There wasn't really a choice, the impeachment had to be done. Refusing peaceful transition of power in a democracy is bad, using lies to inflame voters and make them doubt democracy is even worse and build-up to the 6th and subsequent events are pretty much just off the charts.

Going further with witnesses is a debate I guess. It wouldn't have swayed anyone, the GOP had cemented their excuse. The case was presented well as it was. Could have done it for political reasons and tried to hammer the GOP on it, but that's a double-edged sword too.

The outcome of most Senate votes are known before they're taken. I doubt this is a standard of "wasting time" you apply in other contexts.

Yes, that would be an interesting vote count to see.

Agree with all of these. LOL @ "waste of time".

What has it accomplished? Seems like a waste of time.

Neither were a waste of time.

Don't think because this time you have a complicit and immoral Senate that the prosecutions should not happen.

The precedent must be set that if you do the things Trump did you will be prosecuted.

If you then want to roll the dice that you will have a complicit Senate to save you then roll those dice. But what you must not have is a situation where precedent says this is ok and not something worth charging.

Cuepee just answered this better than I would have.

You can't use results based thinking to determine if an initial action was good or the correct thing to do.

So now others know that being prosecuted for such things is just a joke and have nothing to fear?

Right, because the makeup of the Senate never changes, and everyone votes the same way every time, so the result will always be the same.

stop trolling Siberian. Did you even watch the trial? The evidence presented was chilling. Sure not everyone paid attention, but to those who did seriously (without filter of news/etc.), it was the best summary of what happened and Trump's singular responsibility for it which has been presented to date.

Also, precedents etc. This is Fall of the Roman Republic kind of stuff. Today's vote wil be reported on in history books 1,000 years from now. That is not hyperbole.

True but a prosecution can require an expectation of a conviction. iirc, in the UK the standard before a prosecution goes ahead is that a conviction is more likely than not. The standard is not to do with the magnitude of the event or any assumption of guilt.

Maybe different in the usa but it's kinda moot as this is not a prosecution in the normal legal sense. It's a politcal process and part of that is the votes being on the record. To a large extent, the people being 'tried' are the elected representatives who are accountable for how they voted.

They failed when they knew they would fail. Seems crazy to me. Doing something when you know the outcome and still doing it.

Just like all those votes to repeal Obamacare pre-2016 that were never going to pass. Surely that would doom the Republican Party and make people never vote to give them the presidency and both branches of Congress!

Why is what I’ve said considered trolling? You disagree with something I said and your response is he’s trolling. No I didn’t watch. Why would I watch something we all knew lthe outcome of? You say the evidence was “chilling” and yet nothing happened. What does that say about them?

I honestly don’t think this is fall of the Roman republic kind of stuff either. That just seems silly to me. Wouldn’t surprise me if it were in history books though as it’s about a president of the US.

Of course it's going to be in history books. We had armed insurrectionists who killed people in the Capitol building for the first time in 200 years. In what universe would this not be included I'm US history books?

Given the posts I am reading here and elsewhere, it seems that most people don't realize that even if the mob had murdered every single Democrat congressperson, Biden would almost certainly still be president now. Do you really think a decent percentage of Republicans or the military would have stood for Trump remaining in office?

That's a pretty lolbad post David, DUCY?

I won't hold my breath, but...

Reporter: GOP sources telling me 'this is not over'


I'd suggest instead that no one has contemplated that, because it isn't especially relevant to...anything. Why should anyone care?

Would attacking a federal building with people inside count as a politically motivated act of violence? How about a coordinated attack on police officers? Or terrorizing protesters?

All this dancing around seems silly. I assume you're talking about "Antifa", and as Wookie has mentioned, they aren't an organization. It seems to be a label that people like to slap on groups that protest for left-leaning issues, and a label that some protestors like to place on themselves. Designating Antifa a terrorist organization would be like doing the same for "anarchists" or "eco-terrorists".

And speaking as a Canadian, I'm not especially concerned about Antifa terrorist plots here, or whatever it is that has you concerned. If you actually were concerned, that is, rather than just trying to make some strange point you don't seem to want to get to directly.

Have the Proud Boys concocted terrorist plots in Canada? I'm legitimately asking; I didn't find anything online but I can't go through every story.

There's zero reason that Antifa shouldn't be treated the same as The Proud Boys. They're both awful groups of people that share the common bond of acting as 'extremist street fighting gangs'. At least that's how a guy named Ben Makuch @ VICE in Canada described the Proud Boys; I think it's accurate in depicting Antifa as well.

It was just something I found odd. Dancing around the name was just as good as actually saying it. Most people knew who I was talking about, which is telling. Antifa has been quite clever about disregarding any labelling of themselves as a group or organization. I saw they have a common symbol, red and black flags, looks like something from "The Wall".

Oh? Who are the leaders of Antifa? Who are their members?

Endless persecution with these ****ing people. "wahhhhhhhhhhh both siiiiiidesssss such biaaaaassssss" okay ted cruz

That would have required a far bigger mob or it being far better organised. Both of which would have been very different from what happened.

But that nit-pick aside I'll make the far more important one that the big moments in history are a sequence of events that often takes years or decades to play out. In your scenario, biden may well still have become president but that's small beer compared to the actual consequences that history would study.

Mitch is slime.

Is he suggesting the DoJ should now pursue Trump for incitement? I don't get what his point is, tbh.