Donald Trump's Second Impeachment: A TVIV Thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Donald Trump's Second Impeachment: A TVIV Thread

PhantomOfTheCopier: Aug 13, 2008; Pikabooze!

It seems worth it. If the upshot from the defense presentation is about questions of context, it helps move the conversation back towards knowledge and intent during the specific 1/6 events. That also narrows the time frame a bit for those that think the historical speeches don't matter.

This isn't just about the decision in the Senate. This is the War on Facts and people need to see sound bites for the next four years of those who are blatant liars, who needs to be voted out, censured, that science shows they need to wear their loving masks, etcetera.

I suppose it may look more 'vindictive' to call up republicans to speak out against Trump, but if the Democrats aren't going to follow through here then what will they accomplish in the next four years? Are they going to concede? Tell liars to shut up? Flood them with facts? Or wait for their 50% to storm the Capitol in order to fix the mess?

# ? Feb 13, 2021 07:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 10:25

Thom12255: Feb 23, 2013; WHERE THE FUCK IS MY MONEY

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1360578320623140864

# ? Feb 13, 2021 14:18

Murgos: Oct 21, 2010

https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/1360440160186478594

quote:

One way to clear it up? Suspend trial to depose McCarthy and Tuberville under oath and get facts. Ask Secret Service to produce for review comms back to White House re VP Pence safety during siege. What did Trump know, and when did he know it?

It would be better if Romney proposes it but IMO they should definitely make this request and vote on it.

"What did Trump know about VP Pence's safety and when did he know it?" is a good question, of which there is already a lot of evidence that says he was well aware and acted contrary to Pence's safety.

It's a good single focus item that is clear, easy to understand, answerable and sufficient reason to bar from office.

# ? Feb 13, 2021 14:27

Random Stranger: Nov 27, 2009

Thom12255 posted:

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1360578320623140864

Yeah. The one thing Trump's defense accomplished is they made a wonderful case for calling witnesses including Trump. Going in I was pretty sure that the Democrats were just going to rush this through since they already know the result; the :matters:

nihilism of a party that doesn't even bother trying 90% of the time. After yesterday, I think there's a pretty good chance that they'll expand the trial and get some witnesses going. After all, when your opponents keep stabbing themselves in the dick, don't stop them.

Murgos posted:

https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/1360440160186478594

And that's making me feel pretty confident that the Trump defense team is getting censured at a bare minimum, and might really be at risk of getting disbarred after their performance yesterday. That's not something the senate does, but when the lawyers in the senate are talking about them failing in their professional duty...

# ? Feb 13, 2021 14:40

Thom12255: Feb 23, 2013; WHERE THE FUCK IS MY MONEY

The Dem's lose nothing doing this. They can even still take their week off!

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1360586505635454977

https://twitter.com/byrdinator/status/1360584748800876546

# ? Feb 13, 2021 14:51

Thom12255: Feb 23, 2013; WHERE THE FUCK IS MY MONEY

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1360589325277274115

https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/1360590997340753921

https://twitter.com/AnaCabrera/status/1360590334129012746

Thom12255 fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Feb 13, 2021

# ? Feb 13, 2021 15:04

Murgos: Oct 21, 2010

Random Stranger posted:

Yeah. The one thing Trump's defense accomplished is they made a wonderful case for calling witnesses including Trump. Going in I was pretty sure that the Democrats were just going to rush this through since they already know the result; the nihilism of a party that doesn't even bother trying 90% of the time. After yesterday, I think there's a pretty good chance that they'll expand the trial and get some witnesses going. After all, when your opponents keep stabbing themselves in the dick, don't stop them.

And that's making me feel pretty confident that the Trump defense team is getting censured at a bare minimum, and might really be at risk of getting disbarred after their performance yesterday. That's not something the senate does, but when the lawyers in the senate are talking about them failing in their professional duty...

I posted after the first full day of evidence that it seemed to be that the House Manager's strategy was to make strong claims and dare Trumps defense to dispute it which would open the door for testimony to clarify the dispute.

The House has asserted that Trump knew of Pence's peril when he tweeted his message condemning Pence at 2:24 (?) in the afternoon of the sixth. That is, he incited a mob in the middle of a violent riot (recall that they presented that the capitol police declared it a riot around just before 2?) to an act of aggression against the vice president of the US. They also showed that the mob heard the call, interpreted it as such and ran through the halls looking for Pence.

I don't think Trump defense directly disputed this narrative but when they said they didn't know Trumps state of mind at this time it opened the door to find out.

Trumps lawyers stepped in it big time. They should have just said something non-committal like, 'the house managers presented a lot of circumstantial evidence that we are not contradicting' and let it pass.

Also, there is a lot of material pointing to that Trumps lawyers have lied and deliberately falsely represented statements of others in their briefs and statements on the senate floor. I would love to see a motion to censure them, bar them from the senate floor until the end of the trial and request a DoJ investigation for lying to congress.

"Federal law makes it a crime to �knowingly and willfully� give �materially� false statements to Congress, even if unsworn"

Make Trump go out and find even shittier lawyers to put in front of the senate.

# ? Feb 13, 2021 15:09

Murgos: Oct 21, 2010

Thom12255 posted:

https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/1360590997340753921

Rs can say they want testimony from these two but without at least one dem and all the Rs voting for it isn't it not likely to go anywhere? Or are they required to vote on all witnesses or none?

If the latter that seems like a dumb rule that can be clarified to 'each side provides a list of witnesses to be called and then each witness is voted on separately'

# ? Feb 13, 2021 15:13

Thom12255: Feb 23, 2013; WHERE THE FUCK IS MY MONEY

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1360592321063120898

# ? Feb 13, 2021 15:13

mdemone: Mar 14, 2001

Lol Mike Lee is changing his story, now somehow he's totally sure that the call happened at 2:30

# ? Feb 13, 2021 15:13

Murgos: Oct 21, 2010

mdemone posted:

Lol Mike Lee is changing his story, now somehow he's totally sure that the call happened at 2:30

The time of the call isn't ambiguous. Cell tower records will clear it up right quick. I assume the FBI already has all that days relevant logs in their hands from the other ongoing investigations. Like, it wouldn't even take them a few hours to provide the evidence.

# ? Feb 13, 2021 15:15

Thom12255: Feb 23, 2013; WHERE THE FUCK IS MY MONEY

https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1360596428024864775

Seems Mitch is trying to demoralize the managers to make them think that calling witnesses won't change anything.

# ? Feb 13, 2021 15:28

mdemone: Mar 14, 2001

Doesn't matter, you have to do it anyway. This needs to be part of the record of this impeachment.

# ? Feb 13, 2021 15:31

Random Stranger: Nov 27, 2009

Murgos posted:

Rs can say they want testimony from these two but without at least one dem and all the Rs voting for it isn't it not likely to go anywhere? Or are they required to vote on all witnesses or none?

If the latter that seems like a dumb rule that can be clarified to 'each side provides a list of witnesses to be called and then each witness is voted on separately'

My understanding is that it would have to pass as a majority vote, but traditionally requested witnesses aren't going to be blocked. It's unlikely that anyone would object to Pelosi or Bowser being deposed, anyway, since they're central figures to the events. Threatening to call them is a real "Quit hitting the button! You're breaking it!" situation. On the other hand, if Trump's ~~attorneys~~ attorney want to chase election fraud dragons or try to relitigate already decided things like whether the impeachment is constitutional, they'll probably get blocked.

# ? Feb 13, 2021 15:32

Thom12255: Feb 23, 2013; WHERE THE FUCK IS MY MONEY

https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1360598396801867783

# ? Feb 13, 2021 15:35

Social Studies 3rd Period: Oct 31, 2012; THUNDERDOME LOSER

"close call"

gently caress off, Mitch.

E: https://twitter.com/bresreports/status/1360599646171717641

# ? Feb 13, 2021 15:38

Thom12255: Feb 23, 2013; WHERE THE FUCK IS MY MONEY

https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/1360602772991844352

# ? Feb 13, 2021 15:52

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

Today's session is starting: https://www.c-span.org/video/?508959-1/impeachment-trial

# ? Feb 13, 2021 16:04

Ringo Star Get: Sep 18, 2006; JUST FUCKING TAKE OFF ALREADY, SHIT

If the democrats don't capitalize on the fuckery being done by the republicans and also don't continue to motivate people to vote, then all this poo poo would be for naught.

# ? Feb 13, 2021 16:05