The Trump Impeachment Thread

Quote: DRich

GOD made me do it.

Let's prosecute GOD.

Good example. We don’t prosecute GOD. we prosecute the doer.

Quote: SOOPOO

Good example. We don’t prosecute GOD. we prosecute the doer.

He did have his own son crucified.

Remember Pizzagate? You only blaming the guy who fired shots through your pizza parlor? Not the people who started the rumor it was Hillary Cliinton's pedophile factory?

Okay fine.

It happens again.

Again you only blaming the shooter?

And again.

You only blaming the shooter?

How many times would you like your house burned down becasue someone suggests you need to be despised. How many times are you going to defend the freedom of the speaker who is arousing bad vibes about you before you see the harm?

Quote: SOOPOO

I’m reading your post as the Trump defense is on. I’ll address two of your points. ‘Said themselves they were doing this on orders from Trump’. OF COURSE that is what they are saying! It will be used in their own trials as a defense tactic. I hope they fail.

They were saying it while the violence was going on, not just after-the-fact.

Quote: rxwine

I'm reminded of the situation where someone suggests, are you going to let that person get away with that? Yup, I believe Trump was that guy that made that suggestion to idiots for months in so many ways.

So Trump walks, and the idiots go to jail. Rinse and repeat.

Perhaps, but if you're having to read into stuff and make inferences, (particularly when you're inferring what other people may or may not have inferred) then I think you're on pretty shaky territory just because of the Constitutional value placed on Freedom of Speech.

Quote: Mission146

You concede it yourself in the last sentence of the above quote...because mere ignorance cannot be a crime. In order for incitement to have happened, there must be an intent to incite. Ignorance is not intent.

Have to disagree with this. "I didn't know my blood alcohol level was that high" is not a valid reason to drive drunk. "I didn't intend to crash my car and kill someone" is not a valid defense. Ignorance and intent of the law and how they apply to different crimes are beyond my "expertise" (or lack thereof), but it says a lot if a significant part of the defense is based on Trump's ignorance and his unintended contributions to terrorist attacks.

Quote: Mission146

I don't mind, "What-about-ism," because-if for no other reason-it clearly sets a standard for behavior and consequences that should, in theory, at least be applied consistently.

This is a very good point. If other acts of violence can be directly linked to the action of other politicians, they should be held to the highest levels of accountability.

I am moving much more to the idea that certain people and groups of people, such as national level politicians, should be held to higher standards than the rest of us. It seems there are others who think they should be held to lower standards.

Quote: SOOPOO

If someone says ‘go protest peacefully and you take that to mean use violence, you really want to blame the speaker? Really??? ‘He should have known by saying that that they would use violence! He needed to say it how many times to make you happy???

Based on seeing highlights, and very brief research just now, I don't think Trump said "protest peacefully", it was "peacefully march to the Capitol", or close to that. And that's what they did, the march was peaceful enough to not make the news. Then when they got to the Capitol, they did what he also said, which was "fight like hell".

But my opinion is that we should not be picking the nits out of crap by focusing these types of semantics. If he did 'Incite Insurrection', it should be based on what he either knew would happen, or should have known would happen.

Quote: TominNV

Have to disagree with this. "I didn't know my blood alcohol level was that high" is not a valid reason to drive drunk. "I didn't intend to crash my car and kill someone" is not a valid defense. Ignorance and intent of the law and how they apply to different crimes are beyond my "expertise" (or lack thereof), but it says a lot if a significant part of the defense is based on Trump's ignorance and his unintended contributions to terrorist attacks.

Ignorance is not a defense, but it is also not a crime unto itself. Incitement requires that an individual promote, encourage or orchestrate violence (via another person) that is both imminent and aimed at a specific individual(s). You'd want to start with the SCOTUS decision in Brandenburg for more on that, which you can just Google with those terms.

Anyway, Brandenburg set a really high standard, primarily because of how high a value that we (and the Constitution) place upon freedom of speech. Taken literally, Trump said absolutely nothing about actually storming the Capitol or doing any sort of violence to anyone.

The only reason you have an Impeachment trial right now is because of how the rules for Impeachment work. If you were a prosecutor and wanted to pursue charges of Incitement on this in a criminal court, then you'd be laughed right out of the courthouse.

Drunk driving is much different because there's a certain objective aspect to the crime. You blow into the thing and you're either over the limit or you're not. There's an extremely clear standard and nothing is left for interpretation.

Quote:

This is a very good point. If other acts of violence can be directly linked to the action of other politicians, they should be held to the highest levels of accountability.

I am moving much more to the idea that certain people and groups of people, such as national level politicians, should be held to higher standards than the rest of us. It seems there are others who think they should be held to lower standards.

I agree that they should be held to higher standards in the social sense. In the legal sense, everyone should be held to the same standards.

Quote: SOOPOO

Good example. We don’t prosecute GOD. we prosecute the doer.

Can’t prosecute someone that doesn’t exist.

Unfortunately, Donny exists.

Quote: Mission146

I agree that they should be held to higher standards in the social sense. In the legal sense, everyone should be held to the same standards.

Put in handcuffs, booked, and left in jail cell over the weekend until a judge sets bail, with orders that he cannot leave the jurisdiction. He might beat the rap, but he can't beat the ride. It happens to other people for much lower charges, with much less evidence.

Quote: Mission146

Anyway, Brandenburg set a really high standard, primarily because of how high a value that we (and the Constitution) place upon freedom of speech. Taken literally, Trump said absolutely nothing about actually storming the Capitol or doing any sort of violence to anyone.

The only reason you have an Impeachment trial right now is because of how the rules for Impeachment work. If you were a prosecutor and wanted to pursue charges of Incitement on this in a criminal court, then you'd be laughed right out of the courthouse.

Thank you! But this is not a real trial as we know it. Heck, one of the jurors is the acting judge! All of the jurors could be witnesses! Each Democrat juror has already announced their decision BEFORE the trial! The entire process is frankly an embarrassment. It is theater.