Impeachment Number Two

[thoughtful]

I'm trying to watch, but don't know how long I'll last.

The video was a piece of shit.

[SeekingAdventure]

It's still a piece of shit, and I turned it off now too. My computer is fairly new, and I don't want to have to throw it against the wall..

They are really grasping at straws here, and it's downright pathetic to know that there are people who would think they have a good point there

[thoughtful]

A montage of people insisting Trump needed to be impeached is not hatred aimed at an innocent man - it's people responding to his actual actions.

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by thoughtful
riffle

[thoughtful]

Y'know, I'd see their point about inflammatory language, if it weren't Trump we were talking about. I flinch whenever Biden does his "behind the gym" thing, even though it is set totally in the past, implying it is something he has outgrown.  I would prefer that anything that could be taken as violent never come from the mouths of politicians I support, people I know, and even posters here on FJ.

Not because I don't believe Trump's rhetoric was meant literally and theirs is either meant figuratively or due to extreme frustration, but because I never want the fuckers to have a leg to stand on to condemn us.

But I don't think Trump's clown - er, legal - team has an answer for Trump's not doing his duty after the violence started. The tweet against Pence, after he already knew Pence was in danger, is, I think, pretty powerful. The fact that he never sent police or troops after he knew it had started has to be addressed, and I can't imagine they have any facts to contest that.

I was a little disappointed that the managers didn't have some evidence we hadn't heard yet, perhaps about the gathering on 1/5, that directly connected Trump to sending the violence on 1/6.

[Cartmann99]

I did a fruitless search to find out what OFM stands for. Can someone please help me out?  I know it's something about Trump, but other than that, I'm lost.

As for today's spectacle:

 

[Alisamer]

4 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

I did a fruitless search to find out what OFM stands for. Can someone please help me out?  I know it's something about Trump, but other than that, I'm lost.

As for today's spectacle:

 

I believe OFM means "Orange Florida Man". Since really, that's what Trump is right now. A private citizen living in Florida, and embodying the worst that the "florida man" trope has to offer.

I could be wrong, though. But that's how I've been reading it.

[church_of_dog]

22 minutes ago, thoughtful said:

Y'know, I'd see their point about inflammatory language, if it weren't Trump we were talking about. I flinch whenever Biden does his "behind the gym" thing, even though it is set totally in the past, implying it is something he has outgrown.  I would prefer that anything that could be taken as violent never come from the mouths of politicians I support, people I know, and even posters here on FJ.

Not because I don't believe Trump's rhetoric was meant literally and theirs is either meant figuratively or due to extreme frustration, but because I never want the fuckers to have a leg to stand on to condemn us.

But I don't think Trump's clown - er, legal - team has an answer for Trump's not doing his duty after the violence started. The tweet against Pence, after he already knew Pence was in danger, is, I think, pretty powerful. The fact that he never sent police or troops after he knew it had started has to be addressed, and I can't imagine they have any facts to contest that.

I was a little disappointed that the managers didn't have some evidence we hadn't heard yet, perhaps about the gathering on 1/5, that directly connected Trump to sending the violence on 1/6.

I agree -- even if a truly unanticipated violent mob had shown up and Trump was truly surprised -- doesn't his oath to protect and defend the constitution compel him to speak up, demand they immediately stop the violence, immediately call in law enforcement as needed, condemn the violence, etc?

Seems like, everything else aside, the passive lack of action after the violence started, whether it was due to complicitness, or from fear, or from being a poor and passive leader, should qualify as an impeachable offense.

[thoughtful]

6 minutes ago, church_of_dog said:

I agree -- even if a truly unanticipated violent mob had shown up and Trump was truly surprised -- doesn't his oath to protect and defend the constitution compel him to speak up, demand they immediately stop the violence, immediately call in law enforcement as needed, condemn the violence, etc?

Seems like, everything else aside, the passive lack of action after the violence started, whether it was due to complicitness, or from fear, or from being a poor and passive leader, should qualify as an impeachable offense.

I think so. And it was part of the managers' argument. But I think they are only charging him with incitement, not dereliction of duty. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-effort-live-updates/2021/01/11/955631105/impeachment-resolution-cites-trumps-incitement-of-capitol-insurrection

[Shrubbery]

25 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

I believe OFM means "Orange Florida Man". Since really, that's what Trump is right now. A private citizen living in Florida, and embodying the worst that the "florida man" trope has to offer.

I could be wrong, though. But that's how I've been reading it.

I think you are right, but in my head I always read it as „Orange Fucking Menace“.

[GreyhoundFan]

6 minutes ago, Shrubbery said:

I think you are right, but in my head I always read it as „Orange Fucking Menace“.

I agree with your internal reading of it, but when I type it, I mean Orange Florida Man. Like here:

[Black Aliss]

On 2/9/2021 at 12:59 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

I'm so fucking sick of the argument that the Dems want to disenfranchise the 74 million people who voted for the OFM and then force them to live under Dem policies. Um, they had no problem disenfranchising the 65 million people who voted for Hillary in 2016 and had zero problem sticking it to the people for four years.

They keep using that word and you know damn well they know what it really means. If your side loses an election that doesn't disenfranchise you. The only way they are disenfranchised is if they are convicted of a felony within the next two years and are not permitted to vote. Which, ironically, might end up being the case for some of the insurrectionists.

[thoughtful]

7 minutes ago, Shrubbery said:

I think you are right, but in my head I always read it as „Orange Fucking Menace“.

Potato, potahto. He is both.

[fraurosena]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I had to turn off the proceedings. The straight-out lies being spoken by OFM's attorney are making me ill.

I didn't even bother to turn it on. I know how angry I get at the lies and deception and piss-poor attempts at deflection. 

[Cartmann99]

12 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I agree with your internal reading of it, but when I type it, I mean Orange Florida Man. Like here:

Orange Fatuous Man 

[thoughtful]

This is at least the second time (possibly the third or fourth  - I've lost count) they are showing the same video, showing Trump saying law and order over and over, and Democrats saying something violent.

I know the managers' stuff had some repetition, too, but with distinctions and to show specific aspects.

[fraurosena]

House manager Ted Lieu reacts:

Edited February 12, 2021 by fraurosena
something went wonkily wrong with my post

[thoughtful]

One really stupid thing the Trump lawyers are doing, which the Managers did not do, is putting scary music in their videos.

[clueliss]

Also in a quote of Trump from that GA conversation:  Forged signatures that have been forged.

[onekidanddone]

2 hours ago, thoughtful said:

I'm trying to watch, but don't know how long I'll last.

The video was a piece of shit.

Why is he talking about Georgia’s ballots 

[clueliss]

Just now, onekidanddone said:

Why is he talking about Georgia’s ballots 

Because the influencing of Georgia's election officials (aka that phone call) is in the Impeachment charge I believe.

[Shrubbery]

Is that „lawyer“ wearing the orange one‘s suit and tie whilst rehashing the orange one‘s rambling „arguments“?

1 minute ago, clueliss said:

Because the influencing of Georgia's election officials (aka that phone call) is in the Impeachment charge I believe.

That was one perfect phone call, ask anyone you want! 

[clueliss]

In case anyone wants to tune back in:

Castro has finished - he was the last for OFM Lawyers.  They just took a break.  And after that is a period for questions (it's in the rules for the Impeachment). 

[thoughtful]

11 minutes ago, clueliss said:

Also in a quote of Trump from that GA conversation:  Forged signatures that have been forged.

Department of Redundancy Department.

 

[clueliss]

But you know - facts and all.

[AnywhereButHere]

6 hours ago, SeekingAdventure said:

Serious question.

If jurors don't bother showing up and/or meet with the defense, wouldn't that kinda disqualify them from being a juror?

I know, it is a political trial, but in any other trial, if the jurors would be talking to the defense team, they would kick them out of the jury, wouldn't they?! Also, if they don't show up for the trial..

Someone may have already answered this, but I liked the following explanation. I mean. I hate the fact that it's apparently okay for this to happen, but I like how he (Jay Kuo) breaks it down... I'm also really hoping that the bolded part holds true.

https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/impartial-jurors-in-the-senate-dont

Quote

...The ex parte visit by the senators drew immediate condemnation, as wells as calls for the senators to be disqualified as “jurors” for the trial. How could those sitting in judgment of the president also meet and discuss the trial with his defense attorneys? Shouldn’t they be sanctioned for this behavior, with their right to serve as jurors relinquished?

The answer will likely disappoint—and perhaps even enrage—many. Per the Constitution, senators are indeed under oath to be impartial during the impeachment trial, and in fact do traditionally swear an oath to “do impartial justice under the Constitution and the laws.” But the Senate under the very same section also has the “sole power to try impeachments.” This means, practically speaking, there is no way to remove a Senator who violates this oath of impartiality. What this has meant historically is that bad behavior by the senate “jurors” (e.g. skipping presentations, not paying attention during the trial, or even meeting with the accused or his attorneys) has been met with zero enforcement.

...

Judging by public opinion polls, the Democrats are so far succeeding. Ironically, then, a not guilty verdict, in spite of all the evidence, might actually further cement the public’s ire toward the GOP and drive home that it is a party without principles or accountability.