Opinion [Fox News] Trump Speech Not Enough For Impeachment

[BeardGawd]

Trump speech before Capitol riot not enough for impeachment charges: Turley

Democrats are moving to remove President Trump from office after Wednesday's U.S. Capitol riot, but George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said he doesn’t believe Trump committed an impeachable offense.

www.foxnews.com

Watch the video. I think Turley makes some good points. Do you feel a 'snap' impeachment makes sense?

 

[mashoutposse]

They were all there because he said the Democrats committed fraud and stole the election from him. Unproven, conspiracy BS. They’ve got more than the speech to work with.

 

[desertdroog]

Nancy Pelosi will do what she do.

 

[Schattenjäger]

let them impeach - will only invigorate the GOP

 

[Bernd Lauert]

There's no way in hell Trump gets removed. Only a handful of Republicans would vote to convict.

 

[EHuntingon]

The Democrats now have the votes to make it happen, and they going to do it. The Democrats know how to wield and hold power, and soon they'll have all the power. The best thing they can do is get rid of a powerful opponent at his moment of weakness.

 

[Dacon]

Yes, make a martyr out of him and rally his base even more.

Would be much more beneficial to just ignore him instead of continuing to empower him with the attention he no doubt craves after his social media bans.

 

[SpartanN92]

There's no way in hell Trump gets removed. Only a handful of Republicans would vote to convict.

50 Democrats (including independents) + Romney, Collins, Murkowski, maybe Mitch etc...
They have the votes...edit: If they have Mitch.

It’s how the rules play out that is the real question. If impeachment continues past the 20th it’s essentially a moot point and I’m not sure if it can/will be pursued.

 

[MrMephistoX]

It was poor judgement at best criminal at worst and never would have happened if not for his refusal to admit defeat which in turn inflamed these idiots. He needs to face some consequences for this and barring him from holding office is fitting. No way he gets removed from office in a mere 10 days but a dem senate can probably get it over the threshold to punish him after he’s gone.

 

[BeardGawd]

50 Democrats (including independents) + Romney, Collins, Murkowski, maybe Mitch etc...
They have the votes.

It’s how the rules play out that is the real question. If impeachment continues past the 20th it’s essentially a moot point and I’m not sure if it can/will be pursued.

If it goes past the 20th I would guess they use this to deny him a chance to run in 2024.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

50 Democrats (including independents) + Romney, Collins, Murkowski, maybe Mitch etc...
They have the votes.

It’s how the rules play out that is the real question. If impeachment continues past the 20th it’s essentially a moot point and I’m not sure if it can/will be pursued.

They need 17 Republicans. They don't have the votes.

 

[SpartanN92]

They need 17 Republicans. They don't have the votes.

If they get Mitch they got the votes and I’m not sure they don’t have Mitch.

edit: I posted too quickly before really finishing the thought or restructuring the sentence. I’ll rephrase: They definitely have 50 + Mitt, Collins, Murkowski. If they have Mitch then surely they have the remaining votes. It would be very Mitch like to be the one to pull the final trigger.

 

[desertdroog]

Meaning she'll cry harder, sperg the fuck out like a misgendered REEEEEEEEra tranny and chug more vodka while REEEEEEEEEEEE'ing loudly to anyone who'll listen. She's not going to get what she wants.

 

[EHuntingon]

50 Democrats (including independents) + Romney, Collins, Murkowski, maybe Mitch etc...
They have the votes.

It’s how the rules play out that is the real question. If impeachment continues past the 20th it’s essentially a moot point and I’m not sure if it can/will be pursued.

They're going to cut Trump off from a potential 2024 run. They have the perfect excuse, the media pressure, and the big tech support. I would be shocked if Democrats didn't kneecap the biggest thorn in their side.

(Sorry about the mixed metaphors.)

 

[Bernd Lauert]

If they get Mitch they got the votes and I’m not sure they don’t have Mitch.

I think it's the other way round, they only get Mitch if there's a broad consensus among Republicans that they need to remove Trump. I don't see that yet.

 

[SpartanN92]

I think it's the other way round, they only get Mitch if there's a broad consensus among Republicans that they need to remove Trump. I don't see that yet.

See my edits...
I agree we don’t see the consensus yet but if Mitch comes out for it then we will. I’m gonna be real... we got blindsided by Pence this week. I don’t trust ANYBODY.

 

[BeardGawd]

See my edits...
I agree we don’t see the consensus yet but if Mitch comes out for it then we will. I’m gonna be real... we got blindsided by Pence this week. I don’t trust ANYBODY.

What did Pence do?

 

[prag16]

They're going to cut Trump off from a potential 2024 run. They have the perfect excuse, the media pressure, and the big tech support. I would be shocked if Democrats didn't kneecap the biggest thorn in their side.

(Sorry about the mixed metaphors.)

Dershowitz said they can't do anything after the 20th. I took that to mean they couldn't bar him from running in 2024 after that point either, but maybe that's not correct?

 

[SpartanN92]

What did Pence do?

Pence not referring back the competing slates of electors back to the State Legislatures for an emergency 10 day audit.

 

[K.S v2.0]

They're going to cut Trump off from a potential 2024 run. They have the perfect excuse, the media pressure, and the big tech support. I would be shocked if Democrats didn't kneecap the biggest thorn in their side.

(Sorry about the mixed metaphors.)

I honestly believe he doesn't even want to run in 2024... A lot of ppl forgot he never actually intended to win 2016... for him, the White House is a DOWNGRADE to how he normally lives. He loves the ego trip of being 'Teh Man™' sure but I don't think he likes the other shit that comes with.

If the Dems can't see that past their own REEEEEEEEEEEEE, then man, talk about rent free in their heads... Which basically means he wins for life by default if he's got to them THAT badly.

 

[Schattenjäger]

any GOP that votes for it will be primaried

 

[TeezzyD]

Trump's not coming back after this, impeaching him would be an empty gesture. I don't even think he'd risk running again.


Trump's presidency was... interesting while it lasted, and while I didn't vote for Biden this time around, I'd be lying if I pretended as if I wasn't cautiously optimistic about what he may bring to the table.

 

[Grinchy]

If telling people they should march and protest is evidence of inciting violence or insurrection, then a lot of politicians are really guilty from doing the exact same thing the past few years.

 

[azz0r]

Fox news doesn't think Trump should be impeached, shocking.

 

[INCUBASE]

Trial by combat
Stand by
6th of jan is gonna be wild
Let's march to the capital, I'll be there right with you
Stolen, be patriots, fight for your rights
Mike pence failed us - hang Mike pence


Yeh can't see how this is his fault and his enablers, including fox news

Yeh i see no issue here, I mean come on

Inb4......but what about........antifa.......summer......blah blah blah

 

[Tesseract]

eh

 

[Bitch Pudding]

Fox news doesn't think Trump should be impeached, shocking.

To be fair, Foxnews also provided an opinion piece which claims he should be impeached.

Andrew McCarthy: Trump has committed an impeachable offense

I took a beating on Twitter Thursday night for making what I thought was a commonsense observation that President Trump should be negotiating favorable terms for resignation “if there are 20 GOP senators who’d vote to impeach.”

www.foxnews.com

And so far they didn't downplay it as "just another witch hunt", too.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

They're going to cut Trump off from a potential 2024 run. They have the perfect excuse, the media pressure, and the big tech support. I would be shocked if Democrats didn't kneecap the biggest thorn in their side.

(Sorry about the mixed metaphors.)

After the recent events Trump's now also thorn for the GOP establishment. Some of them would be glad if it is removed, too.

 

[sw0mp_d0nk3y]

They need 17 Republicans. They don't have the votes.

If the Senate doesn't take it up until after the 20th, I believe they can vote by secret ballot. They obviously get way more votes if nobody can see them, even Mitch probably. Obviously doesn't remove Trump prematurely, but keeps him from running again and serves some kind of justice for his behavior, while also sucking the air out of his last week.

 

[TheContact]

He should be impeached again. For anyone saying “you’ll just martyr him” he’s already a martyr in the eyes of his supporters. For anyone saying “it will do more damage than good”, impeachment is a duty. If someone commits a crime but it will create an outrage if they’re arrested, you still arrest them you don’t bend to the will of the minority of Americans who will be upset. Trump needs to be made an example of that even if you only have around 10 days left in office, you’re not above the law

 

[Woo-Fu]

There's no way in hell Trump gets removed. Only a handful of Republicans would vote to convict.

It's telling that any would, outside the ones whose job it is to do so to maintain the appearance of a close balance of power.

On top of that, this isn't just about impeaching Trump. It's a purity test for every member of congress. If they have these votes you can be sure how each member voted on this issue will resurface periodically in the future.

I'd like to have each member of congress on record, officially.

 

[TheContact]

Pence not referring back the competing slates of electors back to the State Legislatures for an emergency 10 day audit.

it’s not possible to audit the entire election 10 days. It was just a delay tactic because it would also push the certification of Biden back as well. Conservatives have said the same thing. And to have an audit, there would need to have been a lot more actual proof of widespread fraud for it to be considered.

 

[mashoutposse]

He should be impeached again. For anyone saying “you’ll just martyr him” he’s already a martyr in the eyes of his supporters. For anyone saying “it will do more damage than good”, impeachment is a duty. If someone commits a crime but it will create an outrage if they’re arrested, you still arrest them you don’t bend to the will of the minority of Americans who will be upset. Trump needs to be made an example of that even if you only have around 10 days left in office, you’re not above the law

A second impeachment will also restore an incremental amount of trust internationally and will legally certify Donald Trump as an unfortunate anomaly.

 

[HeresJohnny]

They were all there because he said the Democrats committed fraud and stole the election from him. Unproven, conspiracy BS. They’ve got more than the speech to work with.

Ironically, Pelosi did the same thing after Trump won.

 

[TheContact]

A second impeachment will also restore an incremental amount of trust internationally and will legally certify Donald Trump as an unfortunate anomaly.

yup, no president in our entire history has been impeached twice

 

[TheContact]

Ironically, Pelosi did the same thing after Trump won.

here's the difference: russian interference was proven, systematic voter fraud in the 2020 election was not.

 

[Sparhavoc]

I mean if they fail to impeach Trump they are setting a precedent of how things will go for four years.

 

[HeresJohnny]

here's the difference: russian interference was proven, systematic voter fraud in the 2020 election was not.

She still told her followers and the country that the election was stolen from them. There's literally no difference, dude. I can also find tons of clips from a bunch of other Democrats saying Trump wasn't a legal/legitimate president, including his Democrat opponent from 2016. Let me know if you're interested in seeing those.

They also filed legal challenges to attempt to keep Trump from winning, just as Trump did:

Dems losing voting challenges but winning on optics

Party lawyers square off in the swing states as legal battles heat up in the final stretch of 2016.

www.politico.com

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

 

[Thaedolus]

People saying impeachment will just further divide the country sound like the stories I heard of child molesters not getting turned in because they were part of the family and “what’s done is done” kind of bullshit logic. It would break grandma’s poor heart if she found out uncle Jack was diddling little Tommy, we’ll just have to keep this a secret and move on.

I guess that analogy breaks down somewhat because everyone knows Trump unleashed the treasonous mob

 

[mashoutposse]

Ironically, Pelosi did the same thing after Trump won.

Her claim was far more substantiated than Trump’s. There were several successful criminal prosecutions, including those where defendants themselves pled guilty.

Pelosi also never directly discredited Trump’s status as duly elected President and certainly never advocated that ordinary citizens take matters into their own hands.

 

[BeardGawd]

If telling people they should march and protest is evidence of inciting violence or insurrection, then a lot of politicians are really guilty from doing the exact same thing the past few years.

Unfortunately the media tend to control the narrative because most people can’t think for themselves.

 

[HeresJohnny]

Her claim was far more substantiated than Trump’s. There were several successful criminal prosecutions, including those where defendants themselves pled guilty.

Pelosi also never directly discredited Trump’s status as duly elected President and certainly never advocated that ordinary citizens take matters into their own hands.

By telling her voters and followers the election was hijacked (her words, not mine), what did she mean then? And there was no Russian collusion, dude. Please, if we're going to not be allowed to discuss Qanon bullshit on this forum, can we stop talking about fake, unproven Russian collusion as well?

 

[mashoutposse]

By telling her voters and followers the election was hijacked (her words, not mine), what did she mean then? And there was no Russian collusion, dude. Please, if we're going to not be allowed to discuss Qanon bullshit on this forum, can we stop talking about fake, unproven Russian collusion as well?

Collusion is one thing, interference is another. Interference was proven.

Pelosi specifically states in that tweet that it’s up to Congress to act. That sounds a lot more like “stand down”, instead of “stand back and stand by”.

 

[TheContact]

She still told her followers and the country that the election was stolen from them. There's literally no difference, dude. I can also find tons of clips from a bunch of other Democrats saying Trump wasn't a legal/legitimate president, including his Democrat opponent from 2016. Let me know if you're interested in seeing those.

They also filed legal challenges to attempt to keep Trump from winning, just as Trump did:

Dems losing voting challenges but winning on optics

Party lawyers square off in the swing states as legal battles heat up in the final stretch of 2016.

www.politico.com

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

i've heard the #notmypresident rhetoric from even politicians but comparing their rhetroic in regards to russia's real interference in the 2016 election to fake voter fraud in 2020 is wrong. nancy pelosi didn't push conspiracy theories and didn't tell people to march to the captial the day trump was certified to 'help weak democrats take our country back'

 

[HeresJohnny]

Collusion is one thing, interference is another. Interference was proven.

Pelosi specifically states in that tweet that it’s up to Congress to act. That sounds a lot more like “stand down”, instead of “stand back and stand by”.

She said the election was hijacked, what are voters to infer by such a term?

 

[mickaus]

I mean if they fail to impeach Trump they are setting a precedent of how things will go for four years.

Not to mention how embarrassing it would be to fail impeachment (conviction) twice.

 

[HeresJohnny]

i've heard the #notmypresident rhetoric from even politicians but comparing their rhetroic in regards to russia's real interference in the 2016 election to fake voter fraud in 2020 is wrong. nancy pelosi didn't push conspiracy theories and didn't tell people to march to the captial the day trump was certified to 'help weak democrats take our country back'

She pushed for an impeachment based on a report they knew was false oppo-research, paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. What do you mean she didn't push conspiracy theories?

 

[supernova8]

Best bet is to just give Biden the office and let it all die down. Impeaching Trump will just make it all worse. He'll end up as martyr and it will never go away.

 

[TheContact]

She pushed for an impeachment based on a report they knew was false oppo-research, paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. What do you mean she didn't push conspiracy theories?

we have very different perspectives on what the mueller report found i guess. russia interfered in the election flat out. what wasn't proven was if trump was complicit in that. he was impeached in part on the ukraine call which was arguably a quid-pro-quo for political reasons. you can have your own opinions on that, but russian collusion and trump's flagrant misinformation campaign on our election system are. not. comparable.

 

[mashoutposse]

She said the election was hijacked, what are voters to infer by such a term?

Regardless of what she meant, the anger was directed at Russia and not fellow Americans. Certainly not state legislatures, election boards, ordinary citizens working the polls and delivering mail, etc.