Some Democrats are willing to speak the truth.
I think some perspective is in order. We say literally hundreds of outnumbered police, try to hold the line against many thousand (I think the number was closer to 10,000 not 2,000) rioter. Many of the rioter were well equipped mace, riot shields, gas masks, and long sticks. Plus lots were armed.
Versus maybe a dozen cops who stood aside, took selfies and other disgraceful actions. Now if they were black protestor, I’m sure the number of sympathetic cops would have been close to zero. The problem was the folks at the top who didn’t take the threat seriously, and by and large they’ve all (deservedly) lost their jobs for their failures.
ShivaX
3156
She’s not wrong. She’s actually been on the money since this all started that I’ve seen, though I don’t follow her directly, I haven’t seen anything with even a hint of nonsense to it. The closest was the articles of impeachment thing and that wasn’t bad imo.
It’s pretty trivial to extract DNA from that shit.
There are services that will DNA dog poop so the owners can be fined.
ShivaX
3159
At the end of the day this can’t be confuted.
The failure started at the top. Individual failures also might have happened, but the failure was them not taking it seriously. Despite it being their only real function that the taxpayers pay a premium for.
Menzo
3160
If you are worried that giving time for your opposition to prepare their defense makes your case too hard, then you have no case.
Removal from office is automatic on conviction, but barring future office is not. So two votes would be required to do both. The threshold for conviction is 2/3rds, as defined in the constitution, but the threshold for barring future office is not defined in the constitution. Which presumably means the Senate can decide what that threshold is.
The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. In the case of presidential impeachment trials, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified such officials from holding public offices in the future.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm
I’m sorry, I really don’t understand. We can’t think that Pelosi is tricking us, that she’s unwilling to impeach, because she did impeach. Is the suggestion that she did it wrong? That Trump would have been convicted had she done it right?
Thrag
3164
Turns out Pompeo is one of the cabinet members pushing for the 25th. That makes me still think it has a chance as he may be able to consume the other cabinet members and thus take on their powers.
JoshL
3168
Thx for the Senate link. I guess it makes sense, although it is sort of bizarre.
KevinC
3169
Interesting that Murkowski is making statements like that publicly. Perhaps there is truth to the reports of some GOP support for impeachment in the Senate (whether it’s enough support is another question entirely).
There is a difference from being sympathetic to their goals and approving their methods. I doubt many cops were on the side of the rioters after they watched their fellow officers getting smashed up against walls, beaten with sticks and having their riot shields ripped from their hands.
Thrag
3172
I can’t help but love that she’s clearly threating the party with leaving if they don’t rebuke Trump. Do it anyway Lisa. Convict and then caucus with the Democrats.
