U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[The Real Maroonblood]

3 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Yes, compelling, but not theatre as you describe.  Theatre is intended to entertain, whereas the Dems proved that the violent riot was inspired by Trump and encouraged by Trump.  Then Trump sat back and watched the violence unfolding on TV and did nothing to stop or curtail it for hours. Trump was the leader of the country, yet he acted like a insurrectionist.  That's not theatre, that's a national tragedy, and the Dems laid out their case against Trump in a compelling manner.  Even some GOP senators complimented the House managers on their presentation.

 

Of course it was only Trump supporters died ... it was a mob of Trump supporters participating in the riot.

 

Who cares about the actual cause of death of the police officer?  He died as a result of the actions of the mob and that's all that matters.  Maybe it was a heart attack brought on by being pepper sprayed or being struck by a fire extinguisher.  Does it really matter? The fact is that he died, and he died due to the actions of a Trump-inspired mob.  You say that "they" won't release the autopsy report.  Who are "they"? If you are suggesting that "they" are Dems, what evidence to you have for that?

 

The woman who was shot was part of a mob who were trespassing and committing acts of violence, all while baying for the blood of politicians.  There is no mystery here. She was shot as she tried to climb through a smashed window inside the building and the incident was vividly captured on video.  What other explanation are you looking for? 

 

 

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Yes, compelling, but not theatre as you describe.  Theatre is intended to entertain, whereas the Dems proved that the violent riot was inspired by Trump and encouraged by Trump.  Then Trump sat back and watched the violence unfolding on TV and did nothing to stop or curtail it for hours. Trump was the leader of the country, yet he acted like a insurrectionist.  That's not theatre, that's a national tragedy, and the Dems laid out their case against Trump in a compelling manner.  Even some GOP senators complimented the House managers on their presentation.

 

Of course it was only Trump supporters died ... it was a mob of Trump supporters participating in the riot.

 

Who cares about the actual cause of death of the police officer?  He died as a result of the actions of the mob and that's all that matters.  Maybe it was a heart attack brought on by being pepper sprayed or being struck by a fire extinguisher.  Does it really matter? The fact is that he died, and he died due to the actions of a Trump-inspired mob.  You say that "they" won't release the autopsy report.  Who are "they"? If you are suggesting that "they" are Dems, what evidence to you have for that?

 

The woman who was shot was part of a mob who were trespassing and committing acts of violence, all while baying for the blood of politicians.  There is no mystery here. She was shot as she tried to climb through a smashed window inside the building and the incident was vividly captured on video.  What other explanation are you looking for? 

 

 

 

 

You seem happy to blindly accept anything and everything the Democrats are saying about this whole sorry episode without questioning. As for not releasing the autopsy I would imagine the they I refer to is the ME. Are you not even the slightest bit curious to read it. As for the girl who was shot I would ask why he chose to shoot her but as they (there it is again ML) are not releasing his name or other images of the event we cannot ask.

 

Good to see you have downgraded it to a riot from a coup though.

 

This is a circus imo ML, a political one driven by Pelosi and others. It's not a trial in the sense we understand it even although they are calling it that, otherwise all the evidence not being allowed would be. 

 

Pass a law (or whatever it would be called) that bans him from ever hiding public office again. The let the  prosecutors hold him to account for any and all criminal activities in a court of law and if jail is what he gets then fine. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

4 hours ago, Gards said:

I never said you said that.  I was raising a question that the alternate of not going ahead with impeachment sends a message that what happened on Jan 6 is ok.  Lets remember this is the same Trump who said he could walk down 5th Avenue and shoot a person and nothing would be done to him.  He has previous.

 

I don't agree as if prosecutors and the courts do their jobs right and hand down sentences correctly then that will help deter future rioters. Impeachment is to remove someone from office. He's already out of office so it serves no actual purpose. 

[DETTY29]

So Sarah Palin on GMTV yesterday in protecting Trump, called the rioters and insurrectionists to take ownership of their actions and that these folk are the 'symptoms' 🤷‍♂️

 

Wirh symptoms, you need as root cause.

 

So Sarah, the root cause is........

[redjambo]

16 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

I don't agree as if prosecutors and the courts do their jobs right and hand down sentences correctly then that will help deter future rioters. Impeachment is to remove someone from office. He's already out of office so it serves no actual purpose. 

 

Er, no. Not unless you are incorrectly narrowly defining the term, anyway. Impeachment also allows for the permanent disqualification of the impeached party from holding “any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” For those who feel that Trump incited the storming of the Capitol and would rather not see him in a position of Governmental power again which would facilitate his doing so again, such a result would serve a useful purpose indeed.

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by redjambo

[Riccarton3]

If impeachment is only for those still in office, why is it proceeding? I take it that it hasn't been thrown out because you CAN be impeached out of office.

 

Would a second  impeachment increase the likelihood of this 51-49 vote later? Can't see it doing any harm. 

 

Maybe playing this out to the nation allows everyone to see the events described, reinforcing the impression that GOP is an utter joke. If anything will be politically motivated it will be their voting.

 

 

[Maple Leaf]

19 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

You seem happy to blindly accept anything and everything the Democrats are saying about this whole sorry episode without questioning. As for not releasing the autopsy I would imagine the they I refer to is the ME. Are you not even the slightest bit curious to read it. As for the girl who was shot I would ask why he chose to shoot her but as they (there it is again ML) are not releasing his name or other images of the event we cannot ask.

 

Good to see you have downgraded it to a riot from a coup though.

 

This is a circus imo ML, a political one driven by Pelosi and others. It's not a trial in the sense we understand it even although they are calling it that, otherwise all the evidence not being allowed would be. 

 

Pass a law (or whatever it would be called) that bans him from ever hiding public office again. The let the  prosecutors hold him to account for any and all criminal activities in a court of law and if jail is what he gets then fine. 

 

I'm not blindly accepting anything.  I've seen the videos, I've read Trump's tweets, and I've seen and heard Trump's speeches on January 6.  I've drawn my own conclusions.

 

This matter of the autopsy seems like a red herring to me.  It's possible, maybe even probable, that autopsies were conducted on all the people who died that day.  To answer your question, no, I'm no interested in reading those reports.  I haven't read an autopsy report in my life. The specific cause of death for the police officer seems irrelevant.  Directly or indirectly, his death was caused by the attacking mob.

 

I agree with your last paragraph.  But in order to ban an ex-president from holding future office ( a first-ever I believe), then the senate needs to make their case and that's what this impeachment trial is doing.  Trump's lawyers will get every opportunity to present a defence. 

[XB52]

4 hours ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

That could be the residential expert on the Covid19 thread you are describing. 

He has gone as mental as Trump with his Covid denial. Probably good that I'm banned from that thread as I'd probably end up banned from kickback 

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 minute ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I'm not blindly accepting anything.  I've seen the videos, I've read Trump's tweets, and I've seen and heard Trump's speeches on January 6.  I've drawn my own conclusions.

 

This matter of the autopsy seems like a red herring to me.  It's possible, maybe even probable, that autopsies were conducted on all the people who died that day.  To answer your question, no, I'm no interested in reading those reports.  I haven't read an autopsy report in my life. The specific cause of death for the police officer seems irrelevant.  Directly or indirectly, his death was caused by the attacking mob.

 

I agree with your last paragraph.  But in order to ban an ex-president from holding future office ( a first-ever I believe), then the senate needs to make their case and that's what this impeachment trial is doing.  Trump's lawyers will get every opportunity to present a defence. 

 

How can you say that without knowing the results of the autopsy. Some democrats said on the day he was beaten to death by the mob with a fire extinguisher and certain media outlets ran with this downgrading eventually to hit with/by the extinguisher and yet he calls his brother long after the rioters have gone to say apart from getting pepper sprayed twice he was fine. So they lied and continued to lie. Does that not concern you?

[Seymour M Hersh]

18 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Er, no. Not unless you are incorrectly narrowly defining the term, anyway. Impeachment also allows for the permanent disqualification of the impeached party from holding “any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” For those who feel that Trump incited the storming of the Capitol and would rather not see him in a position of Governmental power again which would facilitate his doing so again, such a result would serve a useful purpose indeed.

 

 

They can do that far more easily than this impeachment circus. And, without needing so many Republican to jump ship. 

[Sharpie]

6 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

I thought the woman was shot was attacking the Capitol v, Building,as part of a coup attempt. I think the police did well to only shoot one of the attackers dead.

The woman was shot while breaking the glass on a door to gain access for other rioters. I questioned the shooting at the time saw no justification at that time for the use of lethal force, I still wonder about it. However I have to confess I was not there I had no idea at the time the magnitude of the riot, and the aggressiveness towards the Capitol Police. I still question the immediate resignations of the senior police officers and their obviously pathetic efforts at planning, and preparing for acts of serious disorder. It seems they had been well warned. I repeat that some time before I opined that this thing was serious and could have drastic result, particularly with Trump not doing anything to cause relaxation of the tension contrarily egging participants on. I wonder about the two police suicides, unusual in my experience never honestly ever hearing of such a thing by officers exposed to violence, usually police suicides are for other reasons. 

 

I have no idea how anyone at this stage of the whole shocking occurrence can give any sympathy, aid or support to the lieing, adulterous, horrible draft dodging coward who even told  his loyal about to be rioters he would join them on their march to the Capitol and just like his duty to his Country lied about that and dodged that service also. quite a man to be admired,...not.

[Sharpie]

20 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I'm not blindly accepting anything.  I've seen the videos, I've read Trump's tweets, and I've seen and heard Trump's speeches on January 6.  I've drawn my own conclusions.

 

This matter of the autopsy seems like a red herring to me.  It's possible, maybe even probable, that autopsies were conducted on all the people who died that day.  To answer your question, no, I'm no interested in reading those reports.  I haven't read an autopsy report in my life. The specific cause of death for the police officer seems irrelevant.  Directly or indirectly, his death was caused by the attacking mob.

 

I agree with your last paragraph.  But in order to ban an ex-president from holding future office ( a first-ever I believe), then the senate needs to make their case and that's what this impeachment trial is doing.  Trump's lawyers will get every opportunity to present a defence. 

 I have listened to the Hearings and comments about them reasonably extensively. The feeling I get is that the Republicans are not really disputing Trumps actions, it is only the method of accountability Impeachment being used to hear them, and the fact they are being taken against a former President and should not be done in this way.  

 I am no stranger to autopsy reports or in fact actual autopsies, the kind of reading you are best not to have to study.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Sharpie

[CavySlaveJambo]

13 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

How can you say that without knowing the results of the autopsy

Because the FBI are investigating his death as a homicide. And they WILL know the details of the autopsy.  

[Maple Leaf]

3 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

How can you say that without knowing the results of the autopsy. Some democrats said on the day he was beaten to death by the mob with a fire extinguisher and certain media outlets ran with this downgrading eventually to hit with/by the extinguisher and yet he calls his brother long after the rioters have gone to say apart from getting pepper sprayed twice he was fine. So they lied and continued to lie. Does that not concern you?

 

As I said, it seems like a red herring to me, intended to distract from the real issue.

 

Trump is on trial for high crimes and misdemeanors.  He urged his followers to come to Washington on January 6.  He gave them a rabble-rousing speech intended to create anger against the senate in general, and VP Pence in particular.  He urged them to march on the Capitol, saying he would march with them.  When they got to Capitol they attacked it.  There are voice and video recordings of many rioters saying that they are following Trump's instructions, or variations on that theme.  Having seen what he started, Trump made no attempt to stop the riot, despite having the easy ability to do so via Twitter.  Several people died in the attack on the Capitol.  Those are the facts and those are why Trump is on trial.

 

Let me ask you a question:  let's say that the autopsy report is released and it reveals that the police officer died of a heart attack.  In what way does that change anything I wrote in my previous paragraph?

[Sharpie]

2 minutes ago, CavySlaveJambo said:

Because the FBI are investigating his death as a homicide. And they WILL know the details of the autopsy.  

 I think it has already been established the death was not anything to do with being struck on the head with a fire extinguisher, I did see something that his death a few days after the riot was considered to possibly be the result of an aerosol spray such as bear spray.

[Seymour M Hersh]

8 minutes ago, CavySlaveJambo said:

Because the FBI are investigating his death as a homicide. And they WILL know the details of the autopsy.  

 

Odd because as yet the ME has not pronounced his death as a homicide.  And, if the ME has missed something or made a mistake they can't go back and check as he has been cremated.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Seymour M Hersh

[Sharpie]

5 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Odd because as yet the ME has not pronounced his death as a homicide.  And, if the ME has missed something or made a mistake they can't go back and check as he has been cremated.

 From my limited experience of autopsies, and homicide investigations every fluid, organic sample, blood sample and others will be carefully saved and will show any possible cause of death, blunt force having probably been ruled out, the body would not have been released without those evidentiary samples.

[Seymour M Hersh]

7 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

As I said, it seems like a red herring to me, intended to distract from the real issue.

 

Trump is on trial for high crimes and misdemeanors.  He urged his followers to come to Washington on January 6.  He gave them a rabble-rousing speech intended to create anger against the senate in general, and VP Pence in particular.  He urged them to march on the Capitol, saying he would march with them.  When they got to Capitol they attacked it.  There are voice and video recordings of many rioters saying that they are following Trump's instructions, or variations on that theme.  Having seen what he started, Trump made no attempt to stop the riot, despite having the easy ability to do so via Twitter.  Several people died in the attack on the Capitol.  Those are the facts and those are why Trump is on trial.

 

Let me ask you a question:  let's say that the autopsy report is released and it reveals that the police officer died of a heart attack.  In what way does that change anything I wrote in my previous paragraph?

 

Firstly it appears his family told something called pro republicans he dies of a stroke. And of course it would make a difference if he had underlying health issues but as I have said elsewhere they'll never be able to accurately tell as he has been cremated. It would change what you wrote because perhaps it wouldn't be murder or even culpable homicide and in a court of law that would matter. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

Just now, Sharpie said:

 From my limited experience of autopsies, and homicide investigations every fluid, organic sample, blood sample and others will be carefully saved and will show any possible cause of death, blunt force having probably been ruled out, the body would not have been released without those evidentiary samples.

 

Well if you've only attended one autopsy you're ahead of me Sharpie. I know (albeit from TV) that samples etc will be kept but if they've gone down one road and it's the wrong one? 

[Sharpie]

8 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Odd because as yet the ME has not pronounced his death as a homicide.  And, if the ME has missed something or made a mistake they can't go back and check as he has been cremated.

 Is it the Medical Examiner in the Staes to decide what crime has been committed and publicly state that. In my experience the most an ME might state is that a suspicious sample was found in the body and could have contributed to the death. It would be up to a Prosecutorial agency  or a Coroner to state whether the death was natural,  accidental or homicidal.

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 minute ago, Sharpie said:

 Is it the Medical Examiner in the Staes to decide what crime has been committed and publicly state that. In my experience the most an ME might state is that a suspicious sample was found in the body and could have contributed to the death. It would be up to a Prosecutorial agency  or a Coroner to state whether the death was natural,  accidental or homicidal.

 

I can't imagine a lawyer getting to make the decision whether it's natural causes or homicide (although I'm sure they'd love to be the ones) so I think it would be the ME to call it as homicide or just suspicious. 

[Maple Leaf]

7 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Firstly it appears his family told something called pro republicans he dies of a stroke. And of course it would make a difference if he had underlying health issues but as I have said elsewhere they'll never be able to accurately tell as he has been cremated. It would change what you wrote because perhaps it wouldn't be murder or even culpable homicide and in a court of law that would matter. 

 

Yes, it could change what charges were laid against rioters.  But it wouldn't change the charges against Trump, because he hasn't been charged with murder or culpable homicide.

[Sharpie]

2 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Well if you've only attended one autopsy you're ahead of me Sharpie. I know (albeit from TV) that samples etc will be kept but if they've gone down one road and it's the wrong one? 

I have attended more than one autopsy, in days well gone by some times when delivering a sudden death to the mortuary at Infirmary Street we would be allowed to view an autopsy, in Edinburgh days it was a Post Mortem exam. In Canada    the last one I attended and the mortuary staff thought they would be smart and upset the new immigrant policeman. They made a major fuss of sawing off the skull, and the later stomach incision, I took it and then told them what I thought of them and I hoped the next one I attended was theirs, fortunately as a result of promotions my attendance was never again required. They are not the way to spend any pleasant time, the persons other than the doctors I suspect try to overcome their natural discomfort by overdoing their nonchalance.

 

 

[Maple Leaf]

12 minutes ago, Sharpie said:

I have attended more than one autopsy, in days well gone by some times when delivering a sudden death to the mortuary at Infirmary Street we would be allowed to view an autopsy, in Edinburgh days it was a Post Mortem exam. In Canada    the last one I attended and the mortuary staff thought they would be smart and upset the new immigrant policeman. They made a major fuss of sawing off the skull, and the later stomach incision, I took it and then told them what I thought of them and I hoped the next one I attended was theirs, fortunately as a result of promotions my attendance was never again required. They are not the way to spend any pleasant time, the persons other than the doctors I suspect try to overcome their natural discomfort by overdoing their nonchalance.

 

 

That sounds bloody awful.   

[Seymour M Hersh]

13 minutes ago, Sharpie said:

I have attended more than one autopsy, in days well gone by some times when delivering a sudden death to the mortuary at Infirmary Street we would be allowed to view an autopsy, in Edinburgh days it was a Post Mortem exam. In Canada    the last one I attended and the mortuary staff thought they would be smart and upset the new immigrant policeman. They made a major fuss of sawing off the skull, and the later stomach incision, I took it and then told them what I thought of them and I hoped the next one I attended was theirs, fortunately as a result of promotions my attendance was never again required. They are not the way to spend any pleasant time, the persons other than the doctors I suspect try to overcome their natural discomfort by overdoing their nonchalance.

 

 

 

 

I really would not like to attend one if I'm being honest. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

That sounds bloody awful.   

 

No pun intended I'm sure. 😃

[Seymour M Hersh]

20 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Yes, it could change what charges were laid against rioters.  But it wouldn't change the charges against Trump, because he hasn't been charged with murder or culpable homicide.

 

And that is, according to some, another democratic mistake the charge of incitement as he is probably protected by the 1st amendment. 

[sadj]

I can see where @Seymour M Hershis coming from with their opinion. @Maple Leafyour last comment about changing what the rioters are charged with but not Trump is an interesting one. That sort of is a big part of it to me. If you post a video of someone saying im going to shoot you and your wife and pulling the gun up slowly and they are shot youd say self defence. You silence that video and the guy pulls the gun up slowly but he is shot you could say unprovoked attack. The info being released or given is interpretable whatever way people want to take it and that is down to the media and social media platforms who can present it however they want too. 

 

Interesting read this last few pages. Three very distinct positions within it seem to be clear.

 

1. Trump deserves some sort of punishment for failure to denounce the violence.

 

2. There is a lot of uncertainty about what actually happened outside the general word riot yet 

 

3. Democrats seem determined to continue to push their opinion with choice words and phrases no matter how much it isolates or alienates part of the country despite outwardly saying we need to unite. The whole thing is a mess and is political theatre it needs finished off fast then that needs to be the end of it in a political sense and they need to take their antiTrumpness and put the energy into focussing on rebuilding the divide that has been widening for a long time.

 

Something I haven’t seen the last few pages is a discussion over the news outlets , the social media platforms and their interference or their shutting down of what they want to shut down which I think is a very dangerous thing as everyone moves forward across the world not just in the US. The propaganda pushed by both sides in the run up to the election was horrendous , the propaganda pushed after it was horrendous , social media platforms were horrendous. The power these places have is unlimited and that is not a place we should be in. Fact checking is now a thing but only if it suits a certain narrative. The amount of reports of domestic terrorism this , risks of violence that. Making it clear that all military personal would be checked before being allowed at the inauguration etc - something that happens anyway. When that was noted it became we are double and triple checking. Then after Trump leaves office it stops. These batshit crazy thinkers still exist they are still out there wanting something different to whats on offer and nothing is said as it no longer matters to those who make money off the dislike , the hatred etc 
 

Enough is enough. People talk about scaremongering with Covid. All that stuff above is exactly the same but with a certain outlook its classed as acceptable.

 

None of it should be acceptable on any side. Unfortunately with Religion and politics it is unlikely any of this will ever change. 
 

sorry for the jumbled rant. Just pisses me off

[RobboM]

If Trump had accepted defeat when the results were called there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted his own security chief’s opinion that this was the most secure election in US history there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted the decisions of the staff involved in verifying the results in each of the contested states there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted his defeat in 60 legal challenges there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted the assurance of his own Attorney General Bill Barr that the FBI had not uncovered any significant fraud there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted the cast iron assurances of elected Republican officials that the results were sound and reliable there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted that the January 6 procedure was a constitutional formality following every reasonable procedure and check there would not have been a riot
If Trump had not organised a protest in Washington close to the Capitol on January 6 there would not have been a riot
If Trump had told his supporters on that day that he appreciated their support, loved their bigoted asses and to go home to prepare for the next democratic opportunity there would not have been a riot

Lock him up!

[micole]

One of the impeachment managers made a great point, he said he was not afraid of Trump running in the next election but he was!! afraid that he might lose it.  IMO Trump will be found not guilty as the GOP will circle the wagons to prevent a guilty verdict. Should he be held accountable IMO yes, he knew exactly what he was doing.

[Maple Leaf]

43 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

No pun intended I'm sure. 😃

 

It wasn't, but as soon as I hit "Send" I was ...

[Maple Leaf]

43 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

And that is, according to some, another democratic mistake the charge of incitement as he is probably protected by the 1st amendment. 

 

The outcome of the trial will be determined by two Constitutional questions.  One, is everything Trump tweeted and said covered by the First Amendment? Two, now that Trump is no longer president, does the senate have any jurisdiction over him?

 

Opinion is divided on both of those.  The answer you get will depend upon who you ask.  

[Cade]

The crimes were committed when he WAS President.

 

That's a fact.

 

So he's being tried for that.

[Justin Z]

2 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Impeachment is to remove someone from office. He's already out of office so it serves no actual purpose. 

 

One of several effects of impeachment and conviction is removal from office. Being barred from holding future office is another. Please stop acting as if you're some authority on American law. Every time you come out with anything, it's dead wrong. Just stop.

 

Edited to add:

 

  

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

And that is, according to some, another democratic mistake the charge of incitement as he is probably protected by the 1st amendment. 

 

Or this. The first amendment has **** all to do with the process of impeachment. There is no element of criminal liability necessary for impeachment whatsoever. Conduct unbecoming the office isn't illegal—it's still impeachable.

 

Seriously man, it's embarrassing at this point. Give it a rest.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Justin Z

[The Real Maroonblood]

19 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

One of several effects of impeachment and conviction is removal from office. Being barred from holding future office is another. Please stop acting as if you're some authority on American law. Every time you come out with anything, it's dead wrong. Just stop.

 

Edited to add:

 

  

 

Or this. The first amendment has **** all to do with the process of impeachment. There is no element of criminal liability necessary for impeachment whatsoever. Conduct unbecoming the office isn't illegal—it's still impeachable.

 

Seriously man, it's embarrassing at this point. Give it a rest.

Justin, you’re a chancer.

😉

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Justin, you’re a chancer.

😉

 

Won't ever deny it, TRM.

 

[sadj]

4 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Justin, you’re a chancer.

😉

🤣🤣

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 minute ago, Justin Z said:

 

Won't ever deny it, TRM.

 

Anyway I agree with your post.

[haveyouheard1874]

1 hour ago, RobboM said:

If Trump had accepted defeat when the results were called there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted his own security chief’s opinion that this was the most secure election in US history there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted the decisions of the staff involved in verifying the results in each of the contested states there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted his defeat in 60 legal challenges there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted the assurance of his own Attorney General Bill Barr that the FBI had not uncovered any significant fraud there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted the cast iron assurances of elected Republican officials that the results were sound and reliable there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted that the January 6 procedure was a constitutional formality following every reasonable procedure and check there would not have been a riot
If Trump had not organised a protest in Washington close to the Capitol on January 6 there would not have been a riot
If Trump had told his supporters on that day that he appreciated their support, loved their bigoted asses and to go home to prepare for the next democratic opportunity there would not have been a riot

Lock him up!

What a post..10/10 RobboMm

[ri Alban]

16 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Do you really believe that riot was an attempted Coup d'état?

 

This is part of the Britannica definition.

 

"Coup d’état, also called coup, the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group. The chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements".

 

Do you really think that's what these idiots had in mind? 

 

Do you also think it's comparable (as some in congress seem to think) to 9/11?

 

Or as Chuck Schumer thinks Pearl Harbour? 

 

It was a riot pure and simple and the idiots responsible need caught and punished.

That's what the impeachment is for. Catch and punish the feckers who instigated the riot and the murder. And the murder of Pence or Perlosi if they had caught them. 

 

But hey, it was friendly banter and the riot didn't actually happen, it was folk wanting to shake hands and have a selfie with their elected representatives. 👍

[Justin Z]

Anybody surprised?

 

 

He was shoved to the ground and left for minutes to bleed out of his head. No indictment.

 

There is no reforming this.

[Spitonastranger]

15 hours ago, RobboM said:

If Trump had accepted defeat when the results were called there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted his own security chief’s opinion that this was the most secure election in US history there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted the decisions of the staff involved in verifying the results in each of the contested states there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted his defeat in 60 legal challenges there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted the assurance of his own Attorney General Bill Barr that the FBI had not uncovered any significant fraud there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted the cast iron assurances of elected Republican officials that the results were sound and reliable there would not have been a riot
If Trump had accepted that the January 6 procedure was a constitutional formality following every reasonable procedure and check there would not have been a riot
If Trump had not organised a protest in Washington close to the Capitol on January 6 there would not have been a riot
If Trump had told his supporters on that day that he appreciated their support, loved their bigoted asses and to go home to prepare for the next democratic opportunity there would not have been a riot

Lock him up!

This all day long 

[JFK-1]

On 11/02/2021 at 06:44, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Basically your patronising pish doesn't really deserve a reply but I shall. I think this whole charade is a waste of the Senates time and money as impeachment is for removing someone in office. Trump is not in office. If they want to ban him from ever holding office again there is a simpler way to do it that only requires a 51/49 majority. It's purely an act of vindictiveness by democrats who despise Trump more than they love their country. Leave the courts to **** him over due to tax evasion or whatever else they can find bu this impeachment trial (and I use that word loosely as it's not really a trial) is, in my opinion, just a political circus. And a circus that is hardly going to do anything to create unity in the country. 

 

Allow me to illustrate what the real utter pish is. The real utter pish is this rambling nonsense you're spewing about peripheral events such as the dead cop and autopsies. Nothing to do with this process.

More utter pish about the Democrats supposedly forcing this impeachment simply because they don't like Trump. That's utter pish.

This would have happened to any incumbent who did what Trump has done. If Obama had done this the Republicans and their right wing mouth pieces would have been going insane about it. They would have been demanding jail time far less impeachment.

And if you don't grasp that you're far out of touch with reality.  

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 minute ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Allow me to illustrate what the real utter pish is. The real utter pish is this rambling nonsense you're spewing about peripheral events such as the dead cop and autopsies. Nothing to do with this process.

More utter pish about the Democrats supposedly forcing this impeachment simply because they don't like Trump. That's utter pish.

This would have happened to any incumbent who did what Trump has done. If Obama had done this the Republicans and their right wing mouth pieces would have been going insane about it. They would have been demanding jail time far less impeachment.

And if you don't grasp that you're far out of touch with reality.  

 

Utter bollox.

[JFK-1]

Just now, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Utter bollox.

 

Yeah that completely deconstructed it. I have doubts you grasp what a complete tit you're making of yourself. 

[Justin Z]

6 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Yeah that completely deconstructed it. I have doubts you grasp what a complete tit you're making of yourself. 

 

Considering what a regular occurrence it is, you can be assured.

[Seymour M Hersh]

46 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Yeah that completely deconstructed it. I have doubts you grasp what a complete tit you're making of yourself. 

 

Whatever. I just have zero interest in having any sort of dialogue with you. As you will (possibly) see I had an excellent discussion with others where views were exchanged politely and constructively. Different opinions, of course but with people like you that's never going to happen so toodle pip. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Seymour M Hersh

[The Real Maroonblood]

50 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Allow me to illustrate what the real utter pish is. The real utter pish is this rambling nonsense you're spewing about peripheral events such as the dead cop and autopsies. Nothing to do with this process.

More utter pish about the Democrats supposedly forcing this impeachment simply because they don't like Trump. That's utter pish.

This would have happened to any incumbent who did what Trump has done. If Obama had done this the Republicans and their right wing mouth pieces would have been going insane about it. They would have been demanding jail time far less impeachment.

And if you don't grasp that you're far out of touch with reality.  

[Sharpie]

I am sure the question I often asked myself in years past   would be what does this slavering old fart know and who cares but like my targets of the past so long as I can I will throw in my two bits.

 My simple evaluation of the  Democrats motion to conduct an Impeachment  hearing was not technically to punish Trump but with a decision of wrongful behavior for the  offences contained would restrict him from ever holding office of any type in the political field at all. The motive I am sure was to make sure he could not run and possibly win an election for President again, in the last election he although well defeated did have seven million votes, four years is a long time in politics and things have changed so much and will indeed have again by 2024. I personally although don't make plans that far ahead would be very concerned at the reelection of Trump.

The strategy was I would propose more in hope than anger, that the presently sitting Senators would see the dangers for the Country and the tenets by which  it is governed, and vote for conviction in the Impeachment, that is not going to happen, personal ambitions, benefits, seem to be stronger motivation to do what is seen by those like myself their duty, and what is left is the hope that something in the oncoming years that neither Donald or any other Trump be able tp seek election , and none of the quislings who followed him,  be able to either.

[jamborich]

Trump team getting rodger