Split Thread A second impeachment

Look mate I had enough to be in defensive only to hear again and again the kind of intolerance toward different views you and others spite here. Actually you have nothing discrediting in any way what i said, if you have the occasion look at what pr. Alan Dershowitz told BC News (it's just now on TV actually), there is a very strong case against impeaching Trump via the lines attempted by the Democrats, even without mentioning that Trump actually told his followers to act peacefully (for it's there in his speech before the assault). Double standards never do justice, protecting free speech is more important than any 'progressive' like 'justice'.
 
Last edited:
metacristi said:
Look mate I had enough to be in defensive only to hear again and again the kind of intolerance toward different views you and others spite here. Actually you do not have anything against what i said, if you have the occasion look at what pr. Alan Dershowitz told BC News (it's just now on TV actually), there is a very strong case against impeaching Trump via the lines attempted by the Democrats, even without mentioning that Trump actually told his followers to act peacefully (for it's there in his speech before the assault). Double standards never do justice, protecting free speech is more important than any 'progressive' like 'justice'.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that guy lost all credibility with me years ago.
 
metacristi said:
...even without mentioning that Trump actually told his followers to act peacefully (for it's there in his speech before the assault)...
Click to expand...

Also in the speech before the riot he used the word “fight” 20 times. And prior to that he asked followers to join the “Trump Army” to fight the “liberal mob” and to wear a camo MAGA cap to identify themselves as members of that “Army” - for $35 of course, always the scammer.

I’m pretty sure the Impeachment Trial will attempt to present the totality of the pattern of incitement leading up to 1/6 for months - not just cherry pick a single admonition to “act peacefully”.
 
metacristi said:
What is the 'incitement to insurrection'?.
Click to expand...

Telling people that the election was stolen, and that the lawful President-Elect was a usurper.

What is the appropriate response to that claim? Insurrection seems to me to be the appropriate response. It seemed that way to the mob, as well.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Also in the speech before the riot he used the word “fight” 20 times. And prior to that he asked followers to join the “Trump Army” to fight the “liberal mob” and to wear a camo MAGA cap to identify themselves as members of that “Army” - for $35 of course, always the scammer.

I’m pretty sure the Impeachment Trial will attempt to present the totality of the pattern of incitement leading up to 1/6 for months - not just cherry pick a single admonition to “act peacefully”.
Click to expand...


It has no chance to succeed, that's still no evidence that he incited to actual violence, even less an imminent one. There is zero clear evidence for that I'm afraid. Besides the Brandenburg case was way worse in this respect and yet was considered as protected by the First Amendment. Mental gymnastics is of course possible but this cannot mask the double standards and that those who pursue this path are actually prepared for anything, including changing the Constitution if possible in the future.
 
Last edited:
metacristi said:
It has no chance to succeed, that's still no evidence that he incited to actual violence, even less an imminent one. There is zero clear evidence for that I'm afraid. Besides the Brandenburg case was way worse in this respect and yet was considered as protected by the First Amendment. Mental gymnastics is of course possible but this cannot mask the double standards and that those who pursue this path are actually prepared for anything, including changing the Constitution if possible in the future.
Click to expand...

In the absence of any effect of Trump's speech on the actions that immediately followed by the crowd that had just listened to him, what do you suggest was the catalyst for those actions?
 
metacristi said:
It has no chance to succeed, that's still no evidence that he incited to actual violence, even less an imminent one. There is zero clear evidence for that I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

I agree in so far as getting a criminal conviction, needing proof beyond a reasonable doubt, might be problematic if D.C. decides to prosecute.

But impeachment is political in nature, and not bound by the same standards. Whether or not it has “a chance to succeed”, it will at least succeed in presenting what evidence there is, and preserving it for history. Each Senator will have to make an individual decision to convict or acquit based on that evidence, whether you think it’s “clear”, or not.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
I agree in so far as getting a criminal conviction, needing proof beyond a reasonable doubt, might be problematic if D.C. decides to prosecute.

But impeachment is political in nature, and not bound by the same standards. Whether or not it has “a chance to succeed”, it will at least succeed in presenting what evidence there is, and preserving it for history. Each Senator will have to make an individual decision to convict or acquit based on that evidence, whether you think it’s “clear”, or not.
Click to expand...

And this particular impeachment isn't limited to what he said in that one speech, as metacristi seems to believe; he keeps on and on about the 1st Amendment as if that's the only defense Trump needs. As bruto said above, the impeachment is in regard to a pattern of actions, a totality of Trump's conduct of his office, which, taken as a whole, amounts to an impeachable offense. I linked above to an NPR article that has the text of the article of impeachment, which makes this pretty clear.

But I suspect metacristi didn't read that, or, if he did, simply disregards it, since it doesn't fit with this weird narrative he seems to have settled on, that progressives are trying to stifle free speech. That may or may not be so (I think not, if only because metacristri seems to also have decided on a pretty simplistic interpretation of what "free speech" actually entails), but, in any event, it's a totally separate argument which doesn't have anything to do with Trump's impeachment.
 
angrysoba said:
Sorry but that guy lost all credibility with me years ago.
Click to expand...


From my past experience with you the same is with most of those who dare to criticize Islam rationally for example. Yet what really counts is primarily the argument presented not the controversies in which the author was involved in the past, I recommend you his book Cancel Culture: The Latest Attack on Free Speech and Due to understand that the new version of progressivism based on minority identity politics born after 1990 and rampant today is actually creating much more harm than even McCarthyism, not ultimately because free speech is much more severely eroded. By contrast the old type of universalist progressivism, with roots in Enlightenment, was eons more rational than the current version. For me there is no question of what a rational person should choose.
 
metacristi said:
From my past experience with you the same is with most of those who dare to criticize Islam rationally for example. Yet what really counts is primarily the argument presented not the controversies in which the author was involved in the past, I recommend you his book Cancel Culture: The Latest Attack on Free Speech and Due to understand that the new version of progressivism based on minority identity politics born after 1990 and rampant today is actually creating much more harm than even McCarthyism, not ultimately because free speech is much more severely eroded. By contrast the old type of universalist progressivism, with roots in Enlightenment, was eons more rational than the current version. For me there is no question of what a rational person should choose.
Click to expand...

You are inclined, I think, to use an awful lot of words to say very little. What would a rational person choose? Please be specific.
 
Once again as so often is the case, the defense of T**** seems to be that he could not have been guilty of anything because he's too stupid to have realized that, after having dilated constantly on how smart, influential, important he is, there might be any reason to speak out against an egregious attack on American democracy. They acted based on his preposterous lies, but he did not give explicit orders. No no, he did not explicitly, word for word, say to do what was done. He just was too pitifully, abjectly, opportunistically dumb, to say not to do it.

I'm reminded of the old Tom Lehrer song about Wernher von Braun: "once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down; that's not my department...."

I don't know about others, but I think our interests are not very well served by continuing to excuse our leaders' offenses on the basis of their stupidity.
 
metacristi said:
It has no chance to succeed, that's still no evidence that he incited to actual violence, even less an imminent one. There is zero clear evidence for that I'm afraid. Besides the Brandenburg case was way worse in this respect and yet was considered as protected by the First Amendment. Mental gymnastics is of course possible but this cannot mask the double standards and that those who pursue this path are actually prepared for anything, including changing the Constitution if possible in the future.
Click to expand...

So your actual argument doesn't take in all the inflammatory rhetoric Trump, his family members, and worshiping supporters have said 6 weeks prior to the Capitol fiasco? All of this lead to creating a tinderbox that kept filling up with animosity and anger until the only thing left was a match to light it.
Trump was that match.
 
Last edited:
metacristi said:
It has no chance to succeed, that's still no evidence that he incited to actual violence, even less an imminent one. There is zero clear evidence for that I'm afraid. Besides the Brandenburg case was way worse in this respect and yet was considered as protected by the First Amendment. Mental gymnastics is of course possible but this cannot mask the double standards and that those who pursue this path are actually prepared for anything, including changing the Constitution if possible in the future.
Click to expand...

The standard is using words that will bring about imminent lawless action, not direct orders to commit violent acts. Without question, he did so, and imminently to boot.

The only credible argument I can see against this is that the President was too slobberingly stupid to understand that his words would cause the mob to go through with...exactly what they predictably did. That would raise the 25th, because if he was that stone dumb, he is unfit to hold the office. Schrodinger's Idiot, I suppose, or maybe a Catch-45.
 
Last edited:
All the focus from the Trump apologists seems to be on whether his speech incited the insurrection.
I would assume that the impeachment will look at everything he has done since the election.
The constant lies regarding vote rigging, trying to get elected officials to overturn votes, urging followers to attend counting centres to pressure poll workers.
The incitement of insurrection is not based on one speech but the constant drip feeding of lies and calls for illegal actions since the election.
 
Mr Fied said:
All the focus from the Trump apologists seems to be on whether his speech incited the insurrection.
I would assume that the impeachment will look at everything he has done since the election.
The constant lies regarding vote rigging, trying to get elected officials to overturn votes, urging followers to attend counting centres to pressure poll workers.
The incitement of insurrection is not based on one speech but the constant drip feeding of lies and calls for illegal actions since the election.
Click to expand...

Misdirection is SOP for Trumpeters.
 
“I thought I was following my president. I thought I was following what we were called to do. He asked us to fly there. So I was doing was he asked us to do.”
That’s Texas realtor Jenna Ryan who was arrested today by FBI after being at the D.C. riot
 
Fast Eddie B said:
It’s like when he said, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent Vice President?", he was only asking a question!
Click to expand...

And fighting Congress for the election results that were actually in the process of being formally certified can hardly be interpreted as going home to start a petition drive. There was pretty much only one interpretation of 'fight' at that time. It meant to stop the Democratic process, physically. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom