Impeachment II: Republican Boogaloo

Agreed. Like I said, my pointing stuff like that out is not to "excuse" one 'side' or the other, it's to point out the hypocrisy of one side calling the other side out on something they'd happily do themselves, when it would be really nice is neither side did shitty stuff.
And oh GOD I'm so sick of there being "sides" at all.

It's cute that the Democrats seemed willing to cut off elected members for their actions while Republicans didn't do the same for their candidates?

Senators consider censure as alternative to impeachment trial in view of likely Trump acquittal
A censure resolution requires only a simple majority vote. One senator said it could prevent Trump from holding future office.

There’s no enabling legislation, nor any constitutional authority to make a censure a ban. No such legislation would pass either. Kaine is a dupe and Collins is maudlin evil.

Trump and his supporters would consider that censure a badge of honor. He'd probably ride it right into a 2nd term in '24.

stranger things have happened.

Trump impeachment defense team quits or gets fired or finds out that Trump doesn't plan to pay them...or...something...
Former President Donald J. Trump has abruptly parted ways with five lawyers handling his impeachment defense, just over a week before the Senate trial is set to begin, people familiar with the situation said on Saturday.
Mr. Trump had pushed for his defense team to focus on his baseless claim that the election was stolen from him, one person familiar with the situation said. A person close to Mr. Trump disputed that that was the case but acknowledged that there were differences in opinion about the defense strategy. However, Mr. Trump has insisted that the case is “simple” and has told advisers he could argue it himself and save the money on lawyers. (Aides contend he is not seriously contemplating doing so.)

I'd pay good money to see that happen!

It would be interesting no doubt. I don't know all the intricacies between an actual criminal trial versus an impeachment trial. Does Trump? Maybe he thinks a lawyer won't help one way or another because of the way the impeachment is structured. Or perhaps he figures if he gets destroyed the Constitution doesn't spell out exactly (interpretations and so forth) if he can or cannot still run again. But I don't think focusing on a stolen election is a good strategy at all. This isn't about what he thinks the Democrats may have done - they aren't on trial here. He needs to focus on countering whatever evil deeds the Democrats are accusing him of. If there's ever been a time for a laser-like focus, this would be it. This isn't a time to make a grand statement, but Trump being Trump he very well might not be able to check his ego at the door.

Trump doesn't have to do anything, OF. The GOP will not convict him.

It's about the show, and Trump knows how to work a crowd.

yet the Democrats wanted this show, thus they are both giving Trump the attention he craves and exposing themselves as vindictive, desperate losers.
Well played geniuses! But hey, it's all good - orange man gone.

That's the risk. We'll see how it plays out.

That's right, folks. If you believe that actions have consequences, that's called being a vindictive loser.

So should we have just let it slide?

People in the Senate could have died, up to and including the Vice President. If this isn't an impeachable offense, then what is?

That the Senate refuses to do their job, either out of fear of their base or because they genuinely don't care, isn't the House's problem. They draft the charges, as Pelosi should have been doing from the very fucking beginning of 2018 when she got a majority.

I'm sure the Allied Nations at Nuremburg would appreciate OF's deep, insightful input into whether prosecuting Nazis is just petty, vindictive loser bullshit.

I'm a vindictive winner.

I mean ... shouldn't he want healing and unity? So petty.

I think @oldfella1962 should find out which stylist gives Rand Paul those cute little curls, considering he never had them when he was younger.



Enquiring minds want to know.

It's hilariously transparent how much you want everyone to forget about the traitorous fuckwits you enthusiastically supported.

Hmm, is there a razor for “given evidence of two possible evils, the lesser evil is more likely the real one”? It’s neither Hanlon’s nor Occam’s razor. But I digress.

Trump probably couldn’t convince them that he was actually going to pay them. Plus the insane legal “theories” that he wanted to make them push, and that was probably enough to push them out.

After a quick perusal of Wikipedia and RationalWiki, I think it does not exist, but Occam’s razor (in its proper form) could suffice. Still tempted to call this O2C’s aftershave though.

I'm thinking it's the former simply because Trump isn't going to be convicted. There aren't 17 Republicans in the Senate with enough of a spine to do it. So, whether he gets paid or not, the schmuck from Montgomery gets to add "successfully defended a President in a Senate Impeachment Trial" to his business card. That alone will generate new clients.

Will it? Everybody knows the outcome is basically predetermined, and all of his prospective future clients will know it as well.

Plus, since everything Trump touches turns to shit, he'll probably get caught in a scenario where he either has to act progressively crazier or Trump will fire him. Which could mean that he'll first make himself a pariah among normal people by getting crazier and crazier, then when Trump demands something that he isn't willing to do, he'll get himself fired and become a pariah in Looney-Tunes MAGAland as well.

Or maybe...just maybe....17 Republicans do have a spine but they aren't going to do what Elwood wants them to do.

We're still waiting for you to grow a spine and give us a list of things you absolutely know, based on facts and past history, that the Democrats are going to do to destroy your life.

We've already done it. Dead man walking...