The Trump Impeachment Thread

Quote: Mission146

We've already discussed this. Politicians say, "Fight like hell," or, "Fight for xxxx," all the time without meaning that they actually want someone or someones to physically attack something or someone.

The problem is that no other politician has used the violent rhetoric like Trump has. No other politician was as desperate and dishonest as Trump was. No other politician has offered a private individual that they will pay their legal bills if they punch a liberal. No other politician has suggested to his follows to assassinate his opposition.

Context matters.

Quote: Tripdufan

The problem is that no other politician has used the violent rhetoric like Trump has. No other politician was as desperate and dishonest as Trump was. No other politician has offered a private individual that they will pay their legal bills if they punch a liberal. No other politician has suggested to his follows to assassinate his opposition.

Context matters.

Violent rhetoric that he didn't use on the very day that his rhetoric was supposed to have been intended to incite people to violence.

Perhaps not desperate, but I'm almost certain there have to be politicians out there who are at least as dishonest as Trump. Most of them just don't end up being the POTUS.

I guess context matters. The context in this one is that a person who does not shy away from violent rhetoric did not use violent rhetoric even though he allegedly was trying to incite people to violence on that day. Seems like he would just use violent rhetoric if he intended for that to happen.

Quote: Mission146

Violent rhetoric that he didn't use on the very day that his rhetoric was supposed to have been intended to incite people to violence.

Perhaps not desperate, but I'm almost certain there have to be politicians out there who are at least as dishonest as Trump. Most of them just don't end up being the POTUS.

I guess context matters. The context in this one is that a person who does not shy away from violent rhetoric did not use violent rhetoric even though he allegedly was trying to incite people to violence on that day. Seems like he would just use violent rhetoric if he intended for that to happen.

There is no question Trump wanted violence to stop the process
I'm shocked by this call

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html
"New details about Trump-McCarthy shouting match show Trump refused to call off the rioters"

In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the Capitol was under attack, then-President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did.

"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.
McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump's supporters and begged Trump to call them off.
Trump's comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, "Who the f--k do you think you are talking to?" according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call."

Quote: TominNV

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.

Yes Trump is held to a looser standard than a court of law, 75% for conviction. A jury must be 100%.

Quote: Mission146

I guess context matters. The context in this one is that a person who does not shy away from violent rhetoric did not use violent rhetoric even though he allegedly was trying to incite people to violence on that day. Seems like he would just use violent rhetoric if he intended for that to happen.

Yeah, I agree. And he did. Repeatedly. And his supporters acted on it. And WHILE they were doing it, they said it was for him. You're trying to say that nothing sort of "we're going to storm the capitol and hang those motherf**kers and I'm going to be right there with ya (instead of watching it on tv for hours)" is zero evidence of incitement. It's ridiculous.

You can go out of your way to find a definition of it that somehow gets you to the middle of the road where you've pitched your tent, but isn't the answer in their own words? They were violent. They said they were doing it for Trump. It was lawlessness in his name. He gave them the impression through the last 5 years that this is what it has come down to. All the boogeymen things that have been coming to steal their country and the election are down at the capitol. The entire presidency culminated with a riot. Their Last Stand. Their chance to stop the steal. Yeah, a desperate man with desperate supporters who have been fed lies and revved up by divisive and yes, violent rhetoric. Fed lies...because the truths are hard to accept.

I honestly don't really care all that much about the outcome of this impeachment and I was never expecting much. He won't win again anyway. And while I'd rather not have my tax dollars go to him, whatever. I think it was more important to impeach him and not let this precedent stand than it is for the GOP to fulfill their oaths.

Nah, guys like Jon McCain are dead. He was a RINO anyway. He got captured. What a loser. I was never a fan.

Quote: kenarman

Yes Trump is held to a looser standard than a court of law, 75% for conviction. A jury must be 100%.

2/3. Not 3/4.

Trump's lawyers were given sixteen hours to present their defense. This is some of what they did in three hours. Using video clips to beat the democrats at their own game.

Michael Van Der Veen begins showing the clips at 4:30

Quote: terapined

There is no question Trump wanted violence to stop the process
I'm shocked by this call

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html
"New details about Trump-McCarthy shouting match show Trump refused to call off the rioters"

In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the Capitol was under attack, then-President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did.

"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.
McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump's supporters and begged Trump to call them off.
Trump's comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, "Who the f--k do you think you are talking to?" according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call."

Let me try to make this more clear: I am not suggesting that Trump's conduct on that day wasn't Impeachable under some other theoretical article that could have been presented; I'm suggesting that Trump did not incite an insurrection. What he may or may not have done or said after an insurrection was already taking place has no bearing on whether or not he incited it.

Quote: Tripdufan

Yeah, I agree. And he did. Repeatedly. And his supporters acted on it. And WHILE they were doing it, they said it was for him. You're trying to say that nothing sort of "we're going to storm the capitol and hang those motherf**kers and I'm going to be right there with ya (instead of watching it on tv for hours)" is zero evidence of incitement. It's ridiculous.

It doesn't matter what they said it was for or why they said they were doing it. What matters is whether or not his speech was made, provably, with the intention of having his supporters storm the Capitol Building. If you can't prove that was the intent, and a literal interpretation of his words do not support that, then you don't have incitement.

Again, I think he could and should be impeached for his conduct that day, but not under the guise of insurrection.

Quote:

You can go out of your way to find a definition of it that somehow gets you to the middle of the road where you've pitched your tent, but isn't the answer in their own words? They were violent. They said they were doing it for Trump. It was lawlessness in his name. He gave them the impression through the last 5 years that this is what it has come down to. All the boogeymen things that have been coming to steal their country and the election are down at the capitol. The entire presidency culminated with a riot. Their Last Stand. Their chance to stop the steal. Yeah, a desperate man with desperate supporters who have been fed lies and revved up by divisive and yes, violent rhetoric. Fed lies...because the truths are hard to accept.

The answer in their own words? It doesn't matter what they think. What matters is whether or not the content of Trump's speech could be proven to have the intent of causing an insurrection. Some of Trump's supporters also say the election was stolen; does that automatically become factual just because they are saying it?

Anyway, I don't meaningfully disagree with anything else in that paragraph re: being fed lies for five years. Where we disagree is whether or not the content of Trump's speech, on that day, was made with the intent of inciting an insurrection. Honestly, I can say it may have been, but it's not provably so.

Quote:

I honestly don't really care all that much about the outcome of this impeachment and I was never expecting much. He won't win again anyway. And while I'd rather not have my tax dollars go to him, whatever. I think it was more important to impeach him and not let this precedent stand than it is for the GOP to fulfill their oaths.

Nah, guys like Jon McCain are dead. He was a RINO anyway. He got captured. What a loser. I was never a fan.

I wouldn't mind the idea of him never being able to run again, but that doesn't mean that I would be willing to call something a thing that it is not in a results-oriented vote. If they were to present an article of impeachment on some other basis, (but concerning the events of that day) then there's a very good chance I would be all for it.

They set the bar when they called it, "Inciting an Insurrection," which has a clear legal meaning, and I don't think their evidence has cleared that bar to my satisfaction. They didn't have to set the bar there. They could have set a much lower bar such that the events of that day would sufficiently clear it. At that point, the question becomes whether or not that bar is something that you should be able to impeach for.

Quote: Mission146

Let me try to make this more clear: I am not suggesting that Trump's conduct on that day wasn't Impeachable under some other theoretical article that could have been presented; I'm suggesting that Trump did not incite an insurrection. What he may or may not have done or said after an insurrection was already taking place has no bearing on whether or not he incited it.

It is quite AMAZING that the HOUSE MANAGERS cannot grasp this simple point!

One problem I have is this.... Does ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ include what I would call ‘dereliction of duty’? To me, if he did not act to end the insurrection as soon as he became aware of it, that is dereliction of duty, and SHOULD be impeachable.

On a separate issue, I am frankly stunned that there isn’t a system in place to marshall all necessary resources to quell an insurrection WITHOUT the need to call a President to ask for help. What if he was golfing and unavailable? But seriously.... it should be up to some law enforcement or security guy to have a system that just automatically gets put in place.