auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas
16 Feb 2021, 4:37 pm
16 Feb 2021, 4:40 pm
ASPartOfMe wrote:
GOP Sen. Burr censured by North Carolina GOP after Trump conviction vote
Quote:
The North Carolina Republican Party's central committee voted Monday night to censure Sen. Richard Burr for his vote to convict Donald Trump after the former president's impeachment trial, adding to the growing list of Republican members of Congress facing consequences for moves against Trump.
"The NCGOP agrees with the strong majority of Republicans in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate that the Democrat-led attempt to impeach a former President lies outside the United States Constitution," the committee wrote in a statement after its unanimous vote.
In a statement, Burr said it was a "sad day for North Carolina Republicans."
Burr, who has already announced he will not seek reelection in 2022, is among seven Republicans who voted to convict Trump on Saturday, and the state GOP condemned him for the move before its censure decision.
"The NCGOP agrees with the strong majority of Republicans in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate that the Democrat-led attempt to impeach a former President lies outside the United States Constitution," the committee wrote in a statement after its unanimous vote.
In a statement, Burr said it was a "sad day for North Carolina Republicans."
Burr, who has already announced he will not seek reelection in 2022, is among seven Republicans who voted to convict Trump on Saturday, and the state GOP condemned him for the move before its censure decision.
This was a relatively safe thing to do because there was no way the vote to impeach Trump was ever going to get through.
It would piss off some Republicans, but not as much as if his vote counted.
He may have been pissing his pants if it had.
And also, this way he has made quite a few 'progressive' friends to-boot.
Smart move.
16 Feb 2021, 4:46 pm
auntblabby wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
GOP Sen. Burr censured by North Carolina GOP after Trump conviction vote
Quote:
The North Carolina Republican Party's central committee voted Monday night to censure Sen. Richard Burr for his vote to convict Donald Trump after the former president's impeachment trial, adding to the growing list of Republican members of Congress facing consequences for moves against Trump.
"The NCGOP agrees with the strong majority of Republicans in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate that the Democrat-led attempt to impeach a former President lies outside the United States Constitution," the committee wrote in a statement after its unanimous vote.
In a statement, Burr said it was a "sad day for North Carolina Republicans."
Burr, who has already announced he will not seek reelection in 2022, is among seven Republicans who voted to convict Trump on Saturday, and the state GOP condemned him for the move before its censure decision.
"The NCGOP agrees with the strong majority of Republicans in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate that the Democrat-led attempt to impeach a former President lies outside the United States Constitution," the committee wrote in a statement after its unanimous vote.
In a statement, Burr said it was a "sad day for North Carolina Republicans."
Burr, who has already announced he will not seek reelection in 2022, is among seven Republicans who voted to convict Trump on Saturday, and the state GOP condemned him for the move before its censure decision.
Wasn't Burr just doing his job?
today's GOP considers their job to be "afflict the afflicted, and comfort the comfortable." burr got that turned around.
I seriously doubt that.
16 Feb 2021, 4:56 pm
16 Feb 2021, 4:59 pm
16 Feb 2021, 5:00 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Considering that a lynch mob had invaded the capitol, I think this went beyond just trying to humiliate Trump. There was a legitimate reason for the impeachment.
People say lynchmobs were a thing of the past....who knew they would be back in 2021
I think plenty of African Americans have no doubt that lynch mobs aren't a thing of the past.
3x now.
16 Feb 2021, 5:01 pm
kraftiekortie wrote:
43 voted for acquittal. All were Republicans.
Trump needed 33 Senators to vote for acquittal, 67 to vote for conviction, in order for him to have been convicted.
A 2/3s vote for conviction is required for a conviction.
Trump needed 33 Senators to vote for acquittal, 67 to vote for conviction, in order for him to have been convicted.
A 2/3s vote for conviction is required for a conviction.
It was a performance with a previously known conclusion.
Political theatre.
16 Feb 2021, 6:01 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,726
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Feb 2021, 6:02 pm
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
44 Republicans said it was unconstitutional to convict a former president.
It wasn't unconstitutional.But allowing this would mean that a president can commit all sorts of crimes on his last day and avoid being impeached.
So he then gets away with what he did once he's out of office? That's an interesting take on accountability.
The impeachment process simply removes the president from office, it doesn't hold the president accountable for crimes.
Obviously the democrats knew otherwise, or else why bother impeaching him a second time?
There are two penalties. If convicted, he is removed from office. That didn't apply in this case.
Also, if convicted, they can vote to ban him from holding future federal offices of certain types. It seems like it could have kept him from ever running for election again, but there is a strong argument to be made that the offices he is banned from holding are those to which one is appointed and do not include elective office.
No impeachment trial puts the defendant in danger of losing his life, property, and liberty. I think that information that comes out during the trial, however, can be used against him.
As for this impeachment, Pelosi seems to be senile. The first impeachment was done without taking the effort to fully investigate the charges. They didn't come close to talking to their witnesses. They rushed it through and left little chance that it would ever succeed. It was nothing but idiocy. The House never had a chance of convicting Trump and they did it to themselves.
The second impeachment was done in an even bigger hurry. They didn't talk to the witnesses. Of course, they were in a hurry to get the impeachment before Trump was out of office. There was never any real chance of success. Once again, the blame for that failure goes to the House.
So purely to humiliate him...nothing else?
Had Trump been found guilty, his pension as President could have been denied him, as well as secret service protection. Considering how badly Trump's businesses are doing, he might very well have to depend on the pension to live.
Thanks, others here were giving the impression it was purely a witch hunt
I wasn't one of them, but it was a political exercise, yes.
It was definitely a desire, by the Democrats, to humiliate Trump since nothing was ever going to come of it and he was out of office anyway.
I am not suggesting Trump didn't deserve 'the blowtorch to the belly' treatment, however.
His 'brain fart' was extraordinary.
But ultimately, both sides of politics did themselves no favours in terms of integrity.
On reflection, it was obvious that my belief there would be no impeachment, would have been actualised.
The same would have applied if a Democratic President was involved.
Political buggery loyalties trumps everything/k.
Considering that a lynch mob had invaded the capitol, I think this went beyond just trying to humiliate Trump. There was a legitimate reason for the impeachment.
Hyperbole noted.
If my assessment of the riot is hyperbole, I'd hate to see what's supposed to be the real thing.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,726
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Feb 2021, 6:05 pm
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Considering that a lynch mob had invaded the capitol, I think this went beyond just trying to humiliate Trump. There was a legitimate reason for the impeachment.
People say lynchmobs were a thing of the past....who knew they would be back in 2021
I think plenty of African Americans have no doubt that lynch mobs aren't a thing of the past.
3x now.
You do know the history of black Americans, don't you?
16 Feb 2021, 6:23 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Considering that a lynch mob had invaded the capitol, I think this went beyond just trying to humiliate Trump. There was a legitimate reason for the impeachment.
People say lynchmobs were a thing of the past....who knew they would be back in 2021
I think plenty of African Americans have no doubt that lynch mobs aren't a thing of the past.
3x now.
You do know the history of black Americans, don't you?
Yeah but now SJWs are worse
16 Feb 2021, 6:39 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
44 Republicans said it was unconstitutional to convict a former president.
It wasn't unconstitutional.But allowing this would mean that a president can commit all sorts of crimes on his last day and avoid being impeached.
So he then gets away with what he did once he's out of office? That's an interesting take on accountability.
The impeachment process simply removes the president from office, it doesn't hold the president accountable for crimes.
Obviously the democrats knew otherwise, or else why bother impeaching him a second time?
There are two penalties. If convicted, he is removed from office. That didn't apply in this case.
Also, if convicted, they can vote to ban him from holding future federal offices of certain types. It seems like it could have kept him from ever running for election again, but there is a strong argument to be made that the offices he is banned from holding are those to which one is appointed and do not include elective office.
No impeachment trial puts the defendant in danger of losing his life, property, and liberty. I think that information that comes out during the trial, however, can be used against him.
As for this impeachment, Pelosi seems to be senile. The first impeachment was done without taking the effort to fully investigate the charges. They didn't come close to talking to their witnesses. They rushed it through and left little chance that it would ever succeed. It was nothing but idiocy. The House never had a chance of convicting Trump and they did it to themselves.
The second impeachment was done in an even bigger hurry. They didn't talk to the witnesses. Of course, they were in a hurry to get the impeachment before Trump was out of office. There was never any real chance of success. Once again, the blame for that failure goes to the House.
So purely to humiliate him...nothing else?
Had Trump been found guilty, his pension as President could have been denied him, as well as secret service protection. Considering how badly Trump's businesses are doing, he might very well have to depend on the pension to live.
Thanks, others here were giving the impression it was purely a witch hunt
I wasn't one of them, but it was a political exercise, yes.
It was definitely a desire, by the Democrats, to humiliate Trump since nothing was ever going to come of it and he was out of office anyway.
I am not suggesting Trump didn't deserve 'the blowtorch to the belly' treatment, however.
His 'brain fart' was extraordinary.
But ultimately, both sides of politics did themselves no favours in terms of integrity.
On reflection, it was obvious that my belief there would be no impeachment, would have been actualised.
The same would have applied if a Democratic President was involved.
Political buggery loyalties trumps everything/k.
Considering that a lynch mob had invaded the capitol, I think this went beyond just trying to humiliate Trump. There was a legitimate reason for the impeachment.
Hyperbole noted.
If my assessment of the riot is hyperbole, I'd hate to see what's supposed to be the real thing.
"You call that a knife?
*This* is a knife."
Quote:
Behind the Violence, Looting & Vandalism During the Black Lives Matter Riots
Quote:
According to Tracey, who spent six weeks travelling the US collecting testimonies and documenting the unfolding implications of the ongoing riots, “…The primary victims – meaning those who feared for their safety, suffered severe material losses, and whose lives were upended – are themselves minorities, and were targeted by activist whites.”
16 Feb 2021, 6:40 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Considering that a lynch mob had invaded the capitol, I think this went beyond just trying to humiliate Trump. There was a legitimate reason for the impeachment.
People say lynchmobs were a thing of the past....who knew they would be back in 2021
I think plenty of African Americans have no doubt that lynch mobs aren't a thing of the past.
3x now.
You do know the history of black Americans, don't you?
4x now.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,726
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Feb 2021, 8:15 pm
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
kokopelli wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
44 Republicans said it was unconstitutional to convict a former president.
It wasn't unconstitutional.But allowing this would mean that a president can commit all sorts of crimes on his last day and avoid being impeached.
So he then gets away with what he did once he's out of office? That's an interesting take on accountability.
The impeachment process simply removes the president from office, it doesn't hold the president accountable for crimes.
Obviously the democrats knew otherwise, or else why bother impeaching him a second time?
There are two penalties. If convicted, he is removed from office. That didn't apply in this case.
Also, if convicted, they can vote to ban him from holding future federal offices of certain types. It seems like it could have kept him from ever running for election again, but there is a strong argument to be made that the offices he is banned from holding are those to which one is appointed and do not include elective office.
No impeachment trial puts the defendant in danger of losing his life, property, and liberty. I think that information that comes out during the trial, however, can be used against him.
As for this impeachment, Pelosi seems to be senile. The first impeachment was done without taking the effort to fully investigate the charges. They didn't come close to talking to their witnesses. They rushed it through and left little chance that it would ever succeed. It was nothing but idiocy. The House never had a chance of convicting Trump and they did it to themselves.
The second impeachment was done in an even bigger hurry. They didn't talk to the witnesses. Of course, they were in a hurry to get the impeachment before Trump was out of office. There was never any real chance of success. Once again, the blame for that failure goes to the House.
So purely to humiliate him...nothing else?
Had Trump been found guilty, his pension as President could have been denied him, as well as secret service protection. Considering how badly Trump's businesses are doing, he might very well have to depend on the pension to live.
Thanks, others here were giving the impression it was purely a witch hunt
I wasn't one of them, but it was a political exercise, yes.
It was definitely a desire, by the Democrats, to humiliate Trump since nothing was ever going to come of it and he was out of office anyway.
I am not suggesting Trump didn't deserve 'the blowtorch to the belly' treatment, however.
His 'brain fart' was extraordinary.
But ultimately, both sides of politics did themselves no favours in terms of integrity.
On reflection, it was obvious that my belief there would be no impeachment, would have been actualised.
The same would have applied if a Democratic President was involved.
Political buggery loyalties trumps everything/k.
Considering that a lynch mob had invaded the capitol, I think this went beyond just trying to humiliate Trump. There was a legitimate reason for the impeachment.
Hyperbole noted.
If my assessment of the riot is hyperbole, I'd hate to see what's supposed to be the real thing.
"You call that a knife?
*This* is a knife."
Quote:
Behind the Violence, Looting & Vandalism During the Black Lives Matter Riots
Quote:
According to Tracey, who spent six weeks travelling the US collecting testimonies and documenting the unfolding implications of the ongoing riots, “…The primary victims – meaning those who feared for their safety, suffered severe material losses, and whose lives were upended – are themselves minorities, and were targeted by activist whites.”
That's called "whataboutism." Nobody had been trying to lynch anyone during the BLM demonstrations; they were unleashing long pent up rage over racial injustice at the hands of the police. The Three Percenters, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, Boogaloos, and every other fascistic right wing fanatics who invaded the capitol were intending to lynch the legislators, and VP Pence.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,726
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Feb 2021, 8:16 pm
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Considering that a lynch mob had invaded the capitol, I think this went beyond just trying to humiliate Trump. There was a legitimate reason for the impeachment.
People say lynchmobs were a thing of the past....who knew they would be back in 2021
I think plenty of African Americans have no doubt that lynch mobs aren't a thing of the past.
3x now.
You do know the history of black Americans, don't you?
4x now.
Are you seriously denying what has been done to African Americans?
16 Feb 2021, 9:30 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Why ABC News settled with Donald Trump for $15 million |
18 Dec 2024, 11:39 pm |
| Donald Trump Asks The SCOTUS To Block Sentencing In His Hush |
08 Jan 2025, 9:46 pm |
| Trump pardons nearly all Jan. 6 rioters |
07 Feb 2025, 4:10 pm |
| Trump's Inaugural address |
27 Jan 2025, 11:50 pm |
