[Oldmanmatt]

Are we too threatened by things, to take a second look at them?

Err... No?
 
But nobody else on this thread, including me, is suggesting that. I don't get why you're continuing to bang your head against this wall, like others have said it feels like you're being contrarian for the sport of it.

Basically what spidermonkey said is spot on. And Webbo. Sometimes people do just act like cunts - most of us are guilty of it at some point to a greater or lesser degree, not just one section of society. But most cuntish behaviour most of the time doesn't threaten anything fundamental and vital to a civil society. What's currently under threat from a minority of supporters of Trumpism is far more vital to society than the concept of pausing to understand the reasons why some people might want to use violence to overthrow a legitimate democratic election.

On some occasions such as right now in the US, some people's ideas need to be stood up to with robustness. That doesn't mean they need to be vilified or banished from society or forgotten about etc. I really fail to understand why you seem to have such a problem with this concept.

Pete, Dave has actually answered himself, within his own question.

No, it’s not that “we’re too threatened” to take a second look; it’s just that dealing with what we saw with the first look, takes the immediate priority.

[tomtom]

This was always the case - the impeachment stuff is really just political theatre / messing with Trump's legacy surely.

Unless this is a backstop against some kinda hail-mary last-minute change that reverses the election result?!

Yes - I wonder if it’s also case of a diversion to take some of Trumps beleaguered legal teams focus from somehow derailing the election result..

But ffs - can a US president really get away with anything they did whilst in power as long as they are not ‘prosecuted’ or impeached whilst in power?

Seems Trump was right when he said he can get away with shooting someone in the street!!

[andy popp]

This was always the case - the impeachment stuff is really just political theatre / messing with Trump's legacy surely.

There seem to be plenty of legal scholars who do think post-Presidential impeachment is possible. But whatever the outcome, and whenever it occurs, the impeachment is about much more than theatre or Trump's legacy (which is utterly trashed now anyway, at least with wide swathes of society).

It's about accountability. Trump just committed the worst, most egregious crime in US Presidential history (and let's not forget that the Saturday before the insurrection he committed another impeachable offence easily comparable to Watergate). That it's now only a week until the end of his term is no argument for inaction. If he walks away without any attempt to hold him to account for what he's done then it sets an horrific precedent. He will be impeached today and with some bipartisan support, the only President to have been impeached twice. Conviction in the Senate would be even better, but just the mark of second impeachment goes far beyond symbolism or theatre, in my view. It also helps force the GOP, or parts of it, into some kind of reckoning - amazingly there are hints that even McConnell might vote guilty if it comes to the Senate.

[SA Chris]

No, it’s not that “we’re too threatened” to take a second look; it’s just that dealing with what we saw with the first look, takes the immediate priority.

And even after second and third look you still feel the same, then it's confirmed; cunt.

[andy popp]

Yes - I wonder if it’s also case of a diversion to take some of Trumps beleaguered legal teams focus from somehow derailing the election result..

That's already dead and buried. In fact, he's probably going to struggle to assemble any kind of legal team if there is a trial in the Senate. A number of his most trusted lawyers have already said they won't act for him, and Rudi stands every chance of being disbarred soon.

[Oldmanmatt]

This was always the case - the impeachment stuff is really just political theatre / messing with Trump's legacy surely.

There seem to be plenty of legal scholars who do think post-Presidential impeachment is possible. But whatever the outcome, and whenever it occurs, the impeachment is about much more than theatre or Trump's legacy (which is utterly trashed now anyway, at least with wide swathes of society).

It's about accountability. Trump just committed the worst, most egregious crime in US Presidential history (and let's not forget that the Saturday before the insurrection he committed another impeachable offence easily comparable to Watergate). That it's now only a week until the end of his term is no argument for inaction. If he walks away without any attempt to hold him to account for what he's done then it sets an horrific precedent. He will be impeached today and with some bipartisan support, the only President to have been impeached twice. Conviction in the Senate would be even better, but just the mark of second impeachment goes far beyond symbolism or theatre, in my view. It also helps force the GOP, or parts of it, into some kind of reckoning - amazingly there are hints that even McConnell might vote guilty if it comes to the Senate.

The Impeachment seems likely, conviction, not so much.

Apparently the legal jeopardy hangs around the phrasing of the constitution. It describes impeachment of and enacted against the “incumbent” President. Therefore both impeachment and conviction would need to be completed prior too his leaving office, or any such conviction would likely be overturned in the Supreme Court.
It’s uncharted waters, by all accounts and I have read that the interpretation of the constitution by Congress will carry significant weight, but probably not enough to sway the court as the definition of incumbent is clearly defined already.

[SA Chris]

Surely GOP must now distance themselves from his actions and vote in favour of impeachment this time if they hope to ever stand a chance of winning another election? Is a lightning impeachment a thing?

[Will Hunt]

(and let's not forget that the Saturday before the insurrection he committed another impeachable offence easily comparable to Watergate)

Presidential misconduct is so ten-a-penny at the moment that I couldn't remember what this was. In case anyone else is trying to remember it was the phone call to election officials in Georgia.

[andy popp]

Just seen this in the New York Times:

"David Popp, a spokesman for Mr. McConnell, declined to comment on Tuesday."

I would just like to point: no relation.

[tomtom]

Anja Popp is a reporter for Channel 4 news - I always wonder....

[andy popp]

Anja Popp is a reporter for Channel 4 news - I always wonder....

Not to my knowledge. There's a Richard Popp in my discipline and we were once put on a panel together - I'm sure purely for the sake of it, because our work isn't really closely related. To make matters weirder for me, my brother is Richard.

[Oldmanmatt]

Anja Popp is a reporter for Channel 4 news - I always wonder....

Not to my knowledge. There's a Richard Popp in my discipline and we were once put on a panel together - I'm sure purely for the sake of it, because our work isn't really closely related. To make matters weirder for me, my brother is Richard.

Are you all Prof Popps?

Sounds like frozen treats for academics...


Anyway.

Those free market (central park) pigeons are coming home to roost, for the Trump Empire.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/new-york-trump-contracts-business-b1786660.html?utm_content=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3xwy-HLkJ2q_uJ87H0Ekopu1bpvQOC158_kiUgAg4DIS24qjUb_vmI8aQ#Echobox=1610546075[

I don’t suppose toxic brands are hugely appealing, even to the money laundering industry.

[Oldmanmatt]

Well, if this turns out to be true, any question that it was an “inside job”, will evaporate:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/capitol-riots-ayanna-pressley-panic-buttons-b1786678.html?utm_content=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1GNsHdn6rOHZijYb3hHcJ5EAR9eL7HCAuPIhg8my7FuB2sTLkaWH1akzs#Echobox=1610555488

[jwi]

This is great for my daily dose of schadenfreude:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitolConsequences/

It is great that the revolution was televised after all

[Murph]

But whatever the outcome, and whenever it occurs, the impeachment is about much more than theatre or Trump's legacy (which is utterly trashed now anyway, at least with wide swathes of society).

I'm continually shocked, not surprised, by how well Trump continues to do. He pulled almost half the votes in the election despite everything that he had done and said in the past 4 years. And *after* the Capitol riots about half of the House Republicans still supported the doomed attempt to overturn the election results. It beggars belief.

His reputation has been trashed yet among wide swathes of American society it seems to be in robust health.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

I think I need to answer a few points here, very briefly, at the moment.

There is nothing in my perspective here, which is in any way "contrarian". Contrarian to what exactly? The group mentality of this thread?

The point here, is to question what amounts to prejudice, to serve our own biases? And that is a question to direct to ourselves, as much as it is for anyone in any other group.

To "take a second look at things", is to go beyond the instinctual, and to try to ask "what's true here?"; "What can we say is true, and of benefit?".

Simply referring to Trump as a C*** really addresses nothing of very much consequence here.

As something of an analogy - referred to elsewhere - of perhaps greater concern than the outcome of the Brexit vote, was how hard it was to believe that so many would vote to leave. As with Trump - and referenced by Murph in his post above - discrediting Trump, or labelling him a C*** or whatever, does nothing to address the wider issues.

What I have tried to challenge, is what seems much more like a channelling of invective, and group think here, than an attempt to view the situation as a whole.

One of the most deplorable actions in recent history, was the hanging of Saddam Hussein - equalled perhaps only by our own contrived lack of intervention.

How often is it, that our own position - our own judgement - serves our own interests, and our own folly, in placing ourselves on one side of a moral divide?

Referring to the Trump supporters who marched on the Capitol offices merely as The Mob, simply externalises what doesn't seem to accord with our own position and beliefs. In that way, we are the mob too.

There are questions that we need to address and seek dialogue with. The Mob are not the problem, are they? Neither is Trump, in and of himself.

So Trump is impeached for a second time. Yay, we got 'im 

Does that address the questions that we need to ask? No it doesn't. It just makes us feel a bit better.

[teestub]

That’s the ‘brief’ post?!

[Falling Down]

Twice - hopefully a trial follows and he loses all the benefits and protections that go with being an ex-president.

Sorry Dave, but Fuck him. He deserves whatever he’s got coming. Plus all the rest of his enablers apologists get a turn in the barrel.

[Andy F]

All that needs to happen now is 17 Republican Senators find the spine they lost four years ago.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

In case anyone is unfamiliar with it:



.. the obvious and most readily available example being:



Of course, it applies to all cases of excluding others to define the group.

[mrjonathanr]

Quite. Pretty keen to exonerate himself there.

[SamT]

So blatantly reading of a massive card.  I know most of these speeches are pre written by someone else. But just seems so obvious in that vid that someone, off camera, has a rifle trained on his forehead and is saying "Read this, word for word, no deviations, no ifs no buts"

[teestub]

Didn’t he do well, he managed incursion and unequivocally, he’ll get a gold star with his happy meal.

[mrjonathanr]

I think ‘incursion’ is a word he’d be very familiar with

[abarro81]

Of course, it applies to all cases of excluding others to define the group.

Apart from the cases where it doesn't apply, obviously.