The Democrats are writing up articles of impeachment.

Bill Clinton.

 

Actually, this style of reply makes me think that you can't take what you dish out.

- ? I obviously was taking you to disparage "playing politics," which is the kind of complaint about political competition that is to be found everywhere, especially where people are hoodwinked by facile false-equivalence reasoning. The whole point of what counts as "governing effectively" is what is at issue, here.

I was referring to the last generation + of the GOP's most-cynical brand of politicking, for some context and perspective. But you hand-wave it away, as it gets in the way of your facile false-equivalence.

Eh, I am just going by your style of political engagement, at least what I've seen to-date. I'm of course willing to update my take, in light of new information.

I have no reason to think that. You were talking about waiting to do the impeachment until sometime later this year; that is hardly expediting it.

It should be clear that given that I think it is imperative to impeach Trump before his term ends, that I'm going to prioritize speed, rather than be particular about the content of the articles. Of course, in light of events it is clear that if there is only one article, it will have to refer to Trump's incitement of sedition on Wednesday.

No, my umbrage is still directed at you, who foolishly proposed that we wait however many months before taking action.

It is evident from what you have said, above, that you think that quick action is "playing politics;" when instead, if we waited as you proposed, that would automatically equate to weakness and would certainly be to no productive end (viz., seeking justice).

Yeah, like I said, you can dish it out but you can't take it.

It is not. You definitely proposed waiting - not expeditious action - for some months at the very least, which would be tantamount to doing nothing.

I see no reason why the Senate could not deliberate and make a decision before Trump's term ends. This Senate already has thrown off any pretense of conducting a trial by judicial terms of procedure; just as they summarily, on inadequate evidence, voted to acquit Trump last year, so can they give a summary-judgment about facts that are plain for everyone in the nation to see, right now. Again, there is every reason to think that the Senate has the power to act expeditiously on the House's charge, in light of the exigencies of events. Your call for delay, again, is tantamount to no action taken - and Yes, I believe I am right that our Posterity would wonder what the Hell we were about, if we let that happen.

I would think that Modus should be more careful around your tender sensibilities (which are in evidence in almost every line of your response!). I don't think I will bother, though - we are in a political debate-forum; if you want to play beanbag, go someplace else. When I take umbrage it is never merely personal, I have a point of principle to forward.

Anyway, to your fragments: There is no reason for the House to assume that the Senate cannot make an expedited verdict. And unlike you, I believe there is often a substantial purpose behind "playing politics;" even if the Senate does not take up the charge(s) until after Trump's term ends, it matters that the House lodged its charge(s) while the tyrant was still in power - not least because if it waited, it might well not happen at all.

I figure you are tired, since you spent about 80% of your post on snark, which I had to wade through to get to your actual arguments (such as they were).

 

Silly argument. The trump folks attacked the USA govt.

 

you can abuse the truth and facts all you want and it still won't change the fact that traitor trump is the guiltiest man in history and you think it's MAGA BABY! you bloviate that ''The Democratic party has lost it due to TDS. This is embarrassing for America.'' when the entire world agrees with us and thinks him and his trumpets are worse than NAZIS. you know you're full of it, just admit that you love the taste.

 

Let me start by sweeping a little bit of feces, from Modus's post, out of the way.

DEFinning said: ↑
"Before I move to a 2nd paragraph, let me define the difference in our opinions, which you take as a license for pejorative language and absolute judgements, based a on an absolutely flawed idea of what I'm about, and an absolute belief, it would seem, in your own infallibility & (dubious) expertise; what most of us would realize is only our opinion."
(Hopefully, there is no need for me to requote Modus' post, calling me, "mealy-mouthed," to which I was referring, having earlier pointed out it was insulting & completely uncalled for). His response:

So it is easy to determine if Modus use of pejorative language was, as he claims, a response to, "my style," or if, as I claim, this no-class move came strictly from himself, which he now compounds by not having the integrity, or grit, to admit, far less the decency to apologize for, but does have such an abundance of gaul as to try to blame me for starting this, "style," of disrespectful discourse.

All Modus has to do is quote (w/ a link) the past discussion he's had with me, wherein he saw that this was my style of debate-- you neglected to give this, or any, validation of your slur against me.

If, however, such an exchange does not exist, he proves himself to be a liar, the type who tries to put the blame for his offenses upon those whom he offends.


We're just waiting on you now, big guy. Which end were you talking out of when you wrote your response?

 

I could go hunting for the pertinent quotes; but it's really not worth my time. I never supposed you for a hysteric, but Man, Wow. I duly note that both in this post and in the last one, you are long on umbrage (and much more personal attacks than anything I said to you warranted), but argument defending your views? Thin gruel. I really expected better of you.

 

Oh, I disappointed a liar & fraud; I'm so hurt. Get bent.

 

Impeachment and invoking the 25th amendment are two separate processes. Impeachment specifically involves congress criminally charging a sitting president. Invoking the 25h amendment however is decided by the vice president and the executive's cabinet, and doesn't involve criminal charges in of itself. Apparently invoking the 25th was discussed among cabinet members after what unfolded on the 6th of January, but ultimately they did not, and at least 9 people in the administration resigned

Personally, I wouldn't support impeachment unless there were more information to come out in relation to what the president's response was to the January 6th attack on the capital. We know that the order to deploy the national guard has the vice president's name attached to it, but not the president himself, and there's been much speculation about whether that is because the president was refusing to do so. If that were true, then I think impeachment would be an appropriate course of action, but as of now it is mere speculation.

Clearly Trump's conduct isn't fit for the office of the presidency right now, however I have not heard anything as of yet that should warrant criminal charges

 

Impeachment by definition is the issuing of a criminal charge

 

Two things about your post. The Vice President does not have the authority on their own to deploy the NG. That MUST come directly from the President as he is CiC. Per the Constitution.

As for impeachment, it does not involve Congress criminally charging a sitting President. In fact the Constitution explicitly says that:

A President has to be convicted of impeachment (which means he has to be removed from office via the Senate) in order for any criminal charges to be brought. It is this paragraph that is the reason that the DOJ does not attempt to indict a sitting President. Note the Bold/Underlined part.

 

Many disagreed with the impeachment of Clinton. But at least he was impeached on an actual crime. That was even admitted to in the Senate. They just didn't think that it rose to the level of removing a sitting President. I agreed with them that it didn't rise to such a level.

 

You're right, the VP doesn't unilaterally deploy the national guard, but none the less it was Mike Pence who approved the request to deploy the national guard, and not the president himself. This much isn't up for speculation, what is up for speculation is why it was Mike Pence who approved it and not the president
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/pence-not-trump-activated-the-national-guard-report.html

In regards to impeachment, yes it absolutely is by definition a criminal charge.. and also conviction at that.. but there is no sentencing involved by congress, simply the removal from office.

 

That's incorrect.

 

The Biden folks attacked the individual property rights of citizens of America all summer long! The Biden Crime Family was silent until it was politically expedient for them to meekly speak out.....but of course they were all peaceful protesters! LOL

 

I disagree. He did more than just that. He raped women including Paula Jones who he payed $850,000 to in damages. I guess at the time that may not have come out but still he was not a good guy.

I don't think Trump should be impeached unless they can prove he told the people to go into the Capitol building. There is no chance he will ever run again for president.

 

Do you know attack on govt can be considered an act of war?
Not so on Pvt businesses.

There is no excuse for either.