Split Thread A second impeachment

[BobTheCoward]

Based on the evidence already in the public record, as I stated above.

How do I convince someone? That's above my pay grade; I'm talking about what should convince a rational person, given that we have the video of the guy robbing the bank and a clear ID. It's not a court of law;we've got plenty that shows Trump's failure to uphold the Constitution - in spectacular fashion - as his oath of office requires.

A court of law is way too lax a standard for normal day to day decisions. I'm happy to apply my normal, rational standard, but you probably won't like it

ETA: But I would bet most people think some standard other than day to day standards of evaluating claims should be used for an impeachment.

 

[Paul2]

A court of law is way too lax a standard for normal day to day decisions. I'm happy to apply my normal, rational standard, but you probably won't like it

ETA: But I would bet most people think some standard other than day to day standards of evaluating claims should be used for an impeachment.

Who said I was using a day-to-day standard? When evidence is crystal clear it does not mean it's a day-to-day, casual, or weak standard.

 

[Garrison]

If I were a senator (a democratic one) I wouldn't vote to convict Trump. It is hard to take the house seriously when they do not take the process seriously. They haven't interviewed witnesses. They didn't subpoena any records or communications. For something so important thet have put very little effort into it.

How many witnesses do you need to interview when you literally have Trump on video inciting violence and calling for the election to be overturned?

 

[dudalb]

Seems Trump is unlikely to be convicted as it will need 17 Republicans to vote in favour (assuming all the Democrats do). Only ten voted for impeachment.

You do know the difference between the House and the Senate, don't you?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Who said I was using a day-to-day standard? When evidence is crystal clear it does not mean it's a day-to-day, casual, or weak standard.

Is it crystal clear? I'm not convinced. How would you convince someone?

It seems one would have to establish four things


What is the crime?
Why does it meet the high crimes or misdemeanor?
What standard should we use to evaluate the evidence?
How does the evidence meet that standard?

 

[Paul2]

Is it crystal clear? I'm not convinced. How would you convince someone?

It seems one would have to establish four things


What is the crime?
Why does it meet the high crimes or misdemeanor?
What standard should we use to evaluate the evidence?
How does the evidence meet that standard?

Like I said, I'm not here to convince anyone, that's an issue of rhetoric; I'm talking about what a rational person would conclude, which is an issue of logic (and evidence).

 

[Stacyhs]

Is it crystal clear? I'm not convinced. How would you convince someone?

It seems one would have to establish four things


What is the crime?
Why does it meet the high crimes or misdemeanor?
What standard should we use to evaluate the evidence?
How does the evidence meet that standard?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Like I said, I'm not here to convince anyone, that's an issue of rhetoric; I'm talking about what a rational person would conclude, which is an issue of logic (and evidence).

I don't think it is logical to conclude it is incitement without a lot more history of what has constituted incitement and how the question has been addressed philosophically in the past. Maybe you possess that information, but I do not, and I'm not sure how many do.

 

[zooterkin]

Enough arguing about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. Please discuss the actual topic, thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Paul2]

I don't think it is logical to conclude it is incitement without a lot more history of what has constituted incitement and how the question has been addressed philosophically in the past. Maybe you possess that information, but I do not, and I'm not sure how many do.

I'm going to decline the opportunity to get into this issue with you any further. Thanks for the conversation up to here.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't think it is logical to conclude it is incitement without a lot more history of what has constituted incitement and how the question has been addressed philosophically in the past. Maybe you possess that information, but I do not, and I'm not sure how many do.

It's clear to anyone who has the capacity to look the word up in a damn dictionary and doesn't feel the need to nit pick at every other post.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Enough arguing about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. Please discuss the actual topic, thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

I will see about making a separate thread then.

 

[trustbutverify]

A court of law is way too lax a standard for normal day to day decisions. I'm happy to apply my normal, rational standard, but you probably won't like it

Why wouldn't he like it? Trump's plan was to stoke the passions of deranged half-wits in order to intimidate lawmakers with vague threats of violence, like he's been doing his entire adult life to get his way. He'd have to be in a vegetative state not to be aware of the risk of actual violence inherent in such a strategy. In fact, he probably thought some Proud Boy violence would work to his advantage, but he was dead wrong on that. Apparently, things have changed a bit since he commanded his cult to beat up protestors and journalists at his "rallies".

This is a textbook case of incitement.

 

[Pacal]

What amuses me about this whole business is how Trump and others tied to create plausible deniability all in an effort to, if things went wrong, to avoid responsibility. Thus we get Trump's January 6th speech to his mob of supporters. Full of stuff about fighting etc., and marching to the Capital building to encourage Republicans in congress to overturn the elections results. And at the same time having phrases about peace and being peaceful.

This is an often used rhetorical strategy by demagogues and rabble rousers who rile up mobs and then say "I didn't tell them to riot, loot etc." Of course in the context of Trump's lies about the election being stolen since November 2020 and all the doomsday hysteria being uttered by him and his supporters I think the mob read Trump's intentions quite accurately. So I find Trump's and his lawyer's evasions quite amusing and not remotely believable.

And of course Trump's behavior during the storming of the Capital and for much time afterward doesn't exactly impress me with he had much of a problem with it until it blew up in his face.

Of course in a Criminal Trial proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt but an Impeachment Trial is not a Criminal Trial so such a standard is not required and it is pretty obvious to me that Trump's conduct since November after the election became increasingly unhinged and stupid, climaxing on January 6th 2021. It deserves some sort of censure and severe condemnation. Impeachment would be pretty good, but if not that some sort of censure. Certainly this sort of behavior is unacceptable.

It is likely that partisan politics combined with Trump's, rather clumsy, attempts at plausible deniability for causing a riot, once again a familiar rhetorical game of demagogues the world over will enable him to escape being convicted.

P.S. I agree Trump's attempts to get Mike Pence to violate the law and not certify Biden's win is utterly revolting. (I would love to know about what was discussed in the seven hour lunch!)

P.S.S. If Trump is not found guilty at the Impeachment trial a vote of censure, even though it would largely be symbolic, would be the way to go.

 

[bruto]

But there can be a standard where that is not sufficient.

But you also made the argument that what Trump did is impeachable. Based on what? Even if I conceded he is guilty of incitement under certain criteria, how do you convince someone that your criteria for impeachment is correct?

Why is that necessary for the impeachment? The criteria for impeachment are not certain, they are vague. This is a constitutional, political, process in two parts, an impeachment and a trial. You seem to keep insisting that no impeachment can occur unless the trial comes first.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why is that necessary for the impeachment? The criteria for impeachment are not certain, they are vague. This is a constitutional, political, process in two parts, an impeachment and a trial. You seem to keep insisting that no impeachment can occur unless the trial comes first.

Substitute impeach with convict.

 

[Vixen]

You do know the difference between the House and the Senate, don't you?

I was quoting something I read in the GUARDIAN. Is it not so, then, that 17 Republican votes would be needed to get the 2/3 majority to convict?

 

[Stacyhs]

I was quoting something I read in the GUARDIAN. Is it not so, then, that 17 Republican votes would be needed to get the 2/3 majority to convict?

Yes, but the 10 who voted to impeach were representatives in the House. To convict, you need 17 senators, not representatives.

 

[zooterkin]

I was quoting something I read in the GUARDIAN. Is it not so, then, that 17 Republican votes would be needed to get the 2/3 majority to convict?

No, as I understand it, you need a 2/3 majority of those present, which may be less than 100.

 

[The Atheist]

Yes, but the 10 who voted to impeach were representatives in the House. To convict, you need 17 senators, not representatives.

Again, it's worth noting that it requires a 60% majority of members present at the vote.

If a good number of Republican senators decline to attend the voting session, it may not require any to win the vote. I see that is a distinct possibility.