• 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

Segnosaur 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.

Segnosaur said:
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.)


Yes, but lying on its own is not necessarily a criminal offense. (It only becomes criminal under certain circumstances... such as lying under oath.)

And it should be pointed out that defamation is a civil matter, not criminal.
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 made key decisions leaving the Capitol undefended.

Trump wanted to stop the certification. I doubt he planned beyond that. In Trumplandia the rest would fall into place, a new election called... or whatever fantasies he had bouncing around in his brain where he got to stay the POTUS.

Remember, Trump is a great conman, but beyond that he's a moron.
 
Last edited:
dasmiller said:
I'm of the opinion that Congress is obliged to impeach & convict, regardless of whether it's politically expedient for either side. This was an egregious violation of the public trust*; it's not enough to say "well, we'll let it go since he's not President any more" or "yes, maybe somebody else should prosecute him for, uh, something."

*more accurately, this was yet another egregious violation of the public trust
Click to expand...
If the Congress doesn't act, if they let the GOP loudmouths like Cruz and Rubio control the narrative that this wasn't a significant act, it will allow that narrative to become the truth.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Don't let the GOP con job fool you into not seeing what we all saw.

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 made key decisions leaving the Capitol undefended.

Trump wanted to stop the certification. I doubt he planned beyond that. In Trumplandia the rest would fall into place, a new election called... or whatever fantasies he had bouncing around in his brain where he got to stay the POTUS.

Remember, Trump is a great conman, but beyond that he's a moron.
Click to expand...
Not only is he being impeached for what he said before Jan. 6 (check out the articles of impeachment themselves), but he doesn't have to be held to a definition of "incitement" from criminal law. And, he'd still have committed impeachment offenses even if the mob had not broken into the Capitol. Merely saying that the constitutionally mandated procedure to be done on Jan. 6 shouldn't happen, or should be changed, etc., he's working against democracy as we conduct it in the U.S. To want Pence to do something other than what the Constitution demands the VP do is enough.
 
turingtest said:
There's also the point that, with a week left in Trump's term, Democrats tried to get a vote in the Senate on the impeachment, when Schumer asked McConnell to call the Senate into emergency session to do so, and McConnell refused. The GOP certainly had no problem getting a SC justice confirmed quickly when it was in their interest to do so- there's no procedural justification for saying the Senate couldn't have removed a President as expeditiously as they did install a Justice.

So I think that it's just a little self-serving and specious for Republicans to argue that a President can only be tried for his misconduct in office in some timely manner they define as "while still in office," when they are the ones who made sure that that condition couldn't be met.

ETA- I do like the phrase "lame-duck limbo." In a different context, that would be a hilarious image...
Click to expand...
In a way, it was a good thing McConnell didn't pull another BS impeachment vote, sans evidence. McConnell was stupid not to take Schumer up on the challenge.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
My Lawyer sister says that any good attorney would say that what Trump said did not amount to incitement is the most viable defense. Trump used just enough weasels words to make such a defense plausinble.Whatever his intentions,he never actually said "go out and commit violence" in so many words.

But of course Donnie will not go for that.
Click to expand...
Curious what your lawyer sister thinks of the set-up, leaving the Capitol under-guarded? Why would anyone do that on Trump's behalf?

I know what the counter argument will be, they only wanted the protest to appear non-threatening.

But I'm guessing there are a lot of dots that when connected will not be so easily dismissed.

And even if Trump's sycophant Senators vote not to impeach, the country will have heard the evidence. Unlike a criminal trial where a good defense attorney can move to have all sorts of relevant stuff excluded, this isn't a criminal trial.

All the Trumpistas can hope for is the GOP Senators making the case all that circumstantial evidence doesn't prove Trump guilty. But at that point, the public will see that all these pieces set up ahead of time were not merely irrelevant bits, but very much incriminating that Trump had a plan to nullify the election since he lost.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
Not only is he being impeached for what he said before Jan. 6 (check out the articles of impeachment themselves), but he doesn't have to be held to a definition of "incitement" from criminal law. And, he'd still have committed impeachment offenses even if the mob had not broken into the Capitol. Merely saying that the constitutionally mandated procedure to be done on Jan. 6 shouldn't happen, or should be changed, etc., he's working against democracy as we conduct it in the U.S. To want Pence to do something other than what the Constitution demands the VP do is enough.
Click to expand...
Good point.
 
Paul2 said:
Not only is he being impeached for what he said before Jan. 6 (check out the articles of impeachment themselves), but he doesn't have to be held to a definition of "incitement" from criminal law. And, he'd still have committed impeachment offenses even if the mob had not broken into the Capitol. Merely saying that the constitutionally mandated procedure to be done on Jan. 6 shouldn't happen, or should be changed, etc., he's working against democracy as we conduct it in the U.S. To want Pence to do something other than what the Constitution demands the VP do is enough.
Click to expand...
Does his phone call to the Georgia election officials trying to get them to defraud the state results also fall under this heading?
 
Norman Alexander said:
Does his phone call to the Georgia election officials trying to get them to defraud the state results also fall under this heading?
Click to expand...

Sure, goes to intent, and worse ... eagerness, to subvert the election. It's more context for the article of impeachment, I suppose, but certainly very relevant.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
If so, it'll be the Republican Party that's on trial. Not every Republican voter is a Trump hard liner, and if it becomes too painfully clear to the sane ones that the party they're supporting is now the party of violent insurrection, subversion of democracy and deliberate undermining of the rule of law, then they may find it increasingly difficult to give it any more support.

Dave
Click to expand...
Indeed. The fact that the Republican Party fared better than Trump down-ballot (and in the States) at the election reveals a cohort of Republican voters who rejected Trump but not the Party by association. No doubt many voters did reject the Party as well as Trump for its servile behaviour, but some didn't, and those are the votes they stand to lose by clinging ever more closely to Trump - whose behaviour since the election has only made him more toxic. Clinging to Trump surely doesn't get them more votes, so there's only downside. Holding the Trump base gets them back where they are - lost the House, lost the Senate, lost the White House. Why make it a priority?

I can only conclude that nobody's in charge, there are too many disparate plans, and reason plays no part in their behaviour.
 
dirtywick said:
I’d like to hear what Trump has to say about it
Click to expand...

Frankly I'm not interested in anything Trump might say about anything, since he's completely disconnected from reality, and simply lies obsessively about his false grievances. I think in some ways he's broken, because he'll never really grasp what's going on around him, as if he ever could.
 
Paul2 said:
I’d like to hear the cross-examination of Trump regarding what he has to say about it.
Click to expand...

They'd be crazy to allow him on the stand. Since he's scraping the bottom of the barrel for lawyers, though, who knows?

In any case, I think all Trump has left in him is lying, whining, and vindictive impulses.
 
Paul2 said:
It’s referenced specifically in the article of impeachment.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Trump's whole body-of-work since before the election is being brought in to demonstrate Trump's expectations of what he said in Washington on Jan 6th before he ran off to a safe place. "Stand down and stand by" - that'll get in there. "If I lose it's fraud" - into the pot. "It'll be wild". And on ...
 
Last edited:
eerok said:
They'd be crazy to allow him on the stand.
Click to expand...

Allow? Trump don't need no allowing. Trump is strong, Trump does what he wants, Trump decides what's allowed and who's allowed, OK?

If he goes to "I wanted to but they wouldn't let me" he's the loser, and they are the winner. At this point, Twitter's Trump ban is a negative.
 
dirtywick said:
I’d like to hear what Trump has to say about it
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
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...

"We'll see" - remember how often we heard that from Trump? He had no idea what the question might mean, let alone the answer.

To get Trump to take the stand you need to paint a picture of him having taken the stand to such devastating effect that electoral fraud is proven and his Presidency is uninterrupted. He believes he can do that. Dominion, dumps, signature verification, votes sent overseas, ballots they found in a ditch all for Trump, it's at his fingertips. He'll annihilate his detractors with his grasp of detail and all the evidence that he's not a loser.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom