2nd Trump Senate Trial and the January 6 commission

[The Minsky Moment]

Wait is this still AR grinding the axe because the impeachment trial lost him some bet back in early 2021?

Give it up already.

[Sheilbh]

Basically with OvB - I don't think there was ever a realistic chance of winning the vote. The best chance and I think the most politically advantageous moment was when feeling were high, which was immediately after the attempted storming.

[Berkut]

I think people are forgetting the critical downside of holding the trial - it let McConnell delay confirming the Second Assistant to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (Acting).

Imagine how much better off we would all be if only they had been confirmed!

We should have just done as Mitch demanded, obviously.

[Jacob]

Yeah, Mitch McConnell obviously has a pretty good idea of what the Democratic Party should do.

[alfred russel]

I think people are forgetting the critical downside of holding the trial - it let McConnell delay confirming the Second Assistant to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (Acting).

Imagine how much better off we would all be if only they had been confirmed!

We should have just done as Mitch demanded, obviously.

The trial was held before positions like Attorney General were filled. I don't think hearings on Attorney General were even held before the trial. The actual Secretary of Agriculture was not confirmed until after the trial.

It is also worth remembering that you are a liar in this argument. For years you have been maintaining that I was somehow putting forward Mitch McConnell's position. I am not, nor have i been. His position was that the senate trial was illegitimate under the constitution and should not have been held at any point. My perspective was it was more important to get through covid relief, and confirm key cabinet members. Holding the trial in February meant it would be impossibly rushed, which it was.

[mongers]

Faulty poll, so null vote from me.

[Berkut]

I think people are forgetting the critical downside of holding the trial - it let McConnell delay confirming the Second Assistant to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (Acting).

Imagine how much better off we would all be if only they had been confirmed!

We should have just done as Mitch demanded, obviously.

The trial was held before positions like Attorney General were filled. I don't think hearings on Attorney General were even held before the trial. The actual Secretary of Agriculture was not confirmed until after the trial.

It is also worth remembering that you are a liar in this argument. For years you have been maintaining that I was somehow putting forward Mitch McConnell's position. I am not, nor have i been. His position was that the senate trial was illegitimate under the constitution and should not have been held at any point. My perspective was it was more important to get through covid relief, and confirm key cabinet members. Holding the trial in February meant it would be impossibly rushed, which it was.

I am just pointing out what a disaster it was that those positions were not filled, and how terrible the country became as a result of us not all listening to you and Mitch and delaying the trial until it could be safely delayed forever.

And I am not a liar, I am pointing out that you were carrying water for Moscow Mitch, which you were. You both agreed that the trial should not happen, and that if the Dems pushed it, then it was fine for McConnell to delay other business in retaliation.

I am quite confident we all know exactly what your position was, and that I have completely and entirely accurately reflected it - even you know that, all your faux protestations to the contrary.

[Berkut]

Yeah, Mitch McConnell obviously has a pretty good idea of what the Democratic Party should do.

Indeed. If only we had listened to Moscow Mitch and AR, imagine how much better things would be now!

[alfred russel]

And I am not a liar, I am pointing out that you were carrying water for Moscow Mitch, which you were. You both agreed that the trial should not happen, and that if the Dems pushed it, then it was fine for McConnell to delay other business in retaliation.

I did not argue that the trial should not happen. That was McConnell's position.

The Senate wasn't going to be concurrently working on covid relief or cabinet confirmations during the impeachment trial. Maybe it should have been but the fact it wasn't was abundantly clear Democratic leadership well in advance.

I am quite confident we all know exactly what your position was, and that I have completely and entirely accurately reflected it - even you know that, all your faux protestations to the contrary.

What exactly was my position? You really think that I really have the position like mcconnell that the trial was unconstitutional but in some ploy to convince others of that argued that the trial should be delayed on senate procedural grounds?

[Berkut]

And I am not a liar, I am pointing out that you were carrying water for Moscow Mitch, which you were. You both agreed that the trial should not happen, and that if the Dems pushed it, then it was fine for McConnell to delay other business in retaliation.

I did not argue that the trial should not happen. That was McConnell's position.

The Senate wasn't going to be concurrently working on covid relief or cabinet confirmations during the impeachment trial. Maybe it should have been but the fact it wasn't was abundantly clear Democratic leadership well in advance.

I am quite confident we all know exactly what your position was, and that I have completely and entirely accurately reflected it - even you know that, all your faux protestations to the contrary.

What exactly was my position? You really think that I really have the position like mcconnell that the trial was unconstitutional but in some ploy to convince others of that argued that the trial should be delayed on senate procedural grounds?

McConnells position was that the trial should not happen. That was your position as well.

The *reason* McConnell held that position was that it would damage the GOP. We know, and you know, it had nothing to do with anything other then that.

You held the position that the trial should not happen. The same position McConnell held.

The Senate can certainly walk and chew gum at the same time, but not if the minority leader is refusing to do so.

The Dems were certainly aware that you and McConnell were willing and capable of holding other business hostage to their demand that Trump not be held accountable. 

It would have been foolish for them to bow to the minority leaders blackmail.

You agree with McConnell that the trial should not happen - there is no "delay". If it did not happen then, it would not happen later, as was noted at the time.

That was your position then, and appears to be your position now. The amusing part is how surprised you are that even in hindsight it is obvious to everyone *else* how transparently bullshit that position was, and what a terrible idea letting Mitch McConnell tell the majority how to run the Senate would have been - you seem to genuinely believe that in hindsight people would agree that if only we had not had a second senate trial, why, things would have been ever so much better with Mitch calling the shots from the minority position.

[Berkut]

My answer to the dishonest poll:

• The rushed 2nd trump senate trial in Feb. 2021 should have been delayed to allow relevant evidence and testimony against Trump to be presented

The trial was not rushed, as there was more then enough evidence to convict Trump had anyone honestly and with good faith evaluated that evidence.

• The Jan. 6 commission has failed to uncover any relevant evidence against Trump and his complicity in 1/6

The Jan 6th commission has uncovered lots of relevant evidence, but none of it changes what we already knew. Given that there are many legal measures that could be taken against Trump and his cronies, the investigation has value regardless of the failure of the GOP to hold Trump accountable. 

Further, give that there is also a potential political consequence to those additional details, the investigation is valuable in informing the public about those details.

We knew who flew the planes into the buildings on 9/11 rather quickly. We didn't need to wait for the investigation to be completed before taking action on what we did know, even while it was useful to learn more about the specifics of what happened.

[alfred russel]

And I am not a liar, I am pointing out that you were carrying water for Moscow Mitch, which you were. You both agreed that the trial should not happen, and that if the Dems pushed it, then it was fine for McConnell to delay other business in retaliation.

I did not argue that the trial should not happen. That was McConnell's position.

The Senate wasn't going to be concurrently working on covid relief or cabinet confirmations during the impeachment trial. Maybe it should have been but the fact it wasn't was abundantly clear Democratic leadership well in advance.

I am quite confident we all know exactly what your position was, and that I have completely and entirely accurately reflected it - even you know that, all your faux protestations to the contrary.

What exactly was my position? You really think that I really have the position like mcconnell that the trial was unconstitutional but in some ploy to convince others of that argued that the trial should be delayed on senate procedural grounds?

McConnells position was that the trial should not happen. That was your position as well.

The *reason* McConnell held that position was that it would damage the GOP. We know, and you know, it had nothing to do with anything other then that.

You held the position that the trial should not happen. The same position McConnell held.

The Senate can certainly walk and chew gum at the same time, but not if the minority leader is refusing to do so.

The Dems were certainly aware that you and McConnell were willing and capable of holding other business hostage to their demand that Trump not be held accountable.

It would have been foolish for them to bow to the minority leaders blackmail.

You agree with McConnell that the trial should not happen - there is no "delay". If it did not happen then, it would not happen later, as was noted at the time.

That was your position then, and appears to be your position now. The amusing part is how surprised you are that even in hindsight it is obvious to everyone *else* how transparently bullshit that position was, and what a terrible idea letting Mitch McConnell tell the majority how to run the Senate would have been - you seem to genuinely believe that in hindsight people would agree that if only we had not had a second senate trial, why, things would have been ever so much better with Mitch calling the shots from the minority position.

There is so much bullshit in this. I did not think the trial should happen in February, and I gave the date of May as a good timeframe. Trump was out of office; it simply didn't matter when the trial was held.

McConnell did not think it ever should happen.

Also, the Senate can not walk and chew gum at the same time if a significant portion of membership disagrees. It isn't just the minority leader but any block of senators. If there isn't unanimous consent for a senate action, it gets drawn out for a few hours of debate on the floor, which considering the volume of things that need to be done to progress a single nomination it is impossible to get any block of major work done quickly with serious obstructionism. And that was guaranteed while the Trump trial was ongoing considering the senate minority leader declared the entire proceeding to be unconstitutional.

Anyone with a basic understanding of how the senate works knew this which is why I thought that given competing priorities of 1) confirming the cabinet, 2) covid relief, 3) an impeachment trial that #3 would and should be delayed for a few months. Instead they tried to run the trial first and ultimately after a couple weeks democratic senators were pressuring the house impeachment managers to cut short their case and skip introducing any witnesses (which some Republican senators were gleefully saying would shut down biden's agenda through March).

[Berkut]

We understand. You think the Dems should have rolled over to Mitch's blackmail. It's not complicated.

There was no way there was going to be a trial in May, or June, or September. Mitch knew that, you knew that, you know it now.

There is no practical difference between "Lets have the trial later!" and "Lets not have a trial".

Noting that the Senate could not walk and chew gum at the same time if a significant portion refuses to do so is admitting that in fact it can do so if that portion does not refuse to do so. Thanks for, again, conceding my point.

[alfred russel]

We understand. You think the Dems should have rolled over to Mitch's blackmail. It's not complicated.

And they ultimately did. No witnesses, and an accelerated trial. Because the alternative was not having a cabinet in place or covid passed until April.

There was no way there was going to be a trial in May, or June, or September. Mitch knew that, you knew that, you know it now.

There is no practical difference between "Lets have the trial later!" and "Lets not have a trial".

I do not know that. It doesn't make any sense to me why the trial of an out of office person needed to be held during the most important period of a new administration.

Noting that the Senate could not walk and chew gum at the same time if a significant portion refuses to do so is admitting that in fact it can do so if that portion does not refuse to do so. Thanks for, again, conceding my point.

If your point is that a portion of republicans would be uncooperative during the impeachment trial, I never contested that and it is self evident and obvious.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Point of order--cabinet officials being sworn is in largely unimportant in terms of anything real or meaningful.