Trump Impeachment # 2

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

I don’t know that there was one from a legal sense.  Maybe failure to carry out duties after the riot started?  Whatever that falls under.  It certainly wasn’t incitement 

And the things said and actions taken prior to the riots? Those are ok? Spreading conspiracies and coercing government officials to find votes for him?

[Archy1221]

12 minutes ago, ZRod said:

And the things said and actions taken prior to the riots? Those are ok? Spreading conspiracies and coercing government officials to find votes for him?

Did you listen to call in question about votes?  Do you understand what he was referencing?  There will be no conviction, most likely no trial for election tampering in Georgia.   Trump spoke about hundreds of thousands of votes that his team thought were illegal and he only needed some 11,000 to be invalidated.  He wasn’t asking someone to make up votes that weren’t real, or invalidate legal votes (or at least legal in his teams research) 

 

What actions prior to riots were illegal or inciting?  

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Did you listen to call in question about votes?  Do you understand what he was referencing?  There will be no conviction, most likely no trial for election tampering in Georgia.   Trump spoke about hundreds of thousands of votes that his team thought were illegal and he only needed some 11,000 to be invalidated.  He wasn’t asking someone to make up votes that weren’t real, or invalidate legal votes (or at least legal in his teams research) 

 

What actions prior to riots were illegal or inciting?  

I've listened to the whole call in it's entirety. It's embarrassing and alarming. The following is attempted election tampering by coercion. He point blank makes a threat, then asks them to "find votes".

Quote

because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a
criminal — that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have 

 

You're hung up on legality or lack thereof as a requirement for impeachment. Nothing has to be illegal for impeachment to be invoked. High crimes and misdemeanors is a well understood phrase by the founding fathers and it in no way meant the actions themselves had to be illegal or criminal in nature.

 

Again, Trump's entire body of work was inciting; from the moment he began running for president. The fuse was long, but it finally reached a powder keg on January 6th. He praise the Biden bus being run off the road. Constantly sowed seeds of fear. Fuel conspiracy theories. Falsely accused any opponent of cheating. Told his base they would lose their country if they didn't fight. And on, and on.

[knapplc]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Did you listen to call in question about votes?  Do you understand what he was referencing?  There will be no conviction, most likely no trial for election tampering in Georgia.   Trump spoke about hundreds of thousands of votes that his team thought were illegal and he only needed some 11,000 to be invalidated.  He wasn’t asking someone to make up votes that weren’t real, or invalidate legal votes (or at least legal in his teams research) 

 

What actions prior to riots were illegal or inciting?  

 

Now apply this same logic to Biden in the next four years and you won't have a THING to complain about.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

3 hours ago, ZRod said:

Nothing has to be illegal for impeachment to be invoked. High crimes and misdemeanors is a well understood phrase by the founding fathers and it in no way meant the actions themselves had to be illegal or criminal in nature.

I just got a case of deja vu 

Spoiler

we-should-only-deport-illegal-aliens-hbeingliberal-if-they-do-14437775.png (500×728) (onsizzle.com)

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

 

13 hours ago, Enhance said:

I looked into these (had trouble finding the Bernie rhetoric?). My overall verdict is that I don't think the situations are as comparable as you do, and some of your claims here are opinions and not verifiable facts.

 

I see some similarities as it relates to brash and reprehensible rhetoric, but they fail to match the equivalency and facts of the below IMO:

 

• the most powerful man in the world
• falsely claimed an election was stolen from him, repeatedly
• Held rallies and news conferences to push this false message, without hard evidence
• The day of the electoral confirmation process, held a rally that fired up his angry/emotional supporters before telling them to go march on the federal capitol building. And what was the messaging for those two months? 'Stop the steal.'

 

I think it's illogical to try to put all of those on the same playing field as if they're equivalent to one another. I'm not defending or condoning how many Democratic officials conduct and carry themselves, but if we're going to say it's equivalent to things Trump said and did, then the situations should share a majority of clear equivalencies. For the most part, they don't.

 

Additionally, and as I mentioned earlier, all of your examples are not impeachable by the letter of the Constitution. Those three people could've been expelled from their roles, but they can not be impeached.

 

if there is a disparity here, it's that the Ds said far worse and the violence was far worse.   Trump did not say "these protests won't stop and they shouldn't stop" nor did he set up a bail fund/pardon for even the non-violent protestors. 

5 hours ago, ZRod said:

And the things said and actions taken prior to the riots? Those are ok? Spreading conspiracies and coercing government officials to find votes for him?

Who was coerced and how many votes were found?

[ZRod]

6 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Who was coerced and how many votes were found?

I'm pretty sure you know the answer, and I'm pretty sure you also know that even in a real criminal trial the requested criminal act need not be committed by the person who is being coerced or solicited. Only that the criminal act was requested.

 

That's why you have attempted murder, attempted robbery, attempted extortion, etc.

[Redux]

Quote

"if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore"

 

He shouldn't have said this.  This is too loosely interpreted by the radicals as a call to arms.  Poor choice of words, but at the very least he followed it up with:

 

Quote

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

 

Pretty cut and dry, can't really misinterpret this one.

 

I liked this take on it though it leans closer to many on here who think it not only toes the line but steps over it.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-55640437

[ZRod]

Just now, Redux said:

 

He shouldn't have said this.  This is too loosely interpreted by the radicals as a call to arms.  Poor choice of words, but at the very least he followed it up with:

 

 

Pretty cut and dry, can't really misinterpret this one.

 

I liked this take on it though it leans closer to many on here who think it not only toes the line but steps over it.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-55640437

When does a poor choice of words no longer become defensible? For 5 or 6 years that's been the go to excuse. At this point I don't think it's a reflection on choices, but the person's character, morales, and ethics.

[TGHusker]

4 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

He shouldn't have said this.  This is too loosely interpreted by the radicals as a call to arms.  Poor choice of words, but at the very least he followed it up with:

 

 

Pretty cut and dry, can't really misinterpret this one.

 

I liked this take on it though it leans closer to many on here who think it not only toes the line but steps over it.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-55640437

the conclusion of your article I think is damming towards Trump:

 

Quote

 

If this was a court of law, does Trump cross the line?

It's quite rare that somebody can be convicted of incitement. In applying that to the president's speech at the rally, it's an agonisingly close case.

It's pretty goddamn imminent because he's telling people to march to the Capitol and I will march with you. There wouldn't be any time for better counsels to prevail because you're just going to leave the Ellipse and walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.

He said we have to fight and show strength, but he also said we're very peacefully and patriotically going to ask, so he's covering himself. In the end, I think it's a jury question.

I'm not sure he's entitled to a dismissal of charges as a matter of law. There's some discussion that government leaders have more leeway, but I don't know how that would play out.

He clearly knew there were people in that crowd who were ready to and intended to be violent, and he certainly did nothing to discourage that. He not only did nothing to discourage it, he strongly hinted it should happen.

 

 

[Redux]

2 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

the conclusion of your article I think is damming towards Trump

 

Huh, wonder what will happen!  Oh wait....

[Redux]

5 minutes ago, ZRod said:

When does a poor choice of words no longer become defensible? For 5 or 6 years that's been the go to excuse. At this point I don't think it's a reflection on choices, but the person's character, morales, and ethics.

 

Remember this for up to the next 4yrs

[TGHusker]

7 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Huh, wonder what will happen!  Oh wait....

Huh, nothing - thanks to the GOP

[ZRod]

5 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Remember this for up to the next 4yrs

Ok. I would love to have this conversation in 4 years.

 

Remind me again when Biden tells people to fight like hell, rough them up, don't go easy, grab em by the pu&&y, that a civil protestor is a son of a b!^@h, to find a way to inject sunlight or ingest disinfectant, calls people offensive names like; sleepy Joe, Lying Chuck, Dumb Nancy, Pocahontas, Mr. Magoo, etc, etc. Or how about when he tells American citizens to go back to their own country. Or asks for State officials to commit election fraud, or a foreign government to dig up dirt to influence an election, or says he believes Valdamir Putin over our of intelligence community, or stand in front of the 117 stars for fallen CIA agents and brag about crowd size. Or continuously spread false conspiracy theories, and on and on and on...

[knapplc]

11 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Ok. I would love to have this conversation in 4 years.

 

Remind me again when Biden tells people to fight like hell, rough them up, don't go easy, grab em by the pu&&y, that a civil protestor is a son of a b!^@h, to find a way to inject sunlight or ingest disinfectant, calls people offensive names like; sleepy Joe, Lying Chuck, Dumb Nancy, Pocahontas, Mr. Magoo, etc, etc. Or how about when he tells American citizens to go back to their own country. Or asks for State officials to commit election fraud, or a foreign government to dig up dirt to influence an election, or says he believes Valdamir Putin over our of intelligence community, or stand in front of the 117 stars for fallen CIA agents and brag about crowd size. Or continuously spread false conspiracy theories, and on and on and on...

 

How much of your soul do you have to have sold to defend this? Bonkers.