• 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

they could subpoena testimony from him and i'm not sure what his argument would be not to comply. only reason he didn't last time is because he hid behind executive privilege, but he's no longer the president and thus can't assert executive privilege. worse, he doesn't even have a lawyer to argue otherwise on his behalf.

he could plead the 5th and see where that gets him as well
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
But the question is, would the actions of Trump amount to what would be considered "incitement" in a court of law.
Click to expand...
Don't let the GOP con job fool you into not seeing what we all saw.
Click to expand...
Again, this is not my opinion, it is the opinion of a practicing lawyer, who is not associated with Trump or the republicans, and has been very vocal in his criticism of Trump and his administration.

According to the Legal Eagle youtube channel (which generally takes an anti-Trump stance), the courts usually take a very broad approach to applying the first amendment. Trump did use certain loaded works like 'fight', but he didn't give specific instructions to storm the capitol building, so Trump's role might be seen as "free speech".

So Trump's actions might be morally wrong, he certainly played a role in the events that lead to the riot and the terrorist activity, and his praise of the rioters shows that he is unfit to ever be president. (In other words, impeachable). But if Trump as a private citizen did those things, all that might be seen as protected speech (in other words, not prosecutable.)
Click to expand...
If you only look at Trump's single speech, and even if you look at all there was leading up to it, the argument goes out the window with some of the incriminating preplanning at the level of people installed by Trump at the last minute who key decisions leaving the Capitol undefended.
Click to expand...
There is certainly the potential for other charges to be laid. (If nothing else, the Georgia telephone call is one that Trump should be nailed on.)

The issue I raised was a very narrow one... inciting a riot. Even if he is guilty of other crimes, charges of 'inciting a riot' might not stick simply because how broadly free speech is interpreted.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I hope we are going to see some of the details here we've gotten bits and pieces of.

Who ordered the DC Nat'l guard to not show up in any kind of effective way? Whose idea was it?
Click to expand...
I think those are important questions to ask.

The problem is, is the impeachment the best place to start asking them? It seems to me the type of thing you would create an inquiry for (like Mueller's investigation, only more competent). Trying to dig up that information during an impeachment might cause the proceedings to become too distracted.
Click to expand...
Why not? It's the general public that is the target market here, not Trump sycophants.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the general public (even the anti-Trump ones) isn't always that attentive to details. A simple message would probably be the best to get through to people.
What kind of distraction? There is a trail to those orders even if Trump has a "wasn't me" roadblock.
Click to expand...
We are talking about investigations that involved multiple organizations... capitol police, the pentagon/national guard, congressional leaders, lower level congressmen, the Trump administration, protest leaders. Yes there may be some whistleblowers but there is also going to be a lot of finger-pointing, and at least some attempts by various groups to hid their culpability. A proper accounting of the events of that day might take months of investigation. And at the end of the day, they may find others in addition to Trump deserve part of the blame.

I am not saying all of that should be ignored; I am just saying it doesn't need to be done during the impeachment.

We know Trump is largely responsible for the terrorism on Jan6. We know that just from what's already publically known... All that they need to do is remind people that Trump expressed 'love' for the rioters, at the same time they were beating a policeman to death. That should be more than enough to establish his guilt for impeachment purposes.
 
dirtywick said:
they could subpoena testimony from him and i'm not sure what his argument would be not to comply. only reason he didn't last time is because he hid behind executive privilege, but he's no longer the president and thus can't assert executive privilege. worse, he doesn't even have a lawyer to argue otherwise on his behalf.
Click to expand...
Need to be careful with that, it could be seen as conceding impeachment is no longer applicable.

The rules need to be applied consistently.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I think “The Caine Mutiny” courtroom scene may give us a hint as to how that might go.

Yes, Trump could choose to appear, and then invoke the Fifth. But you can’t do that selectively, picking and choosing which questions you deem to answer while invoking the Fifth on others.

That said, I can’t see him testifying. Though his malignant narcissism might just push him in that direction. We’ll see.
Click to expand...

Or the FInal Confrontration between the Clarence Darrow based charecter and the William Jennings Bryan based charecter in "Inherit The Wind" when the Byran charecter agrees to be cross examined...
 
Just because it's worth remembering a bit... looks like planning for the happenings on 1/6 has been linked pretty clearly to Trump's inner circle, either way.

Daniel Beck, a CEO of an Idaho technology company, wrote “The Trump hotel is Amazing!! Fifteen of us spent the evening with Donald Trump Jr., Kimberly Guilfoyle, Tommy Tuberville, Michael J. Lindell, Peter Navarro, and Rudy Giuliani. We talked about the elections, illegal votes, court cases, the republics’ status, what to expect on the hill tomorrow. TRUMP WILL RETAIN THE PRESIDENCY!!!”

Charles Herbster, die-hard Trumper and part of a committee under the former administration also posted that evening that he was “in the private residence of the President at Trump International with the following patriots who are joining me in a battle for justice and truth”. He then proceeded to name some of the same people, but also included others, Adam Piper, Eric Trump, Michael Flynn, Corey Lewandowski, and 2016 deputy campaign manager David Bossie.
Click to expand...
 
Stacyhs said:
I want to see Trump on the stand soooooooooo bad. I won't ever ask Santa for anything ever again.
Click to expand...

MRC_Hans said:
Yeah. Whatever the technicalities, the entertainment value should be immense.

Hans
Click to expand...

In the event that President Trump does appear (and I think that's very unlikely), will he actually say anything or will he spend his time saying that he doesn't recall and/or hasn't read anything ?
 
The Don said:
In the event that President Trump does appear (and I think that's very unlikely), will he actually say anything or will he spend his time saying that he doesn't recall and/or hasn't read anything ?
Click to expand...

If there's a betting pool, I'm going with "something so bizarre and incoherent that none of us could have dreamed it after taking a shedload of mescaline."

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
If there's a betting pool, I'm going with "something so bizarre and incoherent that none of us could have dreamed it after taking a shedload of mescaline."

Dave
Click to expand...

Whatever the case, it will be an important final scene in the inevitable documentary about the 45th US president.

Hans
 
The Don said:
In the event that President Trump does appear (and I think that's very unlikely), will he actually say anything or will he spend his time saying that he doesn't recall and/or hasn't read anything ?
Click to expand...

Please stop calling him 'President' Trump. He is no longer the president and just seeing the title next to his name diminishes it.
 
Stacyhs said:
Please stop calling him 'President' Trump. He is no longer the president and just seeing the title next to his name diminishes it.
Click to expand...

AIUI, former Presidents are entitled to continue to use the title.

If not, I will happily call him former President or just Donald Trump.
 
a_unique_person said:
He has to appear, doesn't he?
Click to expand...

Not as I understand it.

He may feel that he wants his day in court but then again the GOP claim that only the sitting President can be impeached and so this has no standing and so President Trump has no need to appear.
 
The Don said:
Not as I understand it.

He may feel that he wants his day in court but then again the GOP claim that only the sitting President can be impeached and so this has no standing and so President Trump has no need to appear.
Click to expand...

I was going to say he would just get on Twitter and demand to go to court, and the clamour will become too great to refuse, but then I remembered.

Hey, maybe Jack Dorsey actually did him (and the GOP) a favour after all. Imagine how embarassing it would be now that he has literally nothing to do - not even turn up to lay wreaths at the graves of losers, or pretend to care what the UN says - if he just sat around all day in his bathrobe tweeting.

I suppose he could just phone in to FOX news like some weird crank and spew his garbage about what is wrong with the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom