Donald Trump

Halifax2TheMax

7 days & 2 hours.

Gern Blansten

de Blasio was calling Trump a "criminal" on the news this morning.  I agree with that but it seemed odd for the Mayor of NYC to be stating that so boldly in a live interview.

mrussel1

HughFreakingDillon said:

I'm not generally a fan of cancel culture, but this is delicious. 

Agreed.. this is not a "mistake" like wearing black face in the 80s.

Spiritual_Chaos

Agreed... this is not a "mistake" like replacing Kane Hodder as Jason Vorhees in Freddy VS Jason

mrussel1

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Agreed... this is not a "mistake" like replacing Kane Hodder as Jason Vorhees in Freddy VS Jason

Yes!!! Greatest analogy ever!

mickeyrat

Gern Blansten said:

de Blasio was calling Trump a "criminal" on the news this morning.  I agree with that but it seemed odd for the Mayor of NYC to be stating that so boldly in a live interview.

he's not wrong. and its not just last Wednesday that says so....

mrussel1

So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators

Gern Blansten

mickeyrat said:

Gern Blansten said:

de Blasio was calling Trump a "criminal" on the news this morning.  I agree with that but it seemed odd for the Mayor of NYC to be stating that so boldly in a live interview.

he's not wrong. and its not just last Wednesday that says so....

But on live TV by a Mayor it seemed irresponsible.  I think tRump is a fucking criminal but it sure seems like the mayor might be setting himself up for a defamation suit if tRump is never convicted as a "criminal"

mrussel1

And a quorum is 51 senators. The more cowardly ones can just stay at home.  

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators

correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 

mrussel1

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators

correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 

That seems sketchy.  That feels like it would violate senate rules.  But I'm more thinking about the senators who are worried about primary just not show up.  Between the democrats and the Rs that will convict (sasse, Romney,  Collins,  murkowski... likely more), there would be plenty to offset the lackeys

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators

correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 

That seems sketchy.  That feels like it would violate senate rules.  But I'm more thinking about the senators who are worried about primary just not show up.  Between the democrats and the Rs that will convict (sasse, Romney,  Collins,  murkowski... likely more), there would be plenty to offset the lackeys

it SEEMS sketchy. but it's within the rules, from what i read. and if people want the dems to start playing hardball, start there. 

FUCK EM. 

mrussel1

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators

correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 

That seems sketchy.  That feels like it would violate senate rules.  But I'm more thinking about the senators who are worried about primary just not show up.  Between the democrats and the Rs that will convict (sasse, Romney,  Collins,  murkowski... likely more), there would be plenty to offset the lackeys

it SEEMS sketchy. but it's within the rules, from what i read. and if people want the dems to start playing hardball, start there. 

FUCK EM. 

So the majority leader can refuse to seat any senator he wishes, for any reason?

mickeyrat

Senate was sworn in on the 3rd with the  house members for the 117th congress. so what are you talking about?

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators

correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 

That seems sketchy.  That feels like it would violate senate rules.  But I'm more thinking about the senators who are worried about primary just not show up.  Between the democrats and the Rs that will convict (sasse, Romney,  Collins,  murkowski... likely more), there would be plenty to offset the lackeys

it SEEMS sketchy. but it's within the rules, from what i read. and if people want the dems to start playing hardball, start there. 

FUCK EM. 

So the majority leader can refuse to seat any senator he wishes, for any reason?

sorry, no, that was incorrect. it's newly elected members only. but now I looked it up and the supreme court found any duly elected member cannot be refused to be seated unless they don't fit the specific requirements of age, citizenship or residency. 

previously, article 1 section 5 of the constitution was interpreted as the house and senate could basically "self govern" as to the qualifications of their own members, and refuse to seat them for any reason. 

i really wish these articles I read would get their shit straight. 

23scidoo

DewieCox said:

23scidoo said:

mickeyrat said:

you expect sone kind of answers from a 9 second video with no context?

I wasn't talking about the video but general about what happend..

We know what happened. It was live-streamed for Pete’s sake.

Are you sure you know??

mcgruff10

Stay classy Trump:

Trump was enraged that Pence was refusing to try to overturn the election. In a series of meetings, the president had pressed relentlessly, alternately cajoling and browbeating him. Finally, just before Pence headed to the Capitol to oversee the electoral vote count last Wednesday, Trump called the vice president’s residence to push one last time.

“You can either go down in history as a patriot,” Trump told him, according to two people briefed on the conversation, “or you can go down in history as a pussy.”

https://news.yahoo.com/pence-reached-limit-trump-wasnt-130817179.html

mrussel1

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators

correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 

That seems sketchy.  That feels like it would violate senate rules.  But I'm more thinking about the senators who are worried about primary just not show up.  Between the democrats and the Rs that will convict (sasse, Romney,  Collins,  murkowski... likely more), there would be plenty to offset the lackeys

it SEEMS sketchy. but it's within the rules, from what i read. and if people want the dems to start playing hardball, start there. 

FUCK EM. 

So the majority leader can refuse to seat any senator he wishes, for any reason?

sorry, no, that was incorrect. it's newly elected members only. but now I looked it up and the supreme court found any duly elected member cannot be refused to be seated unless they don't fit the specific requirements of age, citizenship or residency. 

previously, article 1 section 5 of the constitution was interpreted as the house and senate could basically "self govern" as to the qualifications of their own members, and refuse to seat them for any reason. 

i really wish these articles I read would get their shit straight. 

Good clarification. 

I still think that it can get done by some of the more 'vulnerable' senators sitting it out.   

Jearlpam0925

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators

correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 

Right. Not gonna happen, though. They have to go right to this instead of waiting 100 days regardless. You can't force an impeachment and then delay, you'll look like hypocrites. Let the R's keep doing that.

Man, this What-About-ism on the House floor is at an all-time high.

HughFreakingDillon

Jearlpam0925 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators

correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 

Right. Not gonna happen, though. They have to go right to this instead of waiting 100 days regardless. You can't force an impeachment and then delay, you'll look like hypocrites. Let the R's keep doing that.

Man, this What-About-ism on the House floor is at an all-time high.

i had to stop watching. it's all the same bluster and hoping for sound bites to be published by fox news. 

OnWis97

HughFreakingDillon said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators

correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 

Right. Not gonna happen, though. They have to go right to this instead of waiting 100 days regardless. You can't force an impeachment and then delay, you'll look like hypocrites. Let the R's keep doing that.

Man, this What-About-ism on the House floor is at an all-time high.

i had to stop watching. it's all the same bluster and hoping for sound bites to be published by fox news. 

I turned it off when they passed it on to the "Gentleman" from Florida Mr. Gaetz.  I just couldn't.

Someone brought up Kathy Griffin's severed head joke. OK, we'll just give a pass to an insurrection.

tbergs

(R) Newhouse from WA votes yes.

gimmesometruth27

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Agreed... this is not a "mistake" like replacing Kane Hodder as Jason Vorhees in Freddy VS Jason

Yes!!! Greatest analogy ever!

yeah that was a travesty. love the slasher flicks. i bought the friday the 13th box set when it came out a few months ago. have been too busy to open it and watch any of them though...

HughFreakingDillon

OnWis97 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

So someone check me on this.  To convict,  you need 2/3 if the senators sitting.  So long as a quorum is reached you don't necessarily need 66 senators

correct. the thing I read recently is that if Schumer really wanted to be shrewd about this; he could refuse to seat the seditionist senators, only seat the dems and the rest and he easily (apparently) reaches the 2/3 majority of those seated. 

Right. Not gonna happen, though. They have to go right to this instead of waiting 100 days regardless. You can't force an impeachment and then delay, you'll look like hypocrites. Let the R's keep doing that.

Man, this What-About-ism on the House floor is at an all-time high.

i had to stop watching. it's all the same bluster and hoping for sound bites to be published by fox news. 

I turned it off when they passed it on to the "Gentleman" from Florida Mr. Gaetz.  I just couldn't.

Someone brought up Kathy Griffin's severed head joke. OK, we'll just give a pass to an insurrection.

exactly. they are SO the same. 

Jearlpam0925

Wow. So Mitch won't accept articles of impeachment before the inauguration. That helps Dems then. They can then point to this and then take it up once Chuck is majority leader.

Gern Blansten

Jearlpam0925 said:

Wow. So Mitch won't accept articles of impeachment before the inauguration. That helps Dems then. They can then point to this and then take it up once Chuck is majority leader.

Either Mitch is being a dick and led the Dems to think he would get behind conviction or he's doing them a favor and telling them he doesn't have enough votes to convict.

mcgruff10

Gern Blansten said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Wow. So Mitch won't accept articles of impeachment before the inauguration. That helps Dems then. They can then point to this and then take it up once Chuck is majority leader.

Either Mitch is being a dick and led the Dems to think he would get behind conviction or he's doing them a favor and telling them he doesn't have enough votes to convict.

Or he's hoping more evidence will come out and it will become a slam dunk case.  

mrussel1

Jearlpam0925 said:

Wow. So Mitch won't accept articles of impeachment before the inauguration. That helps Dems then. They can then point to this and then take it up once Chuck is majority leader.

I think so too. He won't be removed from office but it's sort of like Mitch is punting. He was eager to start the last trial because he knew acquittal was assured. 

Jearlpam0925

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Wow. So Mitch won't accept articles of impeachment before the inauguration. That helps Dems then. They can then point to this and then take it up once Chuck is majority leader.

I think so too. He won't be removed from office but it's sort of like Mitch is punting. He was eager to start the last trial because he knew acquittal was assured. 

Correct - wiping his hands clean, but this may also give the Republican Party the opportunity to take that route of no longer being the Party of Trump. Probably lets Inauguration Day speak for itself, too. If it turns into a Shit Show they can also point to that as an example of never letting him run for office again.

mrussel1

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Wow. So Mitch won't accept articles of impeachment before the inauguration. That helps Dems then. They can then point to this and then take it up once Chuck is majority leader.

I think so too. He won't be removed from office but it's sort of like Mitch is punting. He was eager to start the last trial because he knew acquittal was assured. 

Correct - wiping his hands clean, but this may also give the Republican Party the opportunity to take that route of no longer being the Party of Trump. Probably lets Inauguration Day speak for itself, too. If it turns into a Shit Show they can also point to that as an example of never letting him run for office again.

Yeah.  Let them come and unleash the guard.