Witch Hunt! (#3)

[striker42]

They weren't rioters. They went to a rally and ... they were ralliers -----better call Saul.

You know, 'ssal good man
'Xxxxxxx

Cuz, Trump's outta money

You seem to only see what you want to see. I said they were ralliers and not protesters. Then the riot started and they became rioters.

If there had never been a riot, they'd have stayed ralliers.

You seem to think I'm on Trump's side. I was against the first impeachment but was 100% for this one.

 

[57Brave]

Wanna buy a bridge ?

 

[striker42]

Completely disagree.

Impeachment is not some super dangerous procedure and the POTUS is not a person or position that must be protected at all costs. The POTUS is a glorified bureaucrat with a ton of hype. It's 99% hype. After a president is impeached and removed, the vice-president simply steps in, who has pretty much the same politics and policy.

Pulling off impeachment is hard by design and lawmakers will NOT fall in love with it. In a democracy if the votes are there to fire a POTUS from his job, then that tells you he wasn't doing the job properly. The reason it hasn't happened often is simply because it's rare that a President gets so sideways of his job and his lawmakers.

Clinton should have been disciplined but he should not have been impeached, as the majority of people knew at the time. The fact that this Pres has been impeached twice tells you how bad he is.

Give the American people a little more credit. Some will bitch and moan but that's normal.

If the POTUS is an overhyped bureaucrat then Clinton should have been removed from office unanimously. He had a sexual relationship with an intern. That'll get you fired most places.

The risk of a sexual harassment suit is too great in these cases. The disparate power of the two positions can make the less powerful feel as if they have no choice but to consent. So even if the boss thinks their subordinate is consenting, that won't save you in a later suit.

So holding the belief that the President is a simple bureaucrat and Clinton shouldn't have been impeached are contradictory.

 

[striker42]

Wanna buy a bridge ?

I honestly am concerned about you sometimes. Everything okay at home? You taking all prescribed medications?

Because you seriously get some strange notions in your head.

 

[57Brave]

It wasnt a rally. Never was, never was gonna be and obviously wasnt.
What an absurd turn of phrase.
Thanks for asking though

 

[striker42]

It wasnt a rally. Never was, never was gonna be and obviously wasnt.
What an absurd turn of phrase.
Thanks for asking though

For the vast majority of people it was a rally. I have no doubt there was a coordinated core intent on inciting a riot. For them it wasn't a rally. You saw the same thing last year when protests turned ugly.

 

[57Brave]

No, this was not that.

As for the 1st impeachment our system afforded us 3 opportunities to reject Trump.
The 1st impeachment being the 3rd.

 

[Runnin]

If the POTUS is an overhyped bureaucrat then Clinton should have been removed from office unanimously. He had a sexual relationship with an intern. That'll get you fired most places.

That is indeed true now but probably not in the 90's.

 

[57Brave]

Mikie Sherrill is a bad ass

 

[Runnin]

For the vast majority of people it was a rally. I have no doubt there was a coordinated core intent on inciting a riot. For them it wasn't a rally. You saw the same thing last year when protests turned ugly.

Ali Alexander, one of the main organizers for the event said it was indeed "not a rally".

‘We’re nice patriots, we don’t throw bricks.’ I leaned over and I said, ‘Not yet. Not yet!’ Haven’t you read about a little tar-and-feathering? Those were second-degree burns!”

Alexander also said: “We’re going to convince them to not certify the vote on January 6 by marching hundreds of thousands, if not millions of patriots, to sit their butts in D.C. and close that city down, right? And if we have to explore options after that … ‘yet.’ Yet!”

Mr Alexander claimed Reps. Andy Biggs, Mo Brooks and Paul Gosar helped him plan the protest that led to the attack on the building. He said its intention was to put pressure on lawmakers inside to overturn the election in favour of Donald Trump.

 

[GeorgiaGirl]

If this gets much trial time, the GOP lawmakers who helped the rioters are going to be outed on the record. I don't think Mitch will want that.

Too late...we've already seen 3 named that have at least played a role with the Stop the Steal organizer (there is actually a very real argument to expel all three of Brooks, Biggs, and Gosar from Congress right now, even though to do that, you'd need 60 GOP House members to do it), and it wouldn't surprise me if there was a handful more.

They're in the House though, I honestly actually doubt that there was anybody that was REALLY involved in the senate. Yes, Hawley and Cruz started the wave of objectors in the senate, but I think the reality there is they were just grifting because it's easy to get this base to eat out of both of your hands if you're playing with the narrative that they like.

 

[57Brave]

It was less than a year ago Adam Schiff predicted Jan 6.

 

[Runnin]

Insurrection Timeline – First the Coup and Then the Cover-Up – Updated

Hint: It may have begun on Nov. 9 with the appointment of Christopher Miller to the Pentagon.

Dec. 19, 2020: Trump tweets: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

 

[Runnin]

Panic button units ripped out of lawmakers' offices prior to the attack??? Really?

Did these idiots really think this was going to end with Agent Orange being sworn in again? It boggles the mind.

 

[57Brave]

this summer:

 

[Tapate50]

It was less than a year ago Adam Schiff predicted Jan 6.

#confirmed Schiff part of the Deep State

 

[Carp]

Completely disagree.

Impeachment is not some super dangerous procedure and the POTUS is not a person or position that must be protected at all costs. The POTUS is a glorified bureaucrat with a ton of hype. It's 99% hype. After a president is impeached and removed, the vice-president simply steps in, who has pretty much the same politics and policy.

Pulling off impeachment is hard by design and lawmakers will NOT fall in love with it. In a democracy if the votes are there to fire a POTUS from his job, then that tells you he wasn't doing the job properly. The reason it hasn't happened often is simply because it's rare that a President gets so sideways of his job and his lawmakers.

Clinton should have been disciplined but he should not have been impeached, as the majority of people knew at the time. The fact that this Pres has been impeached twice tells you how bad he is.

Give the American people a little more credit. Some will bitch and moan but that's normal.

Disciplined? Exactly how are you supposed to "discipline" the POTUS?

This isn't a company we're talking about. Making him do sexual harassment training isn't an appropriate response to what happened. You can't exactly suspend him without pay either. Clinton, 100% should have been impeached.

 

[striker42]

That is indeed true now but probably not in the 90's.

It would have gotten you fired at fewer places in the 90's but still a lot of places. It's also not as if we didn't know better then. A sexual relationship with a subordinate like happened there is wrong no matter what. The disparate power in the relationship makes it impossible to tell true consent from consent given for fear of getting fired or for a desire for getting benefits. If you want the relationship that bad, one of you needs to quit or transfer so there's no longer an imbalance of power.

So whenever I see an illicit sexual relationship between a boss and a subordinate, I know that the boss is okay exploiting his power to gain sexual favors. Even if the subordinate is 100% consenting, the fact that the boss can't know if the consent is genuine. It's very damning of the boss.

But Clinton wasn't put on trial for sexually exploiting subordinates. He was put on trial for perjury. So there is that.

 

[57Brave]

Monica Lewinsky never complained officially or otherwise.
I could be wrong but she still hasnt. ???

Clinton was impeached for lying about the affair
Not the affair.

The rest is revisionist history
Context

 

[striker42]

Monica Lewinsky never complained officially or otherwise.
I could be wrong but she still hasnt. ???

Clinton was impeached for lying about the affair
Not the affair.

The rest is revisionist history
Context

Clinton was impeached for the coverup. However, what he did was way worse than the coverup.

Whether Lewinsky's consent was genuine or not isn't the question for me. It seems to have been genuine but to Clinton, her consent being given genuinely or being given because she felt she had no choice or given in an attempt to gain favor would all look the same. Whenever a boss, like Clinton here, engages in an illicit sexual relationship with a subordinate it shows he or she does not care whether the consent was genuine or not. That's seriously wrong.

My point is that Clinton should have been impeached and then convicted for exploiting (or at least attempting to exploit) his office to gain sexual favors.