Split Thread A second impeachment

[acbytesla]

Latest report is that the House of Representatives will impeach Donald J Trump this week. but likely delay sending articles of Impeachment to the United States Senate.

This according to a letter Speaker Pelosi sent out in the last hour.

Then it's a farce. Another political dog and pony show.

I'm not so sure. Yes, it is a bit of political theater. But starting on January 20th it's time to get rolling on a lot of things. It's important to get a new cabinet approved and start moving on Biden's legislative agenda. The discussion is they can send the impeachment article to the Senate at any time like after Biden's first 100 days.

 

[The Atheist]

"When the President orders an angry mob to storm the Capitol and 5 people die CONSEQUENCES SHOULD OCCUR"

Can you show me where Trump ordered people to storm the Capitol, because I missed that bit. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/trump-speech-riot.html

Thanks.

 

[acbytesla]

Can you show me where Trump ordered people to storm the Capitol, because I missed that bit. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/trump-speech-riot.html

Thanks.

Trump always leaves himself a verbal out. He's been using mobspeak for decades. He invited the mob to the White House on the 6th. He said it would be wild. He then told his audience to fight and to walk down to the Capitol. Rudy said we'll have a trial by combat.

So stop with the nonsense.

 

[Delvo]

"Can you show me where he told them to do that? By the way, here's a link to exactly where he told them to do that."

 

[dirtywick]

It’s like when they find all those dead birds. thousands of people coincidentally and independently made the same decision. No rational reason for it

 

[The Atheist]

So stop with the nonsense.

The NYT link seems to have all of the speech he gave to the crowd.

Point out where he calls for violence, rioting, or storming the Capitol.

Shouldn't be too hard to do - you and Joe seem very certain of your ground, but I hear the American justice system works like ours, where a conviction must come on the back of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Here's the link again in case you missed it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/trump-speech-riot.html

 

[The Atheist]

"Can you show me where he told them to do that? By the way, here's a link to exactly where he told them to do that."

Same as the previous reply - where did he say that?

Lots of rolling eyes and snide comments don't convict people.

 

[The Atheist]

thousands of people coincidentally and independently made the same decision. No rational reason for it

Does this mean you think the BLM riots and looting were co-ordinated as well?

 

[dirtywick]

Does this mean you think the BLM riots and looting were co-ordinated as well?

many people showed up to those protests with a predetermined intent on rioting.

if you’re asking me if joe Biden incited those riots, then the answer is no.

 

[dirtywick]

just to be clear, Trump railed for over an hour to a crowd of people about how the election was stolen and the people who are supposed to fix that just won’t do it, that the crowd needs to fight to keep the country, pointed out where they are, and told everyone to go there.

but he has no responsibility for what happens when the get there.

 

[acbytesla]

The NYT link seems to have all of the speech he gave to the crowd.

Point out where he calls for violence, rioting, or storming the Capitol.

Shouldn't be too hard to do - you and Joe seem very certain of your ground, but I hear the American justice system works like ours, where a conviction must come on the back of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Here's the link again in case you missed it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/trump-speech-riot.html

Again, Trump doesn't do that. He uses language that makes it clear what he wants, but is never so specific that he doesn't have plausible deniability. Michael Cohen testified before Congress that this is how Trump operates.

 

[Delvo]

He doesn't have plausible deniability. He just has sycophants who are willing to pretend whatever they need to pretend for him.

 

[Thermal]

The NYT link seems to have all of the speech he gave to the crowd.

Point out where he calls for violence, rioting, or storming the Capitol.

Shouldn't be too hard to do - you and Joe seem very certain of your ground, but I hear the American justice system works like ours, where a conviction must come on the back of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Here's the link again in case you missed it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/trump-speech-riot.html

Well the crime of incitement doesn't require orders or verbodum instructions. It is speech which will likely bring about imminent lawless action. Not a single direct command need be given.

 

[acbytesla]

He doesn't have plausible deniability. He just has sycophants who are willing to pretend whatever they need to pretend for him.

I don't think it is plausible at all. I'm just saying Trump is always suggesting and alluding to breaking the law all the while trying not to be explicit.

 

[Delvo]

The argument that he must be impeached to have a precedent about consequences doesn't really work. Consequences don't need to be in the form of a political vote by politicians. In fact, that's a very bad method to rely on, and thus bad to set a precedent of relying on, for dealing with the head of a cult whose followers are the voting based that some of those same politicians rely on. It's like telling a Sith that the Galactic Senate will decide his fate when he's already taken over the minds of most of the Senators. And in this case back on Earth, rioters are getting arrested & prosecuted, so the person who incited them can get arrested & prosecuted too.

 

[Meadmaker]

The NYT link seems to have all of the speech he gave to the crowd.

Point out where he calls for violence, rioting, or storming the Capitol.

Shouldn't be too hard to do - you and Joe seem very certain of your ground, but I hear the American justice system works like ours, where a conviction must come on the back of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Here's the link again in case you missed it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/us/trump-speech-riot.html

When it comes to criminal trials, I think The Atheist here is correct. I don't think he could be convicted, at least not based on the words of his speech. As he so often does, Trump uses weasel words, and someone else ends up holding the bag, and he denies responsibility. I was listening live to his speech, and I worried that the mob would storm the Capitol, but he didn't actually say that they ought to. It was painfully obvious to me, though, that some of the crowd would take it that way.

To get a criminal conviction, you would have to show that Donald Trump knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a criminal act would result from his incitement. That's a tough sell.


Impeachment is a different matter, though. There's no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.


I also wonder if somehow failing to call off the crowd could be a criminal offense. Could not protecting the Capitol somehow be considered criminal negligence? I'm usually strongly against any attempt to take ordinary actions and twist them into a criminal charge, In this case, his actions weren't ordinary, and I doubt they were criminal, but if it could be shown that he knew criminal actions were occurring, and he believed he could stop them, and he deliberately chose not to stop them, I think that would be criminal, but again it's a tough sell. It might depend, though, on the testimony of others.

In general, I would not put money on a conviction in a criminal trial. I think the standards are too high. However, he did incite that crowd to storm the Capitol, and I don't really care if he knew he was doing it, or if he did it accidentally via incompetence. Throw the bum out. The man should not be President, and I say that with confidence that goes beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[The Atheist]

Again, Trump doesn't do that. He uses language that makes it clear what he wants, but is never so specific that he doesn't have plausible deniability.

Well the crime of incitement doesn't require orders or verbodum* instructions. It is speech which will likely bring about imminent lawless action. Not a single direct command need be given.

He doesn't have plausible deniability. He just has sycophants who are willing to pretend whatever they need to pretend for him.

Have you guys ever looked at the relevant law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

(*verbatim)

Colour me amused that after all this time, no sooner do Democrats take the reins than they decide to bring themselves down to the other side's level.

Brilliant.

The fact that none of you can point to a call for imminent action doesn't surprise me in the least. For goodness' sake don't let little things like a lack of evidence stop you from picking up the pitchforks.

 

[The Atheist]

Impeachment is a different matter, though. There's no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

Impeachment's irrelevant, because it's purely partisan and the Republicans will vote it down in Senate.

 

[acbytesla]

Have you guys ever looked at the relevant law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

(*verbatim)

Colour me amused that after all this time, no sooner do Democrats take the reins than they decide to bring themselves down to the other side's level.

Brilliant.

The fact that none of you can point to a call for imminent action doesn't surprise me in the least. For goodness' sake don't let little things like a lack of evidence stop you from picking up the pitchforks.

Huh? "March to the Capitol and fight". "Trial by Combat".

You're talking nonsense.

Do you have any understanding of what reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence is? And neither of these legal standards are required for impeachment. It ISN'T a criminal action.

 

[Meadmaker]

Then it's a farce. Another political dog and pony show.

I'm so conflicted on what they ought to do, but I think I agree with this. Why bother impeaching him now, and trying him later?

I would love to see him thrown out of office on January 19, or sooner if possible, but I'm not sure I see the point of passing articles of impeachment now, and having a trial later. It sounds like an opportunity for speech giving and pompousness, which is not really what I think we are lacking in Washington today.