US Election

See this is the problem, as soon has someone questions something, you get defensive over it. You supposedly deal in facts. All I'm asking is if Trump is being impeached, then why stop there, it's a straight forward enough question.

But no, this is all about the side of a political fence someone sits. I'm happy for Trump to be impeached, but look at who was leading it, Nancy Pelosi, the same person that had a close bond with George Bush and protected him from impeachement. So I ask again, why protect George and not Donald or is it ok to atttack anyone, as long has they are not American.

Trump deserves the book thrown at him, but then so does America as a country, for some of the shhite they've caused in the world. I'm merely looking at this through an open mind, rather than a media led one.

 

A lame duck US president tries to overthrow the election that booted him out by illegally falsifying the results in state elections, engineering a military coup and then organising a violent, lethal insurrection against the elected government of his own country. Just taken on its own merits, that deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent for the good of the US, and all precedents of history I contend support this. If this should only go ahead if other living presidents are prosecuted for stuff - and actually Bush was lucky to get away without a state commission into torture and illegal rendition at Guantanamo Bay, but Obama stopped it - then so be it. I'd imagine that had Guilliani and Sidney Powell been in charge of Trump's defence, then that's what they'd argue.

But let me propose another scenario - what if King John had been successfully able to argue at Runnymeade that he wasn't signing Magna Carta because the sovereigns before him had been ****s too? Or Nixon argued that he shouldn't have to resign over Watergate because Lyndon Johnson and Kennedy actually led the US into Vietnam and not him, therefore organising an illegal burglary and cover-up was not as bad? As I say, whataboutery.

But I'll leave it there as a) I'm even boring myself now and b) I still haven't been able to reactivate my sock* and therefore can't risk being banned again.

* I think the last username was Jeremy Hilary Boob Phd if you can help.

Edit - Try that series out on PBS and tell me what you think. Proper history by proper historians - absolutely not 'Media led'.

 

Straight away despite me not having used my tools, you use it as a defence. Not only that, you still miss the point, despite on numerous ocassions to only ever deal with the truth, so let me help you again;

Nancy Pelosi, formed a close bond with George Bush, so close in fact she protected him from being impeached. Back in 2019, when Pelosi was questioned by a reporter about 'hating' Donald Trump, she virtually threw a hissy fit at the reporter. This was all well before the Capitol was stormed by right wing nutters.

I repeat, I've no problem with Trump being impeached, what bothers me is the honourable intentions of Pelosi. I'm discussing people that are still living and should all be held accountable for their intentions. We shouldn't be favouring one over another just because Nancy has a soft spot for one of them, I'd suggest it was more than a soft spot, but i'll leave you to see what you want to see.

 

When did Pelosi protect Bush from being impeached?

 

Go and research it

 

I tried. All of the results are screwed because her name pops up a lot in Trump's impeachments.

 

When they tried to impeach Bush, Pelosi said it was off the table....hang on, I'll see what I can find.

 

Blocking of impeachment proceedings against President Bush

In the wake of Bush's reelection, several leading House Democrats believed they should pursue impeachment proceedings against him, asserting that he had misled Congress about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and violated Americans' civil liberties by authorizing warrantless wiretaps.
In May 2006, with an eye on the upcoming congressional elections—which offered the possibility of Democrats taking back control of the House for the first time since 1994—Pelosi told colleagues that, while the Democrats would conduct vigorous oversight of Bush administration policy, an impeachment investigation was "off the table". (A week earlier, she had told the Washington Post that, although Democrats would not set out to impeach Bush, "you never know where" investigations might lead.)[52]
After becoming Speaker in January 2007, Pelosi held firm against impeachment, notwithstanding strong support for it among her constituents. In the November 2008 election, she withstood a challenge for her seat by antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan, who ran as an independent primarily because of Pelosi's refusal to pursue impeachment.[53]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi

 

Look, I'll leave you with the last word. But if you think this is about Nancy Pelosi, then... well mate - the violent storming and insurrection of the capitol, the attempt to disenfranchise millions of American, and the efforts to force martial law. But Nancy Pelosi. You're an intelligent man, but so is Tucker Carlson, and with genuine, honest respect, that's where this argument is going.

 

In 2006 the Republicans held a majority in both the house and the senate. There's absolutely no way they'd have voted for it.
The speaker was also a nonce, but that's not really relevant to this!

 

Who is arguing what here? What's the point in impeaching Bush? He can't run again anyway.

 

found this

Thing we were unhappiest to learn: Some familiar faces took familiar stances in 2008. Nancy Pelosi, in her first stint as Speaker of the House, took impeachment, “off the table,” although sent the mixed message that she would “probably” advocate for impeachment were she not Speaker (i.e., the one person with the power to put impeachment into motion). Then-Representative Mike Pence unsurprisingly went to bat for Bush, hair-splitting that he hadn’t broken the law “in his own interest.” Then-Senator Joe Biden said he would support impeachment if Bush bombed Iran, as he apparently had a three-countries-you’re-out rule.

 

So should they not impeach Trump then, because 70 million people believed in him, no is the answer. Besides, that has nothing to do with Pelosi's intentions. As I've already alluded to, she had a great fondness for George, and 'hated' as that reporter asked her, Trump.

 

They can actually impeach Trump and they couldn't impeach Bush. They already have, in fact. Twice.
Trying to do it to Bush would've failed. There's an argument that it should still have been tried anyway, but it wouldn't have succeeded.

 

Nixon actually won a landslide and the popular vote in '72, something Trump never came close to. Never saved him from impeachment.

 

It dosen't matter whether it would have failed, I'm merely bringing in here Pelosi's honourable intentions. She hates Trump but loved George, that's American justice for you, in the eyes of Nancy Pelosi.

 

Except you've made that all up. Other than that, it's spot on.

 

But I'm not chatting about Nixon. I'm highlighting the differences in the person at the forefront of wanting to bring action against Trump....that being Pelosi, the very same woman, who said impeachement against a liar George Bush was off the table. That decision affected the World, Trump merely screwed the US.

 

Tbh, I doubt it'll even work on Trump this time, despite the veritable cascade of information that'll come out about Trump's staggeringly treacherous activities since November, there'll never be 17 GOP senators that'll flip and vote against the MAGA maniacs and fanatics that Trump has propagated in the last four years.

 

You mean Pelosi who Trump sent a violent lynch mob into the Capitol Buildings to drag out and execute? Yeah, you're right - she's too personally involved in this. As is Pence, McConnell and every Democrat in The House, plus the 12 GOP's that voted to ratify the election. Hey, maybe they should get Boebert to do it instead?