You will be playing right into their hands because a Civil War is what these Terrorists want. Right now, with tensions high, we already have people talking about breaking up and separating states into two different countries: Republican's and Democrats. AS I told you, this is much, much bigger than Trump and impeaching him. You are only looking at a sliver of the big picture.
I wouldn’t be surprised if in 100 days the momentum for impeachment is spent however, and getting that resolution passed is of paramount importance to the country.I never said anything about NOT wanting to do it, so stop making shit up. This is about impeaching him now or in 100 days. I am just voicing why waiting 100 days would be the best path. Doing it now will escalate the current situation, waiting 100 days won't. Plain and simple.
The attack on the Capitol can be more simply, and less controversially, stated in terms of the federal crime of “seditious conspiracy.”
By using the word incite, the draft focuses on the speech given by Trump before the storming of the Capitol. This narrow focus has caused some lawyers and scholars, including Trump’s own previous impeachment defense attorney Alan Dershowitz, to say Democrats are trying to punish constitutionally protected speech. The very potential for debate gives congressional Republicans, including those who may disapprove of both Trump’s recent actions and inactions, an opportunity to oppose impeachment.
It is also not necessary to characterize the events that transpired as an insurrection, which may strike some as an exaggeration, when the behavior of those who attacked the Capitol fit the federal crime of “seditious conspiracy” (which actually carries twice the 10-year sentence of insurrection). This crime is committed whenever two or more people conspire “by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States,” which is exactly what took place on Wednesday. Also, those who attacked the Capitol did so with the explicit purpose of preventing Congress from carrying out its legal duty to certify the election, thus committing another form of seditious conspiracy: conspiring “by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.”
Because “seditious conspiracy” perfectly describes the crimes committed on January 6, why not make the straightforward charge that Trump was a party to this conspiracy? Someone can be considered part of a criminal conspiracy even if they did not know “all the details of the crime or all of the members of the conspiracy,” as long as they shared the general objective of the conspiracy, which could be stated in this case as simply as: to use force or the threat of force to prevent Congress and the vice president from counting and announcing certified electoral votes for president on the date and at the time set by law.
Charging Trump with being a party to seditious conspiracy eliminates any First Amendment arguments that he was merely making a speech to a public gathering or expressing his opinion that the election results were tainted by fraud. If sufficient evidence is presented to the Senate that Trump did far more than give that speech—for example, he had personally promoted the gathering by social media, going so far as to direct his followers to “Be there, will be wild!”—then bipartisan support for conviction should be possible.
But Trump’s role in promoting the Capitol riot is not the only recent action that could justify impeachment. It’s not only possible but strategic to include multiple additional charges, so that there might be a greater chance of winning significant GOP backing for some counts, even if not for all of them.
Two additional articles of impeachment could be grounded on the federal law making it a crime to use “official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the election for the office of President.” Trump’s statements in the past week about (and implicitly to) Vice President Mike Pence as well as his documented conversations with Georgia election officials are examples of such abuse of authority. Even though the statute is written to apply to persons employed by the United States in an “administrative position,” for purposes of impeachment it surely makes sense to hold the president to the same standard of legality as would apply to his subordinates.
On January 5, Trump falsely stated via Twitter that “The Vice President has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors.” He later that day gave a public speech in which he stated “I hope Mike Pence comes through for us” and if he “does not come through, I won’t like him quite as much.” And the next morning, he tweeted more of the same.
Trump’s actions forced Pence to issue a letter to Congress on January 6, stating correctly that “my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted.” Trump immediately responded by posting on Twitter: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country.” By this conduct, the president clearly used his official authority for the purpose of attempting to interfere with or affect the vice president’s constitutional duties in relation to the presidential election.
On January 2, Trump, acting through White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, initiated a telephone call to the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger. The president told Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes,” which was one more vote than the margin of victory for Joe Biden in Georgia. Trump proposed that this change in the legally certified electoral vote tally in Georgia be made by “saying, you know, that you’ve recalculated.”
And just yesterday, the Washington Post reported that Trump had earlier pressured the state’s lead elections investigator to “find the fraud” and, by doing so, become “a national hero.” By this conduct in both instances, in addition to potentially breaking Georgia state law, Trump again used his official authority for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the presidential election.
The most critical reason for sending articles of impeachment to the Senate is to provide an insurance policy against further grave misconduct during the remaining days of Trump’s presidency. Even if the Republican-controlled Senate is not currently inclined to consider reconvening for a trial in the next 10 days, the option for swift removal of the president would be available if a new crisis developed. And the Senate need convict on only one charge to do so.
Finally, there are good arguments that the Senate could render judgment on articles of impeachment even after Biden’s inauguration by exercising its constitutional authority to disqualify Trump from ever again holding “any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States.” If the new Democratic majority wants to initiate a searching inquiry into Trump’s involvement in the Capitol riot, an article framed in terms of seditious conspiracy would sufficiently support such action.
Yep, strike when these memories are fresh in everyone's mind.I wouldn’t be surprised if in 100 days the momentum for impeachment is spent however, and getting that resolution passed is of paramount importance to the country.
I believe one of the biggest reasons conservatives are willing to go as far as they are now is that they’ve faced no consequences for this sort of action previously. We need to make sure they are very aware of the consequences this time or we will just see it again.
Yep, strike when these memories are fresh in everyone's mind.
Wait 100 days and it won't do jack shit.
It will only embolden them just as the first impeachment with no conviction, did with the
orange menace. Which was jack shit
"Impeached, the menaced thought? BFD.
I am going to cause so much shit"
Which is what exactly what has happened.
Pelosi said the House will attempt to pass a resolution by unanimous consent Monday morning calling for Pence and Trump's Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump from office.
If the resolution doesn't pass by unanimous consent -- and it most assuredly won't given likely Republican resistance -- then the measure will be brought to the floor for a full vote on Tuesday.
The resolution will call on Pence to respond within 24 hours and, if not, the House would move to impeach the President.
"Next," Pelosi said in a letter to Democratic colleagues, "we will proceed with bringing impeachment legislation to the Floor."
"In protecting our Constitution and our Democracy, we will act with urgency, because this President represents an imminent threat to both. As the days go by, the horror of the ongoing assault on our democracy perpetrated by this President is intensified and so is the immediate need for action," Pelosi said.
House Democrats have rapidly coalesced around an impeachment resolution in the days following the riots at the Capitol where five people died, including a US Capitol Police officer.
Democratic Reps. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Ted Lieu of California will introduce the impeachment resolution during Monday's pro-forma House session, which includes one article charging Trump with "incitement of insurrection."
Cicilline tweeted Sunday evening that the resolution now has more than 200 co-sponsors, nearly all of the Democratic caucus.
House Democrats are still discussing whether a vote to impeach Trump could be Tuesday or Wednesday, according to aides.
Democrats promise quick move to impeachment if 25th Amendment push fails
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said for the first time Sunday the House will move to impeach President Donald Trump if Vice President Mike Pence does not remove him.www.cnn.com
It will keep him away from office 2024
While I think you’re right I think if the vote were held today there would probably be around 60 votes to convict.I think the odds are slim of ever getting enough republicans in the Senate to vote for conviction.
Not technically.It will keep him away from office 2024
I lost count of the times I heard that familiar refrain from those Repubs in DC whenever they step in some deep shit and declare "let's all calm down before someone does something rash" in their hopes that everyone forgets and forgives by the time the "calming period" has passed. And wad'da ya know, it seems to work every time. Not even a hint of remorse, just a pile of hoax recriminations thrown at the Dems.
What gets me is that they've done this time after time with the same results: no accountability, no consequence for their actions. Well this time around things seem a little different and it's mostly due to Trump's ship of state being sunk and the bailing sycophant rats who enforced Trump's childish edicts have been for the most part silenced by their very own acts of sedition.
Dems demanding payback you say? It's just simple plain 'ol justice being served as far as I can see.
All it achieves is making the Democrats look weak. They should know by now if the shoe was on the other foot the Republicans would steamroll them.
Interesting. How so?
All it achieves is making the Democrats look weak. They should know by now if the shoe was on the other foot the Republicans would steamroll them.
You want to make concessions because you fear aggression.
That's exactly what appeasement is.
Waiting 100 days accomplishes only one thing, it closes the window of opportunity on Impeachment.
Definition of appease
transitive verb
1: PACIFY, CONCILIATE
especially : to make concessions to (someone, such as an aggressor or a critic) often at the sacrifice of principles
appeased the dictator by accepting his demands
Placaters, who try hard to appease others so as to keep the peace, fear getting hurt in some way.
No, it's not making concessions, has nothing to do with appeasing anyone, you don't understand the situation if you think it's making concessions or to appease anyone to wait the 100 days. Leaders with your mentality is how wars are started.
Sorry, but yes it is...."Wait 100 days to impeach so we don't hurt the feelings of the "Fuck your feelings" crowd and possibly make them mad...that's appeasement.
I don't fear aggression. Aggression is manageable. But you are not suggesting managing the aggression.
What I suggest isn't making concessions, has nothing to do with appeasing anyone. You don't understand the situation if you think it's making concessions or to appease anyone to wait the 100 days. Waiting the 100 days is to allow the aggression to be managed without making it worse with the possibility of starting a Civil War. A Civil War is beyond aggression, as it is much much worse and a different beast all together.
(read my edit above)
It has NOTHING to do with feelings. I could careless about anyone's feelings. It has nothing to do with making people mad. If you think this is about feelings or people being mad, you have no clue about what's going on. It's to prevent a CIVIL WAR. Holy fuck people.. step back, take off the blinders and look at the big pictures.
These People didn't go after Congress because they where mad, they did it because Trump has convinced them they are the bad guys, they are the ones who are committing treason against our nation, not that it's Trump and his lies. So the very people that Trump has convinced are the bad guys committing treason are the very people who are going to impeach their leader. In their eyes, another treasonous act that they will be taken as a call to fight. which they just proved they are willing to do. With the "temperature" of the satiation, if the impeachment happens this next week, it is going to get worse. Even if it's just the House doing it.
Take your cowardly whining and stuff it. The appeasement, excuses, and enablement must end.I don't fear aggression. Aggression is manageable. But you are not suggesting managing the aggression.
What I suggest isn't making concessions, has nothing to do with appeasing anyone. You don't understand the situation if you think it's making concessions or to appease anyone to wait the 100 days. Waiting the 100 days is to allow the aggression to be managed without making it worse with the possibility of starting a Civil War. A Civil War is beyond aggression, as it is much much worse and a different beast all together. Leaders with your mentality are how wars between nation are started.
So how does waiting 100 days change their feelings/minds that it's not a treasonous act?
Also, Civil War would never happen, at least not in the sense that I assume you're talking about. Unless you are saying that there is large enough support within the military to cause a large enough rift and a fracture in command.
It doesn't change their minds, but it allows the temperature to go down so innocent people don't die, such as someone like you or me.So how does waiting 100 days change their feelings/minds that it's not a treasonous act?
Also, Civil War would never happen, at least not in the sense that I assume you're talking about. Unless you are saying that there is large enough support within the military to cause a large enough rift and a fracture in command.
It doesn't change their minds, but it allows the temperature to go down so innocent people don't die, such as someone like you or me.
You think a civil war will be just between the Trump supporters and the Military? You think it is going to be only at the Capital? They are going to turn on every person that doesn't align them and their "beliefs" across the nation. That's why you want time for the "temperature" to come down. It won't change their thinking, but it may keep 1000's of innocent people from dying if it starts a Civil War.