And Trump gets to run again in 2024?

Then they should have taken care of it when he was still president, don’t ya think?  What part of HE’S NOT THE PRESIDENT ANYMORE do you not understand?

Yes I do think so!
Mitch McConnell was in charge of the Senate from Jan 6 to Jan 20.
He was derelict in his duty, for some reason.
Does that mean Trump should skate?
Of course not.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The overreach is comical. Especially from Hillary, who seems to really like that "co-conspirator" expression. 

Hillary Clinton: If Trump is acquitted, it's 'because the jury includes his co-conspirators' | Fox News

---

Then they should have taken care of it when he was still president, don’t ya think?  What part of HE’S NOT THE PRESIDENT ANYMORE do you not understand?

Yes I do think so!
Mitch McConnell was in charge of the Senate from Jan 6 to Jan 20.
He was derelict in his duty, for some reason.
Does that mean Trump should skate?
Of course not.

None of that changes the fact the he’s not the president right now. You can’t impeach a private citizen which is what Trump is right now. Just because you want him punished doesn’t mean they get to make up [BLEEP] as they go along. It doesn’t work that way.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Yes I do think so!
Mitch McConnell was in charge of the Senate from Jan 6 to Jan 20.
He was derelict in his duty, for some reason.
Does that mean Trump should skate?
Of course not.

None of that changes the fact the he’s not the president right now. You can’t impeach a private citizen which is what Trump is right now. Just because you want him punished doesn’t mean they get to make up [BLEEP] as they go along. It doesn’t work that way.

There is only one body in the Constitution that can prohibit someone from running for federal office.  It is the Senate. Judges can't do it. You can run for President while sitting in federal prison. It's been done before.

Either the Founders made a huge mistake, 
Or,
Your analysis of the constitution is wrong.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You didn't do what I asked.
I don't care how likely you think it is that Pence or Miller did something Trump didn't want them to do.
I asked you, and any other Trumper, if it was proven that Trump didn't want to call the NG and someone else did it for him, would you finally agree with me, that the Senate should convict and Trump should never hold office again?

Sure. If it was proven that Trump wanted to let the Capitol be destroyed, you guys can impeach the guy that was already removed from office. Now you go. If they fail to prove that Trump wouldn't authorize the use of the national guard, you gonna admit this is a stupid waste of time? Go one further for me, just for [BLEEP] and giggles. If they prove that Trump authorized the NG and was actively trying to figure out why they weren't deploying, are you going to admit that the new sources you frequent are a bunch of lying hacks with a very partisan agenda? Will you be capable of carrying that knowledge forward in a way that makes your arguments less [BLEEP]? 

As to the impeachment itself, not sure it's unconstitutional. I think if a crime were egregious enough, you could do it to make a statement, especially if proceeding began before they left office. However, I don't think any of this is being done for that reason. It's theatrics. It's being done because they hate the man. Impeachment and removal was always their goal (which is easy enough to prove), and they can spin this enough to make it seem like they were justified in hating him. Don't think you're going to get any evidence of anything. But, sure... have your fantasy.

Did Mike ever answer these questions? Asking for a friend.

---

None of that changes the fact the he’s not the president right now. You can’t impeach a private citizen which is what Trump is right now. Just because you want him punished doesn’t mean they get to make up [BLEEP] as they go along. It doesn’t work that way.

There is only one body in the Constitution that can prohibit someone from running for federal office.  It is the Senate. Judges can't do it. You can run for President while sitting in federal prison. It's been done before.

Either the Founders made a huge mistake, 
Or,
Your analysis of the constitution is wrong.

Or just maybe you’re the one that’s wrong.

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

Notice it says removal from office AND disqualification to hold any office, not removal OR disqualification.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Yes I do think so!
Mitch McConnell was in charge of the Senate from Jan 6 to Jan 20.
He was derelict in his duty, for some reason.
Does that mean Trump should skate?
Of course not.

None of that changes the fact the he’s not the president right now. You can’t impeach a private citizen which is what Trump is right now. Just because you want him punished doesn’t mean they get to make up [BLEEP] as they go along. It doesn’t work that way.

The past election shows quite clearly that it does in fact work that way.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

There is only one body in the Constitution that can prohibit someone from running for federal office.  It is the Senate. Judges can't do it. You can run for President while sitting in federal prison. It's been done before.

Either the Founders made a huge mistake, 
Or,
Your analysis of the constitution is wrong.

Or just maybe you’re the one that’s wrong.

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

Notice it says removal from office AND disqualification to hold any office, not removal OR disqualification.

So the Founders made a mistake and we just have to live with it and the Constitution is a suicide pact after all!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Bunnie is reading the "and" incorrectly.
If you read the "and" like her, the word has to point both ways.
If the "and" means that they can't disqualify without removing, then it also means that they can't remove without disqualifying.
Yet, for every impeachment proceeding we have a record of, the Senate has voted on the two questions separately. They view the "and" as a list of options, as in, Burger King Whoppers come with lettuce "and" tomato.
The founders didn't make a mistake here.
Senators of the past didn't make a mistake.
Bunnie and 44 Republican senators are the ones making the mistake.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Another day of this pointless trial and another day I don't get to see The Young and the Restless.   I'm gonna forget what the story lines were when they finally do come back on!

---

Another day of this pointless trial and another day I don't get to see The Young and the Restless.   I'm gonna forget what the story lines were when they finally do come back on!

Lol my dad loves that show. Whenever I just want to hear his voice I ask him how Nick and Sharon are doing. Not that I care, but it beats ranting about the damn Jaguars or the damn Trump supporters.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You gonna go on the record, Mike? Or you just gonna pretend that exchange didn't happen?

---

You didn't do what I asked.
I don't care how likely you think it is that Pence or Miller did something Trump didn't want them to do.
I asked you, and any other Trumper, if it was proven that Trump didn't want to call the NG and someone else did it for him, would you finally agree with me, that the Senate should convict and Trump should never hold office again?

Sure. If it was proven that Trump wanted to let the Capitol be destroyed, you guys can impeach the guy that was already removed from office. Now you go. If they fail to prove that Trump wouldn't authorize the use of the national guard, you gonna admit this is a stupid waste of time? Go one further for me, just for [BLEEP] and giggles. If they prove that Trump authorized the NG and was actively trying to figure out why they weren't deploying, are you going to admit that the new sources you frequent are a bunch of lying hacks with a very partisan agenda? Will you be capable of carrying that knowledge forward in a way that makes your arguments less [BLEEP]? 

As to the impeachment itself, not sure it's unconstitutional. I think if a crime were egregious enough, you could do it to make a statement, especially if proceeding began before they left office. However, I don't think any of this is being done for that reason. It's theatrics. It's being done because they hate the man. Impeachment and removal was always their goal (which is easy enough to prove), and they can spin this enough to make it seem like they were justified in hating him. Don't think you're going to get any evidence of anything. But, sure... have your fantasy.

OK I missed this post.
Thank you for answering the question, sort of.
You phrased it a bit more strongly than I would.  The point of this insurrection wasn't to destroy a building, it was to take over the building and create enough chaos that Congress couldn't meet for at least 2 weeks. Maybe capture some members of Congress and hold them hostage to make sure.  They got really close to that, even though they got no where close to destroying the building.  You'd take this more seriously if you realized how little effort it can take to overthrow a government and how close they came.

To your first question, no impeachment proceeding is a waste of the Senate's time.  If the house brings an impeachment, you have to follow the Constitution and hear it.  I suppose you could argue that the House was wasting its own time if the evidence you mention exists. I tend to agree that the House should know the answer to who called the NG and when. I think they should be telling us the answer if it supports their case.  And they shouldn't have brought the case if the answer was unfavorable to their case. At the moment it appears that they don't know the answer for sure. That's tragic. They should call Christopher Miller as a witness and ask him. I certainly think the House Democrats are focusing a lot on irrelevant or unprovable aspects of the situation.
But based on the timeline of Trump's tweets and the TV broadcasts were know he was watching, my conclusion that Trump didn't want to call on the National Guard is reasonable and your conclusion that he did comes across as naive and wishful.

To your second question, I have read the same stuff as you and I take most of it with a grain of salt. I base my best guess not on anything I read in the Washington Post.  I base it on what the secretary of defense already said.  He said he consulted with Pence that day.  He didn't mention Trump. The silence speaks volumes, IMO.  I hope we get a more detailed and more conclusive statement from him.

And to your final paragraph, you got so close to the truth. But then you get distracted.  If one branch of government stands aside while a mob assaults another, that is life threatening to the republic. This is exactly the kind of crime that would be egregious enough.  And yes, these proceedings are also theatrical.  All proceedings are.  Why does that latter fact negate the former? Of course it does not.  Stop hunting for excuses to not take this seriously, and start realizing that this is serious.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

He said he talked with Pence, Pelosi, McConnell, Schumer and Hoyer and not one of those people have the authority to give him to call in the guard. You can let the silence speak to you however you wish, but facts are facts.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Dude, learn something. Impeachment is to remove an official from office. He is no longer president. How do you remove someone who is not there? I have read opinions on this from lawyers on all sides and they all said it is not constitutional. 

My dislike of politicians in general has me seeing just fine. They're all corrupt.

To remove, yes, also to prevent them from ever again holding office.
Odd. The lawyers I read say it is constitutional, or that it is ambiguous.
Again, the founders knew their Roman history.
When they designed the transition of power, were they thinking that, in the last days of his term, the President would be able to do whatever it took to hold on to power, with no possibility of punishment if he failed, because, "oh he's already removed, problem solved"?

In order for the prevention of holding future office to happen impeachment has to happen first. Period. The act they cited is not considered an impeachable offense. Period. It doesn't matter what people think it should be, it matters what is legal. To be sure this act will be added as an impeachable offense, but until it is, what they are doing is unconstitutional. 

It's like someone going to trial for a crime that isn't actually a crime according to the law as it is written.

---

Then they should have taken care of it when he was still president, don’t ya think?  What part of HE’S NOT THE PRESIDENT ANYMORE do you not understand?

Yes I do think so!
Mitch McConnell was in charge of the Senate from Jan 6 to Jan 20.
He was derelict in his duty, for some reason.
Does that mean Trump should skate?
Of course not.

Exactly when was the photo op of the House members of your party delivering the sham impeachment to the Senate?

The whole thing is a waste of time and a waste of taxpayer dollars simply to make a political statement... nothing more.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Bunnie is reading the "and" incorrectly.
If you read the "and" like her, the word has to point both ways.
If the "and" means that they can't disqualify without removing, then it also means that they can't remove without disqualifying.
Yet, for every impeachment proceeding we have a record of, the Senate has voted on the two questions separately. They view the "and" as a list of options, as in, Burger King Whoppers come with lettuce "and" tomato.
The founders didn't make a mistake here.
Senators of the past didn't make a mistake.
Bunnie and 44 Republican senators are the ones making the mistake.

That's just as ridiculous as when a former president of your party said “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

To remove, yes, also to prevent them from ever again holding office.
Odd. The lawyers I read say it is constitutional, or that it is ambiguous.
Again, the founders knew their Roman history.
When they designed the transition of power, were they thinking that, in the last days of his term, the President would be able to do whatever it took to hold on to power, with no possibility of punishment if he failed, because, "oh he's already removed, problem solved"?

In order for the prevention of holding future office to happen impeachment has to happen first. Period. The act they cited is not considered an impeachable offense. Period. It doesn't matter what people think it should be, it matters what is legal. To be sure this act will be added as an impeachable offense, but until it is, what they are doing is unconstitutional. 

It's like someone going to trial for a crime that isn't actually a crime according to the law as it is written.

The house decides with high crimes and misdemeanors means. The Senate decides if they agree, and if the person actually committed the things in question. There is no exhaustive list of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Commoners like us can only be tried for criminal matters or civil matters, and we can only be tried on the basis of laws that were in effect at the time of our infractions. But high officials can commit high crimes, and our founders wisely refused to offer any exhaustive list of them, and refuse to lay out any ex post facto protection in this case. 
In other words, the law only gives us rights. it gives presidents and judges and cabinet officials powers. And because it gives them hours, they are held to a higher standard, and subjected to proceedings where they have fewer rights.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

In order for the prevention of holding future office to happen impeachment has to happen first. Period. The act they cited is not considered an impeachable offense. Period. It doesn't matter what people think it should be, it matters what is legal. To be sure this act will be added as an impeachable offense, but until it is, what they are doing is unconstitutional. 

It's like someone going to trial for a crime that isn't actually a crime according to the law as it is written.

The house decides with high crimes and misdemeanors means. The Senate decides if they agree, and if the person actually committed the things in question. There is no exhaustive list of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Commoners like us can only be tried for criminal matters or civil matters, and we can only be tried on the basis of laws that were in effect at the time of our infractions. But high officials can commit high crimes, and our founders wisely refused to offer any exhaustive list of them, and refuse to lay out any ex post facto protection in this case. 
In other words, the law only gives us rights. it gives presidents and judges and cabinet officials powers. And because it gives them hours, they are held to a higher standard, and subjected to proceedings where they have fewer rights.

Wikapedia told me rabble, rabble, rabble.

Again, this whole proceeding is nothing more than political show boating.

Meanwhile actual "insurrections" are happening daily and it's mostly not reported by the MSM.  Or maybe because it's a "mostly peaceful protest".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

No.  What are you even talking about?

1.)  This entire proceeding is patently unconstitutional.  

2.) He is charged with inciting a riot.  I am a little fuzzy how asking a group of people to peacefully go down to the capital and cheer on people who vote their way is "inciting a riot."  

This isn't about justice, the constitution or anything of the sort.  This is about codifying collective justice into the American Ethos through political theater.  Plain and simple.  There is no way that You could establish Mens Rea to support the Idea that Trump wanted the protestors to devolve into a riot.  That's childish.  This is about, well the people who did it were trump supporters, so that means that Trump or anyone who supported him, funded him, or helped him can then be essentially unpersoned under the law.  We don't believe in collective guilt in this country.  We believe that each person should be judged on their own actions, intentions, and behaviors. We also believe in a free society, so much so that the freedom of speech is enshrined in the first amendment.  In a free society speech ESPECIALLY INCENDIARY POLITICAL SPEECH is not only allowed but essential to the public discourse as an alternative to persistent civil war.  Any individual that DIRECTS or CALLS FOR VIOLENCE can be culpable.  Obviously those who COMMIT VIOLENCE can be held culpable, but the insinuation that just because someone arouses passions that they are then responsible for anyone who acts out of said passions is fundamentally antithetical to a free society and the congress shoving aside the constitution to pursue that brand of collective justice would not just be an attack on our democratic republic, but the end of it!

We're already to collective racism in white people, collective guilt for crimes is just a short hop away.

The impeachment hearings would suggest we're already there!

---

No.  What are you even talking about?

1.)  This entire proceeding is patently unconstitutional.  

Stopped reading there.
You're wrong, it is constitutional, but lets agree to disagree about it.
Let's pretend McConnell treated this like an emergency and the trial was happening but it wasn't January 20 yet. Now answer my question.

who needs the nutmeg now, brother?

---