• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread A second impeachment

The Atheist said:
Have you guys ever looked at the relevant law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
Click to expand...

speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.
Click to expand...

I think the violations of the law that occurred were both imminent and likely. The "intent" part is more problematic.

At the trial, you could question witnesses, and if there was any indication from witnesses that Trump knew that the illegal acts were likely, it could be a winning case.
 
The Atheist said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't feel obligated to hold my judgement of someone to a legal precedent.
 
I'm thinking about the reported plan to hold a vote on impeachment, but not report the articles to the Senate until after Trump's term is over.

What's the message of that?

We think he should be thrown out of office, but we aren't actually going to try to make it happen. Seems weak.
 
Mader Levap said:
It is not "just a likely". It is absolute certainty.

Behavioral scientists says lack of expected (or any for that matter) punishment is treated as reward.

Opinions like "let them get away with it or else!" are extremely foolish at best.
Click to expand...

Trump is a living example of such foolishness.
 
Meadmaker said:
I'm thinking about the reported plan to hold a vote on impeachment, but not report the articles to the Senate until after Trump's term is over.

What's the message of that?

We think he should be thrown out of office, but we aren't actually going to try to make it happen. Seems weak.
Click to expand...

I can see why you might think that. But if Pence doesn't invoke the 25th they won't have the trial until after Trump is out of office anyway. Now the Dems haven't said they are going to wait for the trial but the reasons for waiting make sense. But so does not waiting. As soon as the 2 new Senators are sworn in then the game changes.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
I'm thinking about the reported plan to hold a vote on impeachment, but not report the articles to the Senate until after Trump's term is over.

What's the message of that?

We think he should be thrown out of office, but we aren't actually going to try to make it happen. Seems weak.
Click to expand...

it is weak. stronger than nothing.
 
The Atheist said:
Do you not even understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats?
____________________________

Meanwhile, this:

bolding mine

I'm going to take a wild guess their insight is a little better than some unknown people on an internet forum.
Click to expand...

Republican and Trump propagandists argue it would be a mistake to punish Trump because .... of course they say that.

Don’t be so bloody naive. Stop carrying water for him.
 
acbytesla said:
Huh? "March to the Capitol and fight".
Click to expand...

Can you show me where he says that, please, because I don't see it anywhere. You've put it in speech marks, so it must be a direct quote, so fire away.

Of course, you wouldn't make stuff up...

acbytesla said:
And neither of these legal standards are required for impeachment. It ISN'T a criminal action.
Click to expand...

Obviously.

However, I'm sure Republicans would like some actual evidence. That seemed to work when Nixon was dumped.

Meadmaker said:
I think the violations of the law that occurred were both imminent and likely. The "intent" part is more problematic.
Click to expand...

It's ambiguous at the very best. I really don't see the intent, and I'm not even impartial, as my threads on Trump show. I don't think he has the balls to call for that kind of action.

If the bar is set so low that dislike causes the dismissal of a President, then you've dug a huge hole for every other person who wants to sit in that office.

Not only do I think Republicans won't vote for it, I don't think they should. The evidence does not stack up.
 
Just heard a GOP COngressperson say impeachment should not happen becuase it would "inflame" Trump Suppporters. It is to make one laugh.
 
What happened as the Capitol is too damn serious for playing some kind of Contrarian Game.
 
The Atheist said:
However, I'm sure Republicans would like some actual evidence. That seemed to work when Nixon was dumped.
Click to expand...

Evidence in a court case doesn't have to reach impossible levels of proof; it has to reach the level of proof where a reasonable person has no doubt. No reasonable person can deny that Trump spent months both before and after the election claiming that it was fraudulent and intended to deny him a second term that was rightfully his. No reasonable person can deny that Trump was aware that millions of his followers were angry at their belief that this had happened. No reasonable person can deny that Trump instructed his followers to attend the rally on the 6th. No reasonable person can deny that, at that rally, he and others aggravated the feelings of the crowd present by talking of trial by combat, being strong and taking back their country. And no reasonable person can deny that Trump then instructed his followers to march to the Capitol. So the question would have to be: Could any reasonable person, in possession of the knowledge Trump had on the day, have carried out the actions Trump carried out and not expected violent civil disorder to be the inevitable result?

Whether or not Trump is a reasonable person, of course, is irrelevant to this discussion. We know he is not, but he still has an obligation in law to behave as though he were, and must face the consequences when he does not.

Dave
 
The framing I see on this issue is somewhat like this:

There is no easy way out for the Democrats.
Impeachment, with no conviction in the Senate makes them look weak and inconsequential.
No impeachment makes them look weak, and will later be used by Republicans against them: "Stop whining about Trump's so-called attempted coup, you didn't even think it warranted impeachment."

As often in US politics, this framing, for some bizarre reason, ignores that Republicans too have agency.
Republicans could invoke the 25th amendment: they didn't.
Republicans in the Senate could help convict Trump if impeached: few (if any) have said they will.
Republicans could have a "Barry Goldwater"-moment and pay Trump a friendly visit, paired with an ultimatum: for now they haven't.

Republicans stoked the anger with their lies, many of them tried to steal the election, before the courts and in Congress, and even now they don't take any responsibility. On the contrary, they, almost in unison, blame the Democrats because "what the US needs now is unity." :rolleyes:

If this post sounds partisan, well, yes, it is. There really is no "both sides" in this unprecedented crisis.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
acbytesla said:
Huh? "March to the Capitol and fight".
Click to expand...

Can you show me where he says that, please, because I don't see it anywhere. You've put it in speech marks, so it must be a direct quote, so fire away.
Click to expand...

I'm curious. Are you by chance on the autism spectrum? I'm not asking out of spite or trying to be rude, but your question seems to come from a person who often doesn't grasp subtleties in speech.

The canonical example is "Nice place you got here. Would be a shame if it burned down." If the person hearing it was, say, someone with Asperger's syndrome, he might reply, "Yeah, if it burned down we'd lose the building," completely failing to understand the intent behind the words.

Same here. It's not the words themselves that are the problem, it's the unspoken intent behind them. As others have noted, one of the few things Trump is actually good at is weasel speech. He somehow manages always to stop just short of "March to the Capitol, rush the building, take hostages and hang the Vice President!" He didn't say that, but he certainly incited the crowd to march on the Capitol. That after telling them we're not going to take it any more. we can't let this happen, and telling them to fight like hell.

It's the fight like hell part that's especially weaselly. In more common English it means to use a wide array of legal and procedural devices to prevent an outcome, mostly non-violent. But notice he didn't actually say that. He said fight like hell. And some people in the crowd did just that.
 
Trump should be removed from office, impeached, charged and convicted of his crimes against this nation, and thrown in jail.

The only question now is whether he should get the death penalty as a traitor to this country. I oppose the death penalty, but considering this President's desire to use it, I may make an exception for this case.

That is the only question. Whether he should be sentenced to life in prison or get the death penalty.

Impeachment is not even questionable. He should be impeached and convicted because he committed impeachable offenses. Period. No politics. No political strategy. He should be impeached for his offense.

He should be convicted for his crime of sedition. He should be sentenced to prison.

The only question is whether he should get the death penalty or a life sentnce.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yes, we know. And apparently, we keep him around specifically so someone can say this in every discussion where he opens his mouth and literally no other reason.

Bob, the ISF's Golden Symbolic Totem of Our Ability to Ignore Things.
Click to expand...
Exactly. :)
 
Mader Levap said:
I'm going to take a wild guess that cherrypicking an opinion from internet does not mean jack ****.
Click to expand...
Especially one at variance with objective reality; an impeached Tantrump is one that cannot hold political office at the Federal level in the USA. Given that's his brand is poisonous and he's facing a wide array of criminal and civil charges, he is unimportant. His followers, the three Ds, are important to the Republican party (useful idiots) and to everyone else (dangerous, undemocratic, insurrectionist scum).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom