Kansas Crimson

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:15 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:14 am?

Honestly, how has it prevented him from doing anything? Losing his Twitter account helped this more than impeaching him again. For the record, it should have been done but it had nothing to do with preventing him from being able to throw a gas can on the flames.

To this point, the second impeachment has not changed his ability to do anything. He could still hold a press conference today to tell people the exact same thing he told them on the afternoon of Jan 6th.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:52 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:15 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:14 am?

Honestly, how has it prevented him from doing anything? Losing his Twitter account helped this more than impeaching him again. For the record, it should have been done but it had nothing to do with preventing him from being able to throw a gas can on the flames.

To this point, the second impeachment has not changed his ability to do anything. He could still hold a press conference today to tell people the exact same thing he told them on the afternoon of Jan 6th.

Yeah, loosing his tweeter apparently made the spread of election misinformation drop by like a bajillion percent.

https://www.vox.com/2021/1/16/22234971/ ... ion-zignal

But impeaching him again at least prevents him from running for office again and receiving a gummint stipend, etc.

And it’s sad that this even has to be mentioned, but it’s prob a good thing for lawmakers to take a strong stand against a potus inciting a riot with the intent of overthrowing the results of an election.

It’s for precedent, as sad as that is, although pubs are fixin to play the “this is a waste of time/unconstitutional to try a potus no longer in office/just another political witch hunt/blah blah blah, rather than actually address whether they’re willing to condemn or condone the behavior in the first place: a potus who sicks a violent mob onto the Capitol while senators are counting votes.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:10 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:52 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:15 am

Honestly, how has it prevented him from doing anything? Losing his Twitter account helped this more than impeaching him again. For the record, it should have been done but it had nothing to do with preventing him from being able to throw a gas can on the flames.

To this point, the second impeachment has not changed his ability to do anything. He could still hold a press conference today to tell people the exact same thing he told them on the afternoon of Jan 6th.

Yeah, loosing his tweeter apparently made the spread of election misinformation drop by like a bajillion percent.

https://www.vox.com/2021/1/16/22234971/ ... ion-zignal

But impeaching him again at least prevents him from running for office again and receiving a gummint stipend, etc.

And it’s sad that this even has to be mentioned, but it’s prob a good thing for lawmakers to take a strong stand against a potus inciting a riot with the intent of overthrowing the results of an election.

It’s for precedent, as sad as that is, although pubs are fixin to play the “this is a waste of time/unconstitutional to try a potus no longer in office/just another political witch hunt/blah blah blah, rather than actually address whether they’re willing to condemn or condone the behavior in the first place: a potus who sicks a violent mob onto the Capitol while senators are counting votes.

Impeaching him doesn't " prevent him from running for office again and receiving a gummint stipend", convicting him does. And I doubt the Senate has enough votes to convict him. Again.

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:38 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:10 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:52 am

Yeah, loosing his tweeter apparently made the spread of election misinformation drop by like a bajillion percent.

https://www.vox.com/2021/1/16/22234971/ ... ion-zignal

But impeaching him again at least prevents him from running for office again and receiving a gummint stipend, etc.

And it’s sad that this even has to be mentioned, but it’s prob a good thing for lawmakers to take a strong stand against a potus inciting a riot with the intent of overthrowing the results of an election.

It’s for precedent, as sad as that is, although pubs are fixin to play the “this is a waste of time/unconstitutional to try a potus no longer in office/just another political witch hunt/blah blah blah, rather than actually address whether they’re willing to condemn or condone the behavior in the first place: a potus who sicks a violent mob onto the Capitol while senators are counting votes.

Impeaching him doesn't " prevent him from running for office again and receiving a gummint stipend", convicting him does. And I doubt the Senate has enough votes to convict him. Again.

he can be prevented from holding public office again by a simple majority

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:26 am Yeah, it’s the conviction.

But I think the impeachment was for precedent. Even if they don’t convict, get on the record as to who wants to condemn that shit, and who still wants to March with Trump.

The biggest difference this time around may be that Mitch is fed up too, but who knows which way he’ll ultimately slither.

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 7:32 am similar to advancing the notion that it’s too late

does that mean nothing that a president does in the last couple weeks can be investigated?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 10:41 am I heard this morning Trump has until noon eastern time to file a formal response to the impeachment charges.

Will he? Might be difficult considering his entire legal team quit.

But it really does sound like his number one defense is gonna be, “but the election was stolen from me”