Split Thread A second impeachment

[Pacal]

It's a sad, diminishing world for those suffering from TCS (Trump Cheerleading Syndrome). Everyone has seen the evidence, it's painfully obvious that Trump pushed a false narrative of election fraud and incited insurrection at the Capitol, but those with TCS are desperate to pretend otherwise.

It happened, and the history is written. There's no way out of that, no matter how GOP Senators vote.

To so many, this includes ChrisBFRPKY it seems, grovel and worship in ecstatic convulsions the most Holy and Divine Trump, who came to Earth to save us from our sins and usher in the Golden Age, rule of Saints, the victory of the Sons of Light over the Sons of Darkness.

Only in this case, like all the others, the wicked evil Sons of Darkness, the Illuminati, Reptilians, the Evil One, Satanists, Big Tech etc., have thwarted the Divine Holy One whose feet we the chosen ones bathe with our tears and tongues. Only with righteous anger and a war to the death against the forces of darkness will Satan and all the Evil Ones be tossed into the lake of fire forever.

Thus in the past we had worshippers of the most Holy and Divine St. Napoleon of Bonaparte, we had worship of the most Holy and Divine St. Joseph of Stalin, worship of the most Holy and Divine St. John of Kennedy etc., and now we have worship of the most Holy and Divine St. Donald of Trump.

The human desire to submit to the infallible leader never dies.

 

[turingtest]

Note to all: I'll respond in detail after the impeachment trial verdict. I'm really not interested in a TDS fest or one sided propaganda prior to that. I'm interested in the facts as they are presented at trial and the ruling on the facts. Thanks.

Yeah, you do that. It's not like we and you haven't seen the Jan. 6 speech, or his months long false rants about the 'rigged and stolen election' or heard his telephone call asking the GA SofS to 'find' those votes he needs to overturn the GA election. Thanks.

There won't be any "ruling on the facts"- if Trump is acquitted (and I think, realistically, that he will be), it'll be because enough GOP senators will ignore the facts of the case, and vote to acquit strictly based on the "you can't impeach a President who's no longer in office" defense. Of course, they'll have to disregard that Trump was actually impeached while in office; the fact that the trial didn't also take place before he left is down to the Republicans, specifically McConnell, who made sure it would be delayed until they could claim it was no longer applicable.

And one thing I find kind of ironic about the "too late to impeach" defense is that it's seizing on a technicality to avoid addressing the evidence, and is being applauded by people who largely decried it when Trump went, what, 60-1 in his court cases alleging voter fraud? "They didn't look at the evidence, they just dismissed on procedural grounds!" Of course, the facts didn't support the cases anyway (and I believe a number of the judges who dismissed the cases on lack of standing or laches grounds said so), while the facts here do support the case for impeachment, conviction, and disqualification; but it's a little funny to hear folks who moaned about their "facts" not getting a fair judgement then are now so quick to jump on the opportunity to avoid judging on the facts now. (TBF to Chris, I don't know that he was one of the people who was saying that sort of thing about Trump's court cases)

 

[Stacyhs]

There won't be any "ruling on the facts"- if Trump is acquitted (and I think, realistically, that he will be), it'll be because enough GOP senators will ignore the facts of the case, and vote to acquit strictly based on the "you can't impeach a President who's no longer in office" defense. Of course, they'll have to disregard that Trump was actually impeached while in office; the fact that the trial didn't also take place before he left is down to the Republicans, specifically McConnell, who made sure it would be delayed until they could claim it was no longer applicable.

And one thing I find kind of ironic about the "too late to impeach" defense is that it's seizing on a technicality to avoid addressing the evidence, and is being applauded by people who largely decried it when Trump went, what, 60-1 in his court cases alleging voter fraud? "They didn't look at the evidence, they just dismissed on procedural grounds!" Of course, the facts didn't support the cases anyway (and I believe a number of the judges who dismissed the cases on lack of standing or laches grounds said so), while the facts here do support the case for impeachment, conviction, and disqualification; but it's a little funny to hear folks who moaned about their "facts" not getting a fair judgement then are now so quick to jump on the opportunity to avoid judging on the facts now. (TBF to Chris, I don't know that he was one of the people who was saying that sort of thing about Trump's court cases)

I agree 100%. Well said. Again, posts like this are why you are one of the most sensible people on ISF.

 

[Craig4]

Five people died. Do you think that would have happened if Trump had not given that speech?

Only one American died, the police officer. The other four were enemy combatants.

 

[ZirconBlue]

They claimed that anyway in the last impeachment despite refusing to participate in any way

This is just the same playbook again. Trump only has one playbook

It's more of a pamphlet, really.

 

[Meadmaker]

well of course it was a stunt (asking him to testify) since they knew full well he would refuse, but it was a smart stunt because Trump surely is frothing at the mouth wanting to testify, and surely his lawyers are having to beat him over the head to keep him quiet.

I think the whole trial is a stunt, but I can't decide if it's a smart stunt or a dumb stunt.

I can say that I, personally, have almost no interest in the impending trial. He's gone. The outcome of the trial seems fairly clear. Democrats and a handful of Republicans will vote to convict. It won't be a 2/3 majority. I doubt there's anything that will be worth watching.

My huge objection to Trump's behavior since the election was his continuous lying that there was massive fraud. I think that really undercut democracy and may have done long term damage. I also think the Capitol riot could not have happened without all of that leadup. I would have gladly seen him tossed out of office on January 19 for that. Now that he's gone, I'm pretty indifferent. If, somehow, they could use the Senate trial as a platform to present a powerful case that there really was no significant fraud, and that Trump was lying, and that it was a dangerous time for our democracy, I would think it was time well spent. As it is, I fear it will be a time where we listen to arguments about the technical definition of "incite" and "insurrection".

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Trump launched a coup and has irreversibly damaged trust in American democracy... but actually holding him accountable is just a political stunt" is certainly a... bold stance.

 

[Firestone]

You (=Americans) now apparently have to take Trump neither seriously nor literally.

 

[Meadmaker]

"Trump launched a coup and has irreversibly damaged trust in American democracy... but actually holding him accountable is just a political stunt" is certainly a... bold stance.

I would love to see an actual criminal trial against him, but I don't think any prosecutor will take it up. I doubt a conviction could be secured, but I would love to be proved wrong.


As it is, an impeachment trial where he ends up acquitted doesn't seem much like "holding him accountable". It seems more like giving him some additional free publicity.

The trial might shine some light on just how bad his behavior was, and create a record that is easily accessible that documents him as a would-be dictator who was willing to do anything to stay in power. If so, that's a benefit. If it's legal wrangling over whether or not he was actually using secret code words to tell the crowd to storm the Capitol, I'm not interested.

For what it's worth, I don't think he was deliberately using secret code words. I think he was too stupid to realize what was going to happen after his, and Giuliani's, rhetoric. If there's evidence that he actually knew that his fans would storm the Capitol, then that would be enough to convict in a real criminal trial, and it ought to happen. I don't think there's evidence of that. I think it's all a case that he ought to have realized what was about to happen, but was too stupid to see it.

Believe me, I would love to see a conviction, but in the absence of some big new story about some previously unrevealed evidence, it doesn't seem like it's going to happen. The Republicans are afraid of being primaried if they vote to convict.

 

[pgwenthold]

Five people died. Do you think that would have happened if Trump had not given that speech?

Actually, I think it's possible.

Keep in mind, people showed up in DC that day bringing weapons, bombs, helmets, flack jackets and zip-tie handcuffs. Their comments before Jan 6 boasted on they were going to storm DC and even the Capitol. This wasn't just about the speech, they planned and prepared.

Which is why his speech on Jan 6 is the end-all-be-all for the incitement.

If you want to know whether Trump incited them to attack the Capitol, just ask them why they did it. They will tell you that it was because Trump told them to.

 

[bruto]

Actually, I think it's possible.

Keep in mind, people showed up in DC that day bringing weapons, bombs, helmets, flack jackets and zip-tie handcuffs. Their comments before Jan 6 boasted on they were going to storm DC and even the Capitol. This wasn't just about the speech, they planned and prepared.

Which is why his speech on Jan 6 is the end-all-be-all for the incitement.

If you want to know whether Trump incited them to attack the Capitol, just ask them why they did it. They will tell you that it was because Trump told them to.

I suppose in a sense it could be true that that particular speech did not incite the violence, but I think it's reasonable to say that it triggered it.

Of course, if you've spent a year telling people lies and enabling their militant stance, attacking democracy and encouraging rebellion, (including a fairly obvious support of militant white supremacists, and a shamefully obvious call for a "second amendment" solution to judges one dislikes) you can pretend that there was no incitement when you said something equivalent to "now's the time" without having to say the time for what. Reasonable people will understand it, but alas the final decision is not being left to reasonable people, which is why we're here in the first place.

 

[pgwenthold]

I suppose in a sense it could be true that that particular speech did not incite the violence, but I think it's reasonable to say that it triggered it.

Of course, if you've spent a year telling people lies and enabling their militant stance, attacking democracy and encouraging rebellion, (including a fairly obvious support of militant white supremacists, and a shamefully obvious call for a "second amendment" solution to judges one dislikes) you can pretend that there was no incitement when you said something equivalent to "now's the time" without having to say the time for what. Reasonable people will understand it, but alas the final decision is not being left to reasonable people, which is why we're here in the first place.

I can buy "triggered"

Basically, when he said, "Let's go..."

But that is an issue of when it occurred, not that it occurred.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I think he was too stupid to realize what was going to happen after his, and Giuliani's, rhetoric.

Possible.

But often trials hinge on what a reasonable person might expect to happen, not theorizing about what a stupid person might think.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I can buy "triggered"

Basically, when he said, "Let's go..."

But that is an issue of when it occurred, not that it occurred.

Fortunately, the articles of impeachment don't say "Everything was perfectly OK till Trump gave his speech," do they? They describe a months-long campaign of lies and propaganda designed to undermine and ultimately destroy any vestige of faith in the democratic process that Trump's supporters may have had and to whip them up into rage against the entire electoral process, of which the speech was simply the final act. Pretending that this is all about the speech and nothing but the speech is just another piece of pro-Trump propaganda.

Dave

 

[MRC_Hans]

I did. It's political propaganda. The speech Trump gave is also available to the public. If you could bring yourself to listen to it, you'd understand why Democrats will lose this attempt to disqualify Trump from office.


Yep, I've seen speeches before. Seemed normal to me.


Yep, this is not a court case because President Trump has committed no crime. Looks to me that the FBI is arresting those who broke into the Capitol building. Trump doesn't appear to be in custody.


Yep not a court case. It's all about the evidence; the evidence is clear that Trump never incited riots during his speech, only a peaceful march and protest. Anything else is propaganda.



Physician, heal thyself.

Thank you for taking my challenge. I understand that you condone T****'s actions.

Hans

 

[The Great Zaganza]

"The best way to heal is to leave the cancer alone!"

Time for unity with the tumor!

 

[pgwenthold]

Fortunately, the articles of impeachment don't say "Everything was perfectly OK till Trump gave his speech," do they? They describe a months-long campaign of lies and propaganda designed to undermine and ultimately destroy any vestige of faith in the democratic process that Trump's supporters may have had and to whip them up into rage against the entire electoral process, of which the speech was simply the final act. Pretending that this is all about the speech and nothing but the speech is just another piece of pro-Trump propaganda.

You missed the beginning. It started with the claim of, "Listen to the speech, he didn't incite anything."

Then we got to the question of whether they would have done it without his speech, and I argued that they came prepared to storm the Capitol, so in the end, the only thing the speech did was to start the process.

 

[acbytesla]

You missed the beginning. It started with the claim of, "Listen to the speech, he didn't incite anything."

Huh?

Then we got to the question of whether they would have done it without his speech, and I argued that they came prepared to storm the Capitol, so in the end, the only thing the speech did was to start end the process.

FTFY

 

[Roger Ramjets]

"The best way to heal is to leave the cancer alone!"

Time for unity with the tumor!

When the patient is the GOP, why would we want to remove the cancer? Cut it open to show everyone how disgusting it is, sure - but don't kill the cancer until it has killed the host.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's pretty clear what the defense strategy is going to be: give enough Senators an excuse to vote against. I predict the following reasons GOP Senators will use to dismiss the impeachment:

It's unconstitutional because he's no longer in office will probably be the most popular excuse.

Free speech BS will be the second most popular defense to vote against impeachment.

And maybe for a few the trial will be claimed to be partisan and they don't want to see all future POTUSes impeached whenever the opposition party holds both houses. Of course the hypocrisy of the GOP impeachment of Clinton for entrapped perjury will be conveniently forgotten.

All the Democrats can do*, and they should be able to do it easily, is demonstrate just how deeply Trump was involved in the riot in the court of public opinion.

*There is a remote chance 17 GOP Senators will vote to convict.