Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

US election 2020 thread

teuchter said:
Is it definitely what he was intentionally implying, or is it what people who want him impeached want him to have been intentionally implying?

Even that doesn't seem totally clear to me. Most of it just seems like his normal jumbled ramblings. For sure he wanted some angry protesters waving banners outside the Capitol, but there's nothing basically wrong with that.

But I might have missed some bits. I didn't have the strength to read the whole lot carefully.
Click to expand...

This stuff over and over sent a fairly unambiguous message. Ian Paisley would've loved him.
This is the most corrupt election in the history, maybe in the world.
Click to expand...
All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they are doing, and stolen by the fake news media. That is what they have done and what they are doing. We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.
Click to expand...
When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules.
Click to expand...
 
brogdale said:
Think I saw that, so far, 5 Reps have publicly stated they'd vote for impeachment...so I think it would take another 11 or 12 (?) to swing likewise for it to happen.

e2a: here is that source
Click to expand...
That's Representatives (House), not Senate. My understanding is that a simple majority in the House takes it to the Senate, where it needs a 2/3 majority, so 16 or so Rep Senators backing it.

Procedure-wise, what happens in the Senate is called a 'trial', so I'm guessing senators are not supposed to be expressing a public opinion just yet.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
That's Representatives (House), not Senate. My understanding is that a simple majority in the House takes it to the Senate, where it needs a 2/3 majority, so 16 or so Rep Senators backing it.

Procedure-wise, what happens in the Senate is called a 'trial', so I'm guessing senators are not supposed to be expressing a public opinion just yet.
Click to expand...
my bad; wish I knew more about the US system.
 
I’m still confused sorry. What’s the big difference between being impeached as he will apparently be today and.. whatever it’s called in the unlikely event senate majority votes yes too?
 
littlebabyjesus said:
That's Representatives (House), not Senate. My understanding is that a simple majority in the House takes it to the Senate, where it needs a 2/3 majority, so 16 or so Rep Senators backing it.

Procedure-wise, what happens in the Senate is called a 'trial', so I'm guessing senators are not supposed to be expressing a public opinion just yet.
Click to expand...
It probably won't matter as the senate might not vote to convict until after Trump leaves office, but at the moment, the Dems still only have 48 senators. Ossoff and Warnock won't be sworn in for possibly another week. I'm assuming that Loeffler and Perdue are still in office until that point.
 
bimble said:
I’m still confused sorry. What’s the big difference between being impeached as he will apparently be today and.. whatever it’s called in the unlikely event senate majority votes yes too?
Click to expand...
"impeaching" is charging him with the crime (simple majority in the House). Then there is a "trial" with the Senate as the jury (2/3 majority needed)
 
bimble said:
I’m still confused: What’s the big difference between being impeached as he will apparently be today and.. whatever it’s called in the unlikely event senate majority votes yes too?
Click to expand...
What happens today just means it will go to the Senate, as happened a year ago. If the Senate doesn't vote in favour of it by 2/3, nothing else happens. Failed impeachment, effectively. If the Senate approves the impeachment, they have a range of sanctions that they can impose. Firstly, removal from office, and secondly barring from ever holding office again.
 
teuchter said:
Is it definitely what he was intentionally implying, or is it what people who want him impeached want him to have been intentionally implying?

Even that doesn't seem totally clear to me. Most of it just seems like his normal jumbled ramblings. For sure he wanted some angry protesters waving banners outside the Capitol, but there's nothing basically wrong with that.

But I might have missed some bits. I didn't have the strength to read the whole lot carefully.
Click to expand...
If it were within a trial, they would take the context into account as well as the words themselves. They would look at the things he said leading up to this point, the predictability of the violence, that line of thing. Otherwise it’s a bit like sticking a knife out and claiming that you didn’t make anybody run into it, it’s a free country, I can put my knife there if I want.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
What happens today just means it will go to the Senate, as happened a year ago. If the Senate doesn't vote in favour of it by 2/3, nothing else happens. Failed impeachment, effectively. If the Senate approves the impeachment, they have a range of sanctions that they can impose. Firstly, removal from office, and secondly barring from ever holding office again.
Click to expand...
Ok but by that time he’ll already be out of office, and ‘failed impeachment’ still = he was (twice) impeached, I think. In practical terms it’s just banning him from ever holding office again that’s the difference then?
 
bimble said:
Ok but by that time he’ll already be out of office, and ‘failed impeachment’ still = he was (twice) impeached, I think. In practical terms it’s just banning him from ever holding office again that’s the difference then?
Click to expand...
Yes. That and removing his pension and his secret service protection detail. It might also make later criminal charges easier to pursue, if anyone goes down that route. He will officially be 'Disgraced Former-President DJ Trump'.

He still has time to take the Nixon route and resign before he's thrown out. But after 20th Jan, if he still hasn't resigned, he'll be powerless to stop anything. Nixon was persuaded that it was in his self-interest to resign, along with a promise of a pardon from his VP. Dunno if such an offer would even be made to Trump by Pence atm.
 
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus said:
Yes. That and removing his pension and his secret service protection detail. It might also make later criminal charges easier to pursue, if anyone goes down that route. He will officially be 'Disgraced Former-President DJ Trump'.
Click to expand...
A lot of that stuff everyone was saying the other day about what he’d lose from impeachment isn’t true, apparently. It came from some wishful thinking viral tweet.
 
Teaboy said:
Yes that did occur to me as well. I don't think at any point he explicitly encourages violence. It will have to be decided whether it was highly irresponsible or actually criminal. This sort of thing is not unusual though, just because you don't explicitly state something doesn't mean that people don't know what you are implying and doesn't mean you can't be held responsible for your words.

We'll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
Would be interesting to compare trump getting away with it - a demo he organised, went to and then told attendees to go to congress with various statements about pressuring the legislators - with the sentences people have had in the UK for example, doing nothing more than vaguely calling for riots (to probably 10 people on their social media in 2011).
 
bimble said:
A lot of that stuff everyone was saying the other day about what he’d lose from impeachment isn’t true, apparently. It came from some wishful thinking viral tweet.
Click to expand...

I think people have been confusing impeachment with conviction by the Senate. I was confused by that at first as well. Impeachment without conviction by the Senate means nothing, basically. I linked to a page earlier setting out the Senate's powers. They can choose just to throw him out or they can choose to throw him out and bar him from ever standing again. It's up to them.
 
According to talking heads and experts on newsnight and the guardian feed, if mitch McConnell, republican senate leader, votes to impeach, than it could see enough other republicans follow suit. And he has let it be known he is leaning that way.
Thinh is trump is now becoming a pariah and the disarray of all but the most whack job of his supporters makes it easier for the gop to chuck him under the bus.
He and the extremists he courted are now on the shit list of corporate america, the political establishment and the national security apparatus.
I think many in the gop may well see this as a golden opportunity to rid themselves of the rabid right and condemn them to the fringes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RD2003
South Africa election
Replies
2
Views
350
RD2003
RD2003
A380
And now a French General election too (2024)
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
277
Views
11K
yield
Y
O
European parliament elections
2 3
Replies
71
Views
2K
Hotel Chocolate
H
T & P
Why is so politically significant for US TV networks to call election results?
Replies
12
Views
704
Jennaonthebeach
Jennaonthebeach
P
Mexico Presidential Elections 2/6/24
Replies
4
Views
386
rutabowa
R
Back
Top Bottom