Trump Impeachment # 2

[Enhance]

6 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I guess stick with the three scenarios for brevity sake:

 

Maxine Waters 

Kamala Harris (multiple occasions I’m sure you are aware since you follow the news closely) encouraging the rioting and in interviews saying they won’t stop, along with bailing out the arrested rioters which in turn encourages more rioting since there are no repercussions for rioting.

Bernie Sanders rhetoric prior to the congressional DC shooting by one of his supporters.  

 

I'll have to revisit these and follow up, but thanks for the examples to start.

 

(In the meantime, I think it's important to point out right away that I don't think any of these people qualified for impeachment at the time of these events. I don't believe senators and congresspersons can be impeached, based on the letter of the Constitution. So, if they made these comments while senators or congresspersons, then they could only be expelled from their roles).

[Notre Dame Joe]

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Bingo

The TSM Impeachers quickly found out that any witness list would include Nancy Pelosi, who would have to answer What did you know and when did you know it? concerning the National Guard troops.  They were activated by the Trump administration yet nowhere near the scene on Jan 6th.  Now in a real court this is worked out before the trial but apparently Leahy's Senate didn't get around to it.

4 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Agree that no prediction holds any water at this point.

 

But are you going to tell me the proper gentlemen of the GOP would never harass, bully, or dig up ancient and feeble charges to undermine a Democrat adversary?  Please.

 

Hillary Clinton never held the office, and she woke up to this level of witch hunt every day for 30 years.

 

Also, Donald Trump asked for it. I mean he literally asked for it. Every attack that has come his way can be traced to an over-wrought, self-serving, thin-skinned attack or misdeed Trump initiated himself in his very public 40 years of being a notorious a$$h@!e.  

 HRC was given a blanket immunity before the group interview held jointly with her attorney-operatives.  Comey et al had no trouble saying NO when asked to arrest her for her many crimes.  That courtesy is no longer afforded to one party and one President who got the modern ducking stool. 

[Archy1221]

11 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Do me a favor and replace "rioting" with "protesting" since you know it makes a difference. 

Why.  There is literally hours upon hours of video footage showing riots this summer.  So I guess I will pass on your suggestion. 

[Notre Dame Joe]

10 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I'll have to revisit these and follow up, but thanks for the examples to start.

 

(In the meantime, I think it's important to point out right away that I don't think any of these people qualified for impeachment at the time of these events. I don't believe senators and congresspersons can be impeached, based on the letter of the Constitution. So, if they made these comments while senators or congresspersons, then they could only be expelled from their roles).

Since apparently no one reads the Constitution anymore, we have to tolerate people saying "impeach" when they mean "expel" concerning Congress.

[TGHusker]

2 hours ago, Redux said:

 

You heart is in the right place on this and I don't disagree with it.  But we cannot convict and punish people who did not commit the crime.  Yes he attained a following, that is not a crime.  The following committed the crime, punish them.  And that's what is happening.

 

If we set the precedent that we can punish individuals based off the actions of others I don't think any of us will like the America we are left with.

@Redux  you are totally off base with your assumptions.  While attaining a following isn't a crime,  inciting a riot is a federal crime.

 

Easy internet search:

 

Inciting Insurrection or Rebellion Against the U.S. Government. Federal law also prohibits inciting, assisting, or engaging in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority, laws, or operations of the U.S. Government

 

Incitement to riot is when a person encourages others to commit a breach of the peace without necessarily acting themselves. Conspiracy to riot involves planning acts that, if undertaken, would result in a breach of the peace

[Redux]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

Why was Charles Manson sent to prison for murders he didn't personally commit? Come on...

 

I don't mind playing a game of comparisons, but the examples should at least be germane. This is just silly.

 

The last time someone asked you about Manson you brought up beer and avoided the issue entirely. I know you can acknowledge why not all situations are created equal, hence the allowance for nuance in virtually all levels of judicial practices.

 

I didn't bring up Manson.  I agree, it is silly.  And I don't believe I did that. (EDIT - Commando said Charlie wasn't as crazy as Donnie and Scarlet responded that he would rather sit down for a beer with Charlie.  So no, that wasn't me.)

 

Look, bottom line is people feel like conviction was worthy.  Based on the evidence or lacl thereof I disagree.  His words did not reflect the actions of others.  And if we begin punishing politicians based off the actions of their constituency we won't have a government ina few years!

 

On 2nd thought maybe we should go through with this.....

 

But no, seriously Trump's phone call bullying vote counts was better evidence than his "Sorry I lost but won't admit it" speech.  The Dems dropped the ball again, the asterisk was the goal not the conviction.

[Redux]

6 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

@Redux  you are totally off base with your assumptions.  While attaining a following isn't a crime,  inciting a riot is a federal crime.

 

Easy internet search:

 

Inciting Insurrection or Rebellion Against the U.S. Government. Federal law also prohibits inciting, assisting, or engaging in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority, laws, or operations of the U.S. Government

 

Incitement to riot is when a person encourages others to commit a breach of the peace without necessarily acting themselves. Conspiracy to riot involves planning acts that, if undertaken, would result in a breach of the peace

 

And the incitement in question is completely based off of assumed intent and is open to interpretation.  Ergo Trump was acquitted.

[TGHusker]

 

29 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Why.  There is literally hours upon hours of video footage showing riots this summer.  So I guess I will pass on your suggestion.

 

31 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

HRC was given a blanket immunity before the group interview held jointly with her attorney-operatives.  Comey et al had no trouble saying NO when asked to arrest her for her many crimes.  That courtesy is no longer afforded to one party and one President who got the modern ducking stool. 

 

Whataboutism is a poor argument against the present issue dealing with Trump.  It is the ultimate  Deflection with accusations against Hillary or about the summer riots does not remove one ounce of culpability trump has in regards to Jan 6 and the riot at the capital..   Whataboutism is a good distraction until it isn't.  It gets people off target and off focus on the subject of THIS thread.  Start a new thread on Hillary and the summer's riots.  I'll be glad to discuss in those threads.  Whataboutism doesn't change anything that happened Jan 6th.   When there are no valid arguments in favor of Trump's actions/words of Jan 6, whataboutism becomes the only play possible for his supporters it appears.   It is also childish - I'm sure we all heard our mom tell us to be quiet and accept responsibility  when we tried to blame our bad action on a brother  "Well Mike did this".  (Mike is my brother and I tried to blame him for way too much).

 

[TGHusker]

6 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

And the incitement in question is completely based off of assumed intent and is open to interpretation.  Ergo Trump was acquitted.

On a technicality - the required 2/3 vote. Remember more senators voted for his guilt than not 57-43.  And many more voted for his acquittal for purely political purposes - as Moscow Mitch showed.  Intent can be proven in court- based on all of the circumstantial evidence brought forth by the House Mgrs. 

[TGHusker]

I hope the DA or DOJ brings charges against Trump so this can be played out in a real court and not politicized by

GOP senators who are afraid of losing their next election because of the cult members voting in their states. 

[Redux]

9 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

On a technicality - the required 2/3 vote. Remember more senators voted for his guilt than not 57-43.  And many more voted for his acquittal for purely political purposes - as Moscow Mitch showed.  Intent can be proven in court- based on all of the circumstantial evidence brought forth by the House Mgrs. 

 

Everything is political, of course it was political.  Don't pretend like some were doing it out of purity.  Call it a technicality all you want, they acquitted him for a reason and they voted the way they did knowing conviction wasn't happening.  It's like making a loud exit while picking a fight at a bar then running to the Uber before the other guy actually meets you in the parking lot.  It's all leveraging political theater.

[TGHusker]

33 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Everything is political, of course it was political.  Don't pretend like some were doing it out of purity.  Call it a technicality all you want, they acquitted him for a reason and they voted the way they did knowing conviction wasn't happening.  It's like making a loud exit while picking a fight at a bar then running to the Uber before the other guy actually meets you in the parking lot.  It's all leveraging political theater.

So what do you think would happen in a regular court case before a jury of his peers?

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

@Redux  you are totally off base with your assumptions.  While attaining a following isn't a crime,  inciting a riot is a federal crime.

 

Easy internet search:

 

Inciting Insurrection or Rebellion Against the U.S. Government. Federal law also prohibits inciting, assisting, or engaging in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority, laws, or operations of the U.S. Government

 

Incitement to riot is when a person encourages others to commit a breach of the peace without necessarily acting themselves. Conspiracy to riot involves planning acts that, if undertaken, would result in a breach of the peace

Of Trump is guilty of inciting a riot we can believe then that Biden’s DOJ will be bringing charges very soon? 

[TGHusker]

14 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Of Trump is guilty of inciting a riot we can believe then that Biden’s DOJ will be bringing charges very soon? 

One would think but I can just see Biden wanting to 'just move on'.   Biden also might need some support from the GOP side - if one Dem strays from the fold on any of his policy proposals that must pass the Senate.

[Redux]

31 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

So what do you think would happen in a regular court case before a jury of his peers?

 

Good luck getting to that point.