• 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

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...

'Stop the Steal'. What did he expect his followers to do? Ask nicely for the election results to be overturned?
 
Chris_Halkides said:
First-amendment expert Ken White discusses the first amendment implications of the President's speech, starting roughly around the 20 minute mark.
EDT
TL/DL Ken White thinks a legal case on incitement is uphill but not impossible, especially considering the president's behavior. My opinion is that when Mr. White speaks on the first amendments, the rest of us should listen intently and take careful notes.
Click to expand...

Yep! Thanks to Squeeegeee Beckenheim I listened to that earlier and can definitely second the recommendation.
 
angrysoba said:
Well done for “daring” to criticize Islam. Let me pin the “Medal for Exceptional Daring in Online Keyboard Warrior skills” upon your avatar. I myself am also exceptionally daring which is why I also criticize Islam. I think most atheists do so there are a lot of medals to go round.
Now, Dershowitz, free speech.... I am not a lawyer but if Dershy is saying that Twitter is suppressing first amendment rights then frankly he shouldn’t be a lawyer either or rather you shouldn’t pay for his services.
Click to expand...

Oooooh...ooooooooh......I also dare to criticize Islam. And other religions as an atheist. Can I have a medal, too?

 
Trump apparently (allegedly?) has a plan for his Senate trial:

President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani tells ABC News he's working as part of the president's defense team in his upcoming second impeachment trial -- and that he's prepared to argue that the president's claims of widespread voter fraud did not constitute incitement to violence because the widely-debunked claims are true.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/giuliani-...t-defense-argue-voter-fraud/story?id=75302032
Click to expand...

It's e5 D-chess, at least: prove that the fraud claims are true after the usurper Biden is in the White House. Pure genius.
 
No Other said:
You have a habit of setting up your own straw man and then knock down that straw man with your own made up comments.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
I suggest you avoid using terms like "straw man" until you learn what they actually mean.
 
metacristi said:
As for Trump's being punished via being barred from holding office in the future that's especially for his overall attitude regarding democracy, especially after the fact that his legal attempts to change the result of the election were rejected by the courts.
Click to expand...
Is there supposed to be an actual idea buried in this?

metacristi said:
The Congress can definitely do that after Biden takes office, be it entirely as a political decision, there is no need to resort to all sort of lies, half truths, 'incitation to insurrection' and tortuous reinterpretations of what the First Amendment protect (restraining free speech).
Click to expand...
Your "First Amendment" drivel (and you might want to learn what the actual First amendment to the US Constitution says, not your imagined version of it :rolleyes:) is irrelevant to the fact that your Molester-in-Chief incited a mob of his idiotic supporters to insurrection.
 
J. Hogan Gidley tweets

@JHoganGidley

Statement On President Trump’s Impeachment Defense Team:

President Trump has not yet made a determination as to which lawyer or law firm will represent him for the disgraceful attack on our Constitution and democracy, known as the “impeachment hoax.” We will keep you informed.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
J. Hogan Gidley tweets

@JHoganGidley

Statement On President Trump’s Impeachment Defense Team:

President Trump has not yet made a determination as to which lawyer or law firm will represent him for the disgraceful attack on our Constitution and democracy, known as the “impeachment hoax.” We will keep you informed.
Click to expand...

should have maybe re-read that one lol
 
Captain_Swoop said:
J. Hogan Gidley tweets

@JHoganGidley

Statement On President Trump’s Impeachment Defense Team:

President Trump has not yet found made a determination as to which lawyer or law firm that will represent him for the disgraceful attack on our Constitution and democracy, known as the “impeachment hoax.” We will keep you informed.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for him
 
Firestone said:
Trump apparently (allegedly?) has a plan for his Senate trial:

President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani tells ABC News he's working as part of the president's defense team in his upcoming second impeachment trial -- and that he's prepared to argue that the president's claims of widespread voter fraud did not constitute incitement to violence because the widely-debunked claims are true.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/giuliani-w...ry?id=75302032
Click to expand...


It's e5 D-chess, at least: prove that the fraud claims are true after the usurper Biden is in the White House. Pure genius.
Click to expand...

Ya gotta admit they are indefatigable.
 
Firestone said:
Trump apparently (allegedly?) has a plan for his Senate trial:

he's prepared to argue that the president's claims of widespread voter fraud did not constitute incitement to violence because the widely-debunked claims are true.
Click to expand...

It's e5 D-chess, at least: prove that the fraud claims are true after the usurper Biden is in the White House. Pure genius.
Click to expand...

Awesome. The Donald will have the opportunity to present, via his lawyer, all of that evidence to the widest audience possible. The Senate doesn't have to get all wrapped up in procedural stuff, and the American people will get to see it in their news feeds, with lots of commentary.

I can't think of a better way to expose the fraud.


I hope you all see what I did there.
 
turingtest said:
Context- that's the word you need to learn here. You're criticizing Congress for impeaching on a narrow basis that is not the basis they've actually impeached him on.
Click to expand...

I've even seen lawyers making that same mistake, with the "oh the speech wasn't so bad" claim. Folks like Popehat and Legal Eagle.

They don't respond when I ask why they are restricting their analysis to only that speech.

"The election was stolen, we need to fight it, everyone is traitors and we need to do something about it, so let's march on the Capitol. Oh, and be peaceful."

Right. As I have pointed out, there is a reason they came prepared with weapons, bombs, zip tie handcuffs and riot gear. And it wasn't because they were planning a sit-in on the Mall.

What was that reason? Ask them...they'll tell you. "The President sent me."
 
Chris_Halkides said:
First-amendment expert Ken White discusses the first amendment implications of the President's speech, starting roughly around the 20 minute mark.
EDT
TL/DL Ken White thinks a legal case on incitement is uphill but not impossible, especially considering the president's behavior. My opinion is that when Mr. White speaks on the first amendments, the rest of us should listen intently and take careful notes.
Click to expand...

Why does Ken focus on the content of Trump's speech, and not actually on the totality of his actions and statements since Nov 3 (or even before)?
 
metacristi said:
What Trump did is definitely not 'insurrection', his speech (widely produced as proof by some) cannot be used to claim that he intended to cause violence. The truth is rather that the massively 'progressive' infiltrated Democrats fear so much Trump that basically anything is useful to oust him. If Trump is cancelled using this 'progressive' patented method then anyone, no matter how rational, can be a victim in the future.
Click to expand...
This is blatant bs.

If I were to array the unprecedented ways that Trump has been called out by his own party, including his own appointees, it would exceed maximum post length.

Why do people foist easily debunkable bs like this?
 
pgwenthold said:
I've even seen lawyers making that same mistake, with the "oh the speech wasn't so bad" claim. Folks like Popehat and Legal Eagle.

They don't respond when I ask why they are restricting their analysis to only that speech.

"The election was stolen, we need to fight it, everyone is traitors and we need to do something about it, so let's march on the Capitol. Oh, and be peaceful."

Right. As I have pointed out, there is a reason they came prepared with weapons, bombs, zip tie handcuffs and riot gear. And it wasn't because they were planning a sit-in on the Mall.

What was that reason? Ask them...they'll tell you. "The President sent me."
Click to expand...

I've seen Trump's speech and I have read it. In my opinion, especially considering the context, it was an incitement to violence. The speech itself, despite it being a disaster has oratory, is actually fairly but not convincingly ambiguous. It contains a great many words and phrases designed to rile people up and make them angry and then it has what amount to token phrases and words about being peaceful. It is very much a wink, wink hint, hint sort of speech. What Trump was trying to do was preserve plausible deniability by mundane phrases and words about being "peaceful" while wink, wink, hint, hinting about violence.

The peaceful crap was mere pro forma to preserve plausible deniability which the audience quite properly disregarded has what Trump really wanted to happen. Trump and his acolytes in the media are using that to throw rioters under the bus and deny Trump responsibility.

Oh and Trump's behavior while the mob was storming the capital and the very long delay in getting help to save Congressmen and Senators etc., from assault and possible death is the clearest indication that what happened is exactly what he wanted to happen. There are also indications that Trump appointees and others deliberately weakened efforts to provide security before the attack. To me it looks very much like Trump was indeed trying to incite an attack.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom