone who espouses Marxist ideas is a genuine danger.

but I don't think they should be locked up for saying it.

Hear me backing up a dump truck and tipping the tray full of excrement on your front lawn, don't worry it is peaceful shit, so no harm done. Trump knew exactly what he was doing and as Husa pointed it out had been planned by him for a long time. I have no doubts that the "alleged" reports he was gleeful at the results were true. I believe even you know that it was planned, you just looooove to argue and that is about it. Your response above is living proof.

Would you let me off the hook, on a mere allegation?

Was it planned? I don't think so - My position on this is very clear - if it was large numbers of heavily armed people (like we saw in Michigan) that stormed the Capital and engaged in determined Firefights - then sure, at that point - I'd accept it was planned. But that didn't happen. Nothing remotely like that happened.

And considering the US, the participants of the protest and their views on the 2nd Amendment - I'm not setting an unreasonable or unrealistic threshold.

So no, I genuinely do not believe it was Planned, either as an Insurrection attempt or as something more benign.

What I believe (and will never have proof, so maybe do some actual work today DL) happened was, while it was all fresh in the repubs minds after the invasion, they will have told the dems "he has gone to far this time, if you impeach, we will vote the same". Then they lost their spines again when they calmed down. The dim witted dems fell for their sincerity, and pressed ahead. They had trump off the front page news at long last, then the fucking idiots went and put him back up their again.. they are morons of the lowest order. Pelosi has to go, she has a really nice rack for her age and all, but yeah, she has to go.

My personal belief? And you'll note I've not attacked you for your conjecture:

The Democrats know that in a normal Election cycle, there is no way in hell they can beat Trump.

I suspect that is because they know (either directly or they have heard whispers) that their functionaries 'assisted' in certain states (that rushed through mail-in ballot law changes which, did not go via said States constitutional codes) and that they know in 4 years time, with normal 'in person' voting rules (if not sooner) Karma is going to pay them a visit, Everyone that voted for Trump will likely vote for him again - I suspect that not everyone that Voted for Joe will vote for him...

This fear leads to only one option: To try and block Trump from running for President again.

That is one of my reasons for stating that the actions of the Democrats are not consistent with a group that are confident in their victory and genuinely believe it was achieved by legitimate means.

If Joe is the most popular president of all time, then what have you got to Fear from Trump? Let him go to Florida, play golf and be magnanimous in victory.
If he's not, however, then the only option is to try all the legal wrangling to stop Trump from running again - and lo and behold...

I never said it was related - though now I think about it, it was, it was aimed at getting his thickest supporting cast of idiots to go down and do his dirty work "Wow, Trump will be right there beside me, I will go and fight with him" lol. However, I asked you directly what you thought of it, leadership? Honesty? Why did he say it? BTW, If you bring up that bullshit "New Yorker bluster" diatribe again I will puke in my cornflakes and put you on ignore.

You complain that Trump runs his mouth, all the time - and then when I point out he runs his mouth - we get grand gestures of the ignore button.

It's irrelevant to the question as to whether or not he incited the crowd and whether or not that action was an insurrection attempt.

[nerrrd]

If that was the case, why would they (the Democrats) bring digitally altered 'evidence' to the table?

It's one thing, as you say, to hold a solemn Court hearing, with evidence brought against him and see that justice is not done.
It's another thing when the prosecution has to fake the evidence because their case is non-existent.

It was an absolutely stupid move on the part of the Democrats.

I'm struggling to find any reference to 'faked' or 'digitally altered' evidence beyond the addition of a twitter icon on somebody's tweet, care to elaborate?

[TheDemonLord]

I'm struggling to find any reference to 'faked' or 'digitally altered' evidence beyond the addition of a twitter icon on somebody's tweet, care to elaborate?

So, you agree then, they digitally altered the evidence they submitted.

At that point, regardless of the impact that it may or may not have, I take an absolutist view: Once you doctor/fake/alter/manipulate/perjury evidence - you're done, end of.

[pritch]

I have no doubts that the "alleged" reports he was gleeful at the results were true.

The Trump crime family had a marquee set up nearby with TVs, so they and their sycophants could watch from a safe distance in comfort. There were YouTube clips of Jr and Kimberly talking about fighting while making sure they didn't get too close to the action. At least one clip shows Trump watching the TVs. Ivanka too was present.

The Impeachment trial was lost, but that 57-43 is historic in itself. That's apparently the biggest vote against a president in an impeachment trial. Impeachment is a political process, hopefully we will now move to a judicial process. God knows there is no shortaage of crimes Trump could be charged with. There is currently a petition to get all fifty state Attorneys General to press charges over his mishandling of the Covid crisis. You will recall that he lied, he knew it was dangerous, he knew it was easily transmissible. It's not that he did nothing, it's that he repeatedly lied while knowing the truth. That will be hard to defend because he's on tape right at the onset saying how dnagerous i was.

There is a theory that he has given himself a 'pocket pardon'. If charged with a federal offence he will pull his self pardon out and wave it around. Interesting, but that won't save him from state actions that might arise from the ongoing fraud investigations in New York or the electoral investigation in Georgia arising from the "find me 11.780 votes" phone call.

Michael Cohen served time in jail for offences he committed on the instructions of Trump who was referred to in court as "unindicted coconspirator number one."
If somone was waitng for a suitable time to indict the coconspirator, now's good.