How's about you guys make a civil war thread and go have the next Gettysburg there
This thread would be a tiny fraction of its length if it had not veered wildly off topic multiple times - why single out the civil war digression?
It's just time to get back to the topic...I let it go way too long and now it has no relevance to what the topic was suppose to be about. If the thread dies so be it...he's been impeached lets talk about the trial and witnesses.
I'm all good with people creating a civil war thread and talking about that. Let's talk impeachment here
*Donald J Trump impeached as of 12/19/2019 There will always be an asterisk next to his name
[Edited on 1/2/2020 by goldtop]
ok, here is a tie in - what's up with the hints at civil war if president booted?
Does anyone here really think people are going to leave their jobs, take their kids out of school...form militias to go fight each other over *Donald J Trump
Will there be a few wack-a-do's that will try something sure...they already have. isn't there a guy siting in jail for sending bombs to people like Obama and HC???
Who here is going to reneg on their house payment to go fight for *Donald J Trump and exactly where will this big battle be on the highway during rush hour traffic....it's different world we live in...get real about what peoples lives are like.
Who here is going to join a militia and quit their job???
I want witnesses...all the *Prez mens
Why did the Confederacy secede?
Slavery was the trigger issue, but the Civil War had been brewing since the Revolution. The Civil War was pretty much the USA testing the Union - filling in the blanks of the Constitution and figuring out the hard way that the idea of secession was officially and forever crushed. Sort of like a married couple that fights and destroys the house but stays together after. Anti-federalism was a huge factor in the original debates on the Constitution. - "Disunion" was the main political worry of the early US. Other states, even Northern states had argued for secession long before the Civil Wsr. The Southern Confederacy was the first attempt to actually secede. Talk of secession in the South had been going on since the early 1800s.
A lot of people killed, all Americans, so let''s not go feeling all bitter about one side or other, in the 21st century.
Thank you for answering the question because Jerry sure wasn't going to
Why did the Confederacy secede?
Slavery was the trigger issue, but the Civil War had been brewing since the Revolution. The Civil War was pretty much the USA testing the Union - filling in the blanks of the Constitution and figuring out the hard way that the idea of secession was officially and forever crushed. Sort of like a married couple that fights and destroys the house but stays together after. Anti-federalism was a huge factor in the original debates on the Constitution. - "Disunion" was the main political worry of the early US. Other states, even Northern states had argued for secession long before the Civil Wsr. The Southern Confederacy was the first attempt to actually secede. Talk of secession in the South had been going on since the early 1800s.
A lot of people killed, all Americans, so let''s not go feeling all bitter about one side or other, in the 21st century.
Also, I assume the "unjust cause" mentioned in the other post refers to treason and armed rebellion against the United States in order to preserve the practice of buying, selling, and raping human beings in order to profit off of the forced labor of them and their offspring. This too seems like it shouldn't need an explainer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was not trying to say that slavery is the only or even the worst problem in our past, just agreeing that it seems pretty lame to celebrate the men who died fighting to preserve it.
If the War of 1861 to 1865 was to free slaves, why didn't the Union Army go in and free all the slaves held in Union States, including Washington, DC, before invading the Confederacy?
It's a simple question, no need to worry it to death.
Just why did the Union Army invade the Confederacy to free slaves when there were slaves in Union States?
I never said the war was to free the slaves anywhere, that was the route you took. I simply asked why the south seceded. Literally everything you said was about what the Union did and didn't do while giving me nothing other than economic factors that hurt an economy that needed the Trans Atlantic slave trade to flourish. In short, you have dodged everything I've put out there, why should I humor you and answer your question when you keep intentionally dodging the issue of Neo Confederates in 2019? I don't don't really have any reason to think you are a racist or a member of a hate group like Quantrill's raiders but you apparently feel the need to justify their behaivor which seems odd. You can cite all the history you want but it is now 2020 and when it comes to Confederate monuments you are on the same side as the White Supremacists so I'm done talking Civil War here with you. Feel free to start another thread on the subject and you can continue to educate me while dodging the questions you don't like.
As for this turning into the Gettysburg of the whipping post, all I did was mention Neo Confederate dbags in 2019, sorry I should have known the resident snowflakes wouldn't have taken kindly to white bashing.
I'm all good with the direction the thread took it's just time to put it back on track and civil war thread might be a good topic...but I'm with you they don't have any statues of Hitler in Germany or statues of Mussolini in Italy
They fought against the US and they wanted to preserve the right to use humans as livestock EOS...How can you condone that??? The Union gave up their slaves and they didn't fight to preserve the right to use people as livestock.
Oh and by the way *Donald J Trump was impeached on 12/19/2019 and will forever have a asterisk next to his name
So who's for seeing witnesses in the Senate trial. I think the entire WH should testify
I'm all good with the direction the thread took it's just time to put it back on track and civil war thread might be a good topic...but I'm with you they don't have any statues of Hitler in Germany or statues of Mussolini in Italy
They fought against the US and they wanted to preserve the right to use humans as livestock EOS...How can you condone that??? The Union gave up their slaves and they didn't fight to preserve the right to use people as livestock.
________________________________________________________________________________________Nope, they didn't. Four states and DC held slaves mostly until the 13th Amendment.
________________________________________________________________________________________Oh and by the way *Donald J Trump was impeached on 12/19/2019 and will forever have a asterisk next to his name
________________________________________________________________________________________
Nope, only thing that has happened so far is the House voted on Articles of Impeachment. The trial to Impeach can't be held until the Articles have been presented to the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So who's for seeing witnesses in the Senate trial. I think the entire WH should testify
I am, but some might not want to see the list of possible witnesses the Senate can call up to testify under oath.
So who's for seeing witnesses in the Senate trial
Why is this even a question? Legal trials have witnesses, or what? maybe our legal eagle cyclone could help me out here. Just looks off to me, we are down to for or against witnesses when here I thought it was a right - just a given part of the process.
I'm asking because Moscow Mitch doesn't want any
Jerry with all due respect Clinton is an impeached president that didn't get removed as was Johnson. The trial isn't about if, it's about removal or not. So stop the BS *Donald J Trump was impeached on 12/19/2019 and will forever be one of the 3 impeached prez no matter how hard you wish it not to be true, it is.
[Edited on 1/2/2020 by goldtop]
I'm asking because Moscow Mitch doesn't want any
I get that, my question was rhetorical - point being how can McConnell legally refuse witness testimony?
Seems norms aren't the norm anymore. I don't know what he's trying to pull I just know he gets away with all sorts of crap. Holding up close to 300 bi-partisan bills.
What do they all think the end game is? *Donald J Trump is Indiviual1 co-conspirator with his attorney that is sitting in jail...he's gonna be indicted when he leaves office. And why would anyone else go down with him while standing there and watching him throw anyone under the bus he wants. Any one of those GOP senators could be Brutus and end the madness if they actually gave a crap
[Edited on 1/2/2020 by goldtop]
[Edited on 1/2/2020 by goldtop]
Why witnesses? It would just be another spectacle and not really helpful for the country. Mitch is in favor of following the Clinton impeachment model. If I recall, no witnesses were ever called to impeach Bill Clinton and history says he was afforded a fair process but screwed himself by lying.
As a reminder *Donald J Trump was impeached 12/19/2019
Do us a favor and "remind" of us of just exactly what this means.
Please
The impeachment managers
[
Jerry with all due respect Clinton is an impeached president that didn't get removed as was Johnson. The trial isn't about if, it's about removal or not.
[Edited on 1/2/2020 by goldtop]
Goldtop, you are correct in that. Wikipedia, about the Articles of Impeachment. "Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached."
Sometimes it pays to check more than two reference points.
[
Jerry with all due respect Clinton is an impeached president that didn't get removed as was Johnson. The trial isn't about if, it's about removal or not.
[Edited on 1/2/2020 by goldtop]
Goldtop, you are correct in that. Wikipedia, about the Articles of Impeachment. "Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached."
Sometimes it pays to check more than two reference points.
Thanks Jerry 
Without removal from office, impeachment becomes little more than a very expensive (to taxpayers) slap on the wrist.
Without removal from office, impeachment becomes little more than a very expensive (to taxpayers) slap on the wrist.
It's already been expensive. What's bad is what could have been done for the voters if they hadn't spent so much time over the past three years trying to find something to impeach Trump with.
The same thing happen pretty much when Clinton was impeached. Lot of money, and time spent for nothing.
Why witnesses? It would just be another spectacle and not really helpful for the country. Mitch is in favor of following the Clinton impeachment model. If I recall, no witnesses were ever called to impeach Bill Clinton and history says he was afforded a fair process but screwed himself by lying.
Witnesses were called in both the Clinton and Johnson impeachment trials. Without witnesses, it will go down as a sham trial in the history books.
Without removal from office, impeachment becomes little more than a very expensive (to taxpayers) slap on the wrist.
It's already been expensive. What's bad is what could have been done for the voters if they hadn't spent so much time over the past three years trying to find something to impeach Trump with.
The same thing happen pretty much when Clinton was impeached. Lot of money, and time spent for nothing.
I'm going to have to differ here. The impeachment of *Donald J Trump has significance because when he leaves office and the state of NY will indicts him he won't be able to be pardoned for those crimes as he's already Individual1 with his co-conspirator, Michael Cohen, who sits in jail. Those aren't the only crimes he's going to face in the future and his impeachment means no pardon for state crimes. So any state that is now investigating him and finds charges they wish to bring. He will have to stand trial and if convicted again, can't be pardoned. And Nancy Pelosi knew that so removal would be great because that lessens the time we have to wait for him to go to jail. But either way he's cooked and he's knows it
Jerry with all due respect Clinton is an impeached president that didn't get removed as was Johnson. The trial isn't about if, it's about removal or not.
Goldtop, you are correct in that. Wikipedia, about the Articles of Impeachment. "Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached." Sometimes it pays to check more than two reference points.
THIS is the stuff of basic civics. The country and people on this forum have discussed impeachment for months and people are STILL looking to Wiki (which can be edited by almost anyone who wants to screw w/it) as a "second source" for the meaning of the word impeachment.
I have been polite and respectful and impersonal. I even started another thread to get out of the morass of the Civil War, but it is astounding to me that there is such a fundamental lack of knowledge of what impeachment is much less what it means. Impeachment is a constitutional process (& yes, I'm fully aware that I keep banging on about the constitution, but it's WHY impeachment is important.)
Impeachment is the same as an indictment. It's a charge. It sticks. Johnson was impeached. Clinton was impeached. Trump was impeached. Nixon was about to be impeached when he decided to resign rather than have that permanent asterisk by his name. Now, there will be a trial in the Senate to determine whether Trump should be removed from office. Johnson wasn't removed. Clinton wasn't removed. There is speculation that Trump won't be removed, but it is just that - speculation - until there is a vote.
It's especially staggering that most of us lived through Clinton's impeachment trial and can't seem to remember anything about it, including the meaning of impeachment or the fact that there were witnesses.
I suggest people read any one of the zillion sites that has basic "Impeachment 101" - even foreign news sites have one to inform their citizens of what's going on in the US. - if you want to have any credibility at all. Of course, this is a music site & the WP isn't known for its credibility.
Jerry with all due respect Clinton is an impeached president that didn't get removed as was Johnson. The trial isn't about if, it's about removal or not.
Goldtop, you are correct in that. Wikipedia, about the Articles of Impeachment. "Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached." Sometimes it pays to check more than two reference points.
THIS is the stuff of basic civics. The country and people on this forum have discussed impeachment for months and people are STILL looking to Wiki (which can be edited by almost anyone who wants to screw w/it) as a "second source" for the meaning of the word impeachment.
Cyclone88, I said "sometimes it pays to check more than two reference points." Wiki was not the third, or fourth. It had the shortest line I could find to quote that put the message across. You do notice that I didn't say "according to wiki"?
So now Nancy is demanding the Senate is tasked with cleaning up her shoddy mess? Since when can Nancy have the gall to call out the Senate when under her process she has not put together a compelling case?
Congrats to the elected democrats for your one and only big accomplishment- Impeachment
So now Nancy is demanding the Senate is tasked with cleaning up her shoddy mess? Since when can Nancy have the gall to call out the Senate when under her process she has not put together a compelling case?
Congrats to the elected democrats for your one and only big accomplishment- Impeachment
In every impeachment of either judges or presidents the senate has in every single impeachment trial had witnesses and documents. Why is this different?
So exactly what is it you can't come to terms with? The fact that he's a conman and you didn't care or the fact that now that he's been impeached he will be indicted once he's out of office and can't be pardoned for the current state crimes he's committed and the one's I'm sure they have under lock and seal just waiting for him to leave the WH.
Ton's of extra evidence and the GOA's assessment that he in fact did commit a crime when he held back aid to Ukraine. Lot's more evidence to come and if there's a trial it should be heard. If's he's innocent it'll come out.
So now Nancy is demanding the Senate is tasked with cleaning up her shoddy mess? Since when can Nancy have the gall to call out the Senate when under her process she has not put together a compelling case?
Congrats to the elected democrats for your one and only big accomplishment- Impeachment
In every impeachment of either judges or presidents the senate has in every single impeachment trial had witnesses and documents. Why is this different?
________________________________________________________________________________________I don't see why it should. Myself, I'd like to see them call the Bidens to testify under oath, along with others.
_______________________________________________________________________________________Ton's of extra evidence and the GOA's assessment that he in fact did commit a crime when he held back aid to Ukraine. Lot's more evidence to come and if there's a trial it should be heard. If's he's innocent it'll come out.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Doesn't he still fall under the presumption of innocence, and the testimony has to prove the crimes, not that he has to prove his innocence?
So now Nancy is demanding the Senate is tasked with cleaning up her shoddy mess? Since when can Nancy have the gall to call out the Senate when under her process she has not put together a compelling case?
Congrats to the elected democrats for your one and only big accomplishment- Impeachment
In every impeachment of either judges or presidents the senate has in every single impeachment trial had witnesses and documents. Why is this different?
________________________________________________________________________________________I don't see why it should. Myself, I'd like to see them call the Bidens to testify under oath, along with others.
_______________________________________________________________________________________Ton's of extra evidence and the GOA's assessment that he in fact did commit a crime when he held back aid to Ukraine. Lot's more evidence to come and if there's a trial it should be heard. If's he's innocent it'll come out.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Doesn't he still fall under the presumption of innocence, and the testimony has to prove the crimes, not that he has to prove his innocence?
Kind of hard to prove anything when they won't allow for witnesses. Why not conduct a real honest to goodness trial that the history books will consider ligit. The only reason I can think of is because it will further make Trump look bad and make it harder for Republican senators to vote for acquittal.
Doesn't he still fall under the presumption of innocence, and the testimony has to prove the crimes, not that he has to prove his innocence?
Jerry, I posted the full texts of both the prosecution and defense cases on the other impeachment thread. I know you like to read the original source & not rely on some filtered/subjective version. They seem long, but you can skip the Appendix in both docs & still get the gist. Also, unless McConnell's Organizational Rules change, the arguments are 12 hrs long from 1 pm to 1 am for 4 days. I'd rather read than listen to that.
This isn't a case of guilt or innocence. This is a case where the Senate has to decide if the wrongdoings presented by the HR are supported by evidence & if so, rise to the level of being removed from office.
IMO, the prosecution case is well laid out in terms of historical intentions of the Founders, actions undertaken by the president, and the concept that asking for help from a foreign government to improve personal political prospects is exactly what the Founders had in mind when they included impeachment in the constitution. The defense case is that although he did do what's charged it doesn't mean he should be removed from office. They're not defending his actions as much as arguing the purpose of impeachment.
One thing is clear. The Founders didn't include a mechanism for over-turning the electoral vote (except in court as w/GWB & Gore). They specifically said impeachment is the mechanism by which a DULY-ELECTED president can be removed from office if his acts warrant it as determined by the Senate. The prosecution completely accepts the results of the 2016 election.
Doesn't he still fall under the presumption of innocence, and the testimony has to prove the crimes, not that he has to prove his innocence?
Jerry, I posted the full texts of both the prosecution and defense cases on the other impeachment thread. I know you like to read the original source & not rely on some filtered/subjective version. They seem long, but you can skip the Appendix in both docs & still get the gist. Also, unless McConnell's Organizational Rules change, the arguments are 12 hrs long from 1 pm to 1 am for 4 days. I'd rather read than listen to that.
This isn't a case of guilt or innocence. This is a case where the Senate has to decide if the wrongdoings presented by the HR are supported by evidence & if so, rise to the level of being removed from office.
IMO, the prosecution case is well laid out in terms of historical intentions of the Founders, actions undertaken by the president, and the concept that asking for help from a foreign government to improve personal political prospects is exactly what the Founders had in mind when they included impeachment in the constitution. The defense case is that although he did do what's charged it doesn't mean he should be removed from office. They're not defending his actions as much as arguing the purpose of impeachment.
One thing is clear. The Founders didn't include a mechanism for over-turning the electoral vote (except in court as w/GWB & Gore). They specifically said impeachment is the mechanism by which a DULY-ELECTED president can be removed from office if his acts warrant it as determined by the Senate. The prosecution completely accepts the results of the 2016 election.
You can lead him down the road all you want. He and many others can't come to terms that *tRump is a conman and that they didn't care when they voted for him so all is just great now that he does nothing but be a conman
You can lead him down the road all you want. He and many others can't come to terms that *tRump is a conman and that they didn't care when they voted for him so all is just great now that he does nothing but be a conman
He's asked for info in the past & based on the questions he asks, he does read it. I'm not preaching. I'm providing info. He's entitled to his opinion.
Agreed. Trump has been a conman his entire adult life & voters knew it. Now, he's a guy who has asked for foreign interference in 2 elections - multiple times. From Russia, Ukraine, & China that we know of. That sounds more like a traitor than a conman to me, but that's off the table.
You can lead him down the road all you want. He and many others can't come to terms that *tRump is a conman and that they didn't care when they voted for him so all is just great now that he does nothing but be a conman
He's asked for info in the past & based on the questions he asks, he does read it. I'm not preaching. I'm providing info. He's entitled to his opinion.
Agreed. Trump has been a conman his entire adult life & voters knew it. Now, he's a guy who has asked for foreign interference in 2 elections - multiple times. From Russia, Ukraine, & China that we know of. That sounds more like a traitor than a conman to me, but that's off the table.
Yes traitor works very well for me...What amazes me most is the fact *tRump would phuck any of them sideways and backwards to get what he wants and not give it a second thought....yet they stand there and support the con against themselves with pride to be that ignorant and wave the flag that they are proud of being ignorant...remember they "Like the way he talks"...yep like the drunk at the end of the bar screaming madness at the TV while all his friends say "You tell em Donny"..."yeah Donny for prez"...woo hoo....what a bunch of maroons...
Yes traitor works very well for me...What amazes me most is the fact *tRump would phuck any of them sideways and backwards to get what he wants and not give it a second thought....yet they stand there and support the con against themselves with pride to be that ignorant and wave the flag that they are proud of being ignorant
Which is why I, who am NOT a conspiracy theorist in the least, don't understand why even the ones who are in Congress, don't say "this guy is a traitor & a lunatic." Not one. Occasionally, Susan Collins of Maine will make a disgruntled noise. Otherwise, they act like he's the Messiah or more appropriately, the Mafia Don.
Yes traitor works very well for me...What amazes me most is the fact *tRump would phuck any of them sideways and backwards to get what he wants and not give it a second thought....yet they stand there and support the con against themselves with pride to be that ignorant and wave the flag that they are proud of being ignorant
Which is why I, who am NOT a conspiracy theorist in the least, don't understand why even the ones who are in Congress, don't say "this guy is a traitor & a lunatic." Not one. Occasionally, Susan Collins of Maine will make a disgruntled noise. Otherwise, they act like he's the Messiah or more appropriately, the Mafia Don.
Collins makes noise but in the end votes party line for the most part. See her Judge Cav statements and her vote. I expect little difference here. In the end she probably lines up behind Trump. The people in Maine need to vote her out. She is really not a moderate - only pretends to be. See if she follows through on votes for 1) witnesses and 2) impeachment.
The trial has not started yet so no ones mind is made up yet on how to vote. Once you strip away all the democrats puffery, and get down to laying out the evidence worthy to vote on. Call witnesses and include cross-examining the whisssle blower.