The Trump Impeachment Thread

Quote: Mission146

Tripdufan,

What, specifically, did Donald Trump say in that speech that should constitute incitement in your opinion? Please quote verbatim.

“Our country has had enough"

“you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong”

“We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.”

“We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

“We want to go back, and we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.”

“Nobody knows what the hell is going on. There’s never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen.” The crowd repeatedly chanted “Fight for Trump!” He could've reminded his supporters to stay peaceful here, but didn't, instead, he said “Thank you”

“We will not be intimidated into accepting the hoaxes and the lies that we’ve been forced to believe over the past several weeks.”

Those lines are from his speech. Now your claim is to suggest that the same man who said these things while spending years using violent rhetoric at his rallies, "carry them out on a stretcher", "I'll pay your legal bills", "maybe the 2nd amendment people can do something about hillary clinton", "I'd like to punch him in the face", "I can shoot somebody on 5th aven and not lose votes", who also spent months lying about the election, EXPECTED his supporters to march down to the capitol and be good little peaceful snowflakes?

LMFAO...no. He knew what the possibilities were and he threw gas on fire.

Quote: Mission146

Also, you were talking about being handcuffed and taken to jail for the weekend...so I assumed we were using the criminal standard.

No I wasn't.

One of Trump's defense lawyer from the previous impeachment was asked about the dereliction of duty charge and was of the opinion even that was not impeachable.

So you even have the possibility a bunch of senators would have rejected that idea as well.

So, sure you can impeach even a ham sandwich, but you sure can have trouble convicting it.

Quote: TominNV

Charges were brought against him by a prosecuting body, a majority of representatives voted in favor of those charges, a majority of Senators voted that the charges should go to trial. That indicates a far greater level of evidence than police forces often use to arrest people.

You gave me a real LOL moment. Tears running down my eyes! The prosecuting body needed ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE to vote on the article of impeachment! ABSOLUTELY ZERO. And you know this! All they needed were a majority of Representatives to vote on the article. And the majority party did just that!

Quote: TominNV

Charges were brought against him by a prosecuting body, a majority of representatives voted in favor of those charges, a majority of Senators voted that the charges should go to trial. That indicates a far greater level of evidence than police forces often use to arrest people. Sometimes those police forces go ahead with executions instead of arrests, even without evidence against their target. From this week: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/idaho-falls-man-killed-in-his-backyard-officer-mistook-him-for-suspect/

Okay, so should the legal standard of what is appropriate under the law apply to everyone or should everyone be subject to illegal abuses under the banner of law equally? Obviously, the events in the story to which you linked shouldn't have happened.

Politically expedient charges were brought against him by the House of Representatives, many of whom would (and previously did) take any excuse they could get to pursue Impeachment. They did that in the first instance of Impeachment which, even if the subject matter allegations were accepted as completely true, wouldn't even necessarily be sufficient to satisfy removal from office.***

In any event, the House of Representatives is basically the equivalent of what an indictment would be in a criminal proceeding. Enough of the (Democrat controlled) House decided that there was enough there on Incitement of Insurrection that bringing forth the charge before the Senate was justified. That doesn't really constitute, "Evidence," unto itself exactly, much less proof.

The question of whether or not the thing should go to trial had exactly nothing to do with, "Evidence." The question was whether or not the Impeachment trial was itself Constitutional on the grounds that Trump is no longer the President. Essentially, a, 'No,' vote was basically saying that you should not be able to be tried for Impeachment if you are no longer in office. That vote, in itself, had nothing to do with the actual facts of the case. The fact that even that vote was split along party lines tells you everything you need to know on both sides about this entire charade.

***Of course, bribery and treason aside, the Constitution does a really poor job of defining what should be sufficient.

Quote: Tripdufan

“Our country has had enough"

“you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong”

“We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.”

“We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

“We want to go back, and we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed, and we’re not going to stand for that.”

“Nobody knows what the hell is going on. There’s never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen.” The crowd repeatedly chanted “Fight for Trump!” He could've reminded his supporters to stay peaceful here, but didn't, instead, he said “Thank you”

“We will not be intimidated into accepting the hoaxes and the lies that we’ve been forced to believe over the past several weeks.”

Those lines are from his speech. Now your claim is to suggest that the same man who said these things while spending years using violent rhetoric at his rallies, "carry them out on a stretcher", "I'll pay your legal bills", "maybe the 2nd amendment people can do something about hillary clinton", "I'd like to punch him in the face", "I can shoot somebody on 5th aven and not lose votes", who also spent months lying about the election, expected his supporters to march down to the capitol and be good little peaceful snowflakes?

LMFAO...no

My point is not that at all. My point is that, when you take his words literally, none of them are an Incitement to Insurrection. Much less do any of those words say anything about storming into the Capitol building.

It was interesting that you emboldened the, "Fight like hell," because I could find any number of instances of politicians using the word, "Fight," or, "Fight for the future of this country," in speeches. Would they similarly be guilty of Incitement of Insurrection if the people listening to those speeches went and committed physical crimes about whatever it is they are supposed to be fighting against?

People have even referred to the, "Fight for Fifteen," in regards to minimum wage. If I take that to mean that I should physically attack the person or property of any entity that pays less than $15/hour does that make the speaker responsible?

"We will not let them silence your voices," is interesting in that it would seem to refer directly to being vocal about it.

Quote:

Those lines are from his speech. Now your claim is to suggest that the same man who said these things while spending years using violent rhetoric at his rallies, "carry them out on a stretcher", "I'll pay your legal bills", "maybe the 2nd amendment people can do something about hillary clinton", "I'd like to punch him in the face", "I can shoot somebody on 5th aven and not lose votes", who also spent months lying about the election, expected his supporters to march down to the capitol and be good little peaceful snowflakes?

I guess if I had a point at all it would be that someone who has clearly not shied away from the use of violent rhetoric wouldn't avoid violent rhetoric if he actually intended for his listeners to commit acts of violence. There wasn't anything in his speech that mentioned any sort of specific act of violence. That, at a minimum, is what you'd need to have for Incitement of Insurrection to succeed.

If the Republic was lost in complete chaos January 20th and the US ended as we know it, the history books would record that according to the Constitution Trump was innocent of incitement.

F***ing Hilarious, ain't it?

Quote: Mission146

Okay, so should the legal standard of what is appropriate under the law apply to everyone or should everyone be subject to illegal abuses under the banner of law equally? Obviously, the events in the story to which you linked shouldn't have happened.

Under our current system of laws and law enforcement there are many people who did nothing wrong are subjected to abuses, and the implementation of our laws declares those abuses to be perfectly legal. Perhaps not legal under the letter of the law, but legally permissible due to the corruption of law enforcement.

If congress believes Trump committed impeachable offenses, impeach him. If the Senate believes he did it, convict him. We all obviously knew the outcome before it happened. The people with a D next to their name would vote one way, the people with an R would vote the other way. If you want Trump instead held to the same standard as everyone else, then we would be seeing a DA somewhere get a warrant for his arrest. Which means instead of this trial in the Senate, he should have been put in handcuffs and then a jail cell. If that isn't happening, then there is a different standard. I am ok with that. But for a president, it should mean the different standard is that he is held to the highest standards.

Quote: Mission146

I guess if I had a point at all it would be that someone who has clearly not shied away from the use of violent rhetoric wouldn't avoid violent rhetoric if he actually intended for his listeners to commit acts of violence. There wasn't anything in his speech that mentioned any sort of specific act of violence. That, at a minimum, is what you'd need to have for Incitement of Insurrection to succeed.

The context matters.

This was the LAST attempt at overturning the result of the election and the clock was ticking. You're claiming that Trump was saying, "hey, march down to the capitol and protest with your voice", the SAME thing they have been doing all over the country with NO RESULTS for the last couple months? Anybody with any inkling of common sense knows that while Trump may have not directly advocated for violence, he definitely elicited it, because he had exhausted all other options. At this point, he was desperate.

And no, that is NOT what you'd need as a minimum for impeachment. Criminal? Private citizen protected first amendment speech? Maybe. But NOT impeachment of a government official.

Quote: rxwine

If the Republic was lost in complete chaos January 20th and the US ended as we know it, the history books would record that according to the Constitution Trump was innocent of incitement.

F***ing Hilarious, ain't it?

Without Freedom of Speech, the Republic would be lost. It's one of the only Constitutional protections generally afforded the seriousness that it deserves.