Split Thread A second impeachment

[SezMe]

If this were a criminal trial, I don't hink there's enough to convict. Maybe something will come up, but from what I've seen, I don't think there is any proof that he knew that crimes would occur as a result of his speech.

Proof? You're using the wrong standard, for this impeachment trial and any criminal trial. The standard is, ".... beyond a reasonable doubt..." So forget "proof" and ask whether there is some reasonable doubt that Trump both wanted and encouraged violence. If so, I'd like to hear the reasoning.

Remember, the evidence you must consider is not just Jan. 6. Rather you must consider the ~11 months that T**** has been building up to that date with his lies, innuendo, and bravado. Evidence was also introduced of his direct, specific exhortations to violence at many of his rallies.

I, for one, cannot find *any* room for "reasonable doubt" hiding somewhere in that mountain of evidence.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Interestingly, we have learned that the VP has his own football, and it can be seen on the video as he runs for his life.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/nuclear-football-vice-president-pence.html

That was already known. There is one for the President, one for the VP, and one remains in the White House.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Does anyone recall how so many House and Senate Republicans went ape when four Americans got killed in at the Benghazi consulate when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State?

And now that Trump got five Americans killed in the US Capitol who were protecting the Congress, now just about all of those very same Republicans could care less about these five Americans.

Something I have been thinking about for the past few days is that we know exactly what Republicans would do if there were accusations that a Democrat lied to the American people to influence the outcome of an election and there was a protest that turned into a riot that was actually a planned terrorist attack to storm a United States building that resulted in the deaths of several Americans with suspicions that the administration intentionally failed to provide adequate security at that building.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I am loathe to use this hackneyed construct, but hypocrisy for Republicans is not a bug, it’s a feature.

 

[SezMe]

He tweeted this after telling the press that he spoke to Trump on the phone in order to reassure him that he wasn't going to be convicted. Nothing like stating your conclusion before you've seen the evidence.

Ha, that's late in the game. Graham, et. al. met with the defense before the trial even began!! Gawd, those GOP senators are really off the bottom of the barrel.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually, I don't [missing word] that Gaetz is stupid. But he is absolutely in a thrall to himself, much like T****. One result is that he is so narrow-minded that two tardigrades couldn't pass each other in his skull cavity. He's absolutely blind to any view the world other than his own, stunted one.

Evidence?

 

[alfaniner]

Graham is just sucking up to Trump in the expectation of being named his running mate as VP. Once it's clear that he won't be, he'll back off like a shot.

 

[SezMe]

Lindsey Graham tweets

@LindseyGrahamSC
The 'Not Guilty' vote is growing after today.

I think most Republicans found the presentation by the House Managers offensive and absurd.

They damn well ought to.

The Dems had two possible approaches to the trial: 1) the present approach where nobody even whispers of the GOP senators role in this whole thing over the past 4+ years, or 2) call a spade a spade and include in the videos examples of their own complicity in this affair. They obviously (and probably correctly) assumed that if they took the second approach, they would guarantee an acquittal.

But I think an acquittal was a given, anyway. It would have been interesting to watch blowhards like Cruz squirm while his ass-kissing was on full display. Reaming the GOP a new one would have certainly killed any chance of success of Biden's outreach across the aisle for "unity".

All in all, going soft on the GOP was the right call but I'd sure like to have some time in the alternate universe where the Dems went after them with both barrels blasting away.

 

[SezMe]

Trump’s defense is supposed to get 16 hours. How are they gonna fill that? More Jim Jordan speeches with him checklisting every MAGA complaint point like cancel culture and immigration?

I read somewhere (can't find it now) that they were only going to take one day. After all, nobody wants to sit through two days of poetry.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
If this were a criminal trial, I don't hink there's enough to convict. Maybe something will come up, but from what I've seen, I don't think there is any proof that he knew that crimes would occur as a result of his speech.

Oh for crying out loud. That's akin to saying the guy who threw a match into the shed he just poured out a can of gas into didn't know what would happen.

It's not just he "should have known". What the hell do you think Trump had in mind, a protest outside the building that would cause the certification to be stopped?

You have your GOP blinders on.


I know this was pages back. Sorry if I answered it already.

 

[Bubba]

Before Jan 6, the FBI and Pelosi's Capitol Police chief had warnings that troublemakers were coming.

Pelosi declined Trump's advance offer of 10K National Guardsmen for protecting the Capitol.

Trump said "... have a peaceful protest"

There is clear footage of Capitol guards allowing the mob access by moving barricades aside.

When that actual footage was posted on this site, a fake skeptic saw it and said: "What the actual ****...?"

It was a set up.

 

[Paul2]

Before Jan 6, FBI and Pelosi's Capitol Police chief had warnings that troublemakers were coming.


Pelosi declined Trump's advance offer of 10K National Guardsmen for protecting the Capitol on Jan 6.

It was a set up.

Send the evidence to the impeachment defense lawyers - quick!

 

[bam]

Did Moscow Mitch get the same info and offer?

 

[Bob001]

Before Jan 6, FBI and Pelosi's Capitol Police chief had warnings that troublemakers were coming.

Pelosi declined Trump's advance offer of 10K National Guardsmen for protecting the Capitol on Jan 6.

It was a set up.

A/ There's no evidence that Pelosi had anything to do with anything.

B/ The Capitol Police chief answers equally to the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms, who answer to the leadership. The Senate side was controlled by Sen. McConnell. If she had any responsibility, so did he. The chief had all the authority he needed on his own to schedule more cops, put them in riot gear, install fencing, etc., etc.

There's no doubt that key decisions were made by the chief, and later regarding the National Guard by the White House and the Pentagon. In an interview the ex-chief explicitly said he was preparing for a peaceful demonstration.

If you think anybody expected or planned what happened, you're more delusional than most Trumpers.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Graham is just sucking up to Trump in the expectation of being named his running mate as VP. Once it's clear that he won't be, he'll back off like a shot.

It's something larger than that. After the attack Graham condemned Trump and said he was through with it. Even after the election McConnell was obviously gunning to kick Trump to the curb and regain control of the Republican party. Other Republicans appeared to be poised to go against Trump even before January 6.

But then the Senate went into recess and suddenly they all come out with obviously orchestrated talking points about unity and impeachment in unconstitutional and it's a waste of time and we need to move on.

They suddenly all started saying the same things. There was a meeting. Something happened.

I don't know what drove that decision. Big donors? Data analysists? Strategists? Or maybe even not being able to convince enough Republican Senators to get on board.

For whatever reason, they determined that they wouldn't or couldn't get enough for conviction and agreed that without that assurance going against Trump would give them no possible gain and substantial loss. So they focused on strategy to push against conviction.

I would really like to know what it was that drove that decision, because so powerful Republicans were clearly going the other way and then suddenly flipped. Of course flipping makes sense if they won't actually get a conviction. Turning on Trump is only beneficial if it gets rid of Trump, but bad if it doesn't. But I don't know what turned the tide.

 

[Bob001]

That was already known. There is one for the President, one for the VP, and one remains in the White House.

Well, I didn't know it, and neither did the writer, who says he's a long-time student of nuclear control issues. And he doesn't mention any extra footballs. I doubt they keep spares in the hall closet.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Pelosi declined Trump's advance offer of 10K National Guardsmen for protecting the Capitol.

That seems incredibly unlikely. I can't find anything on this.

What is the basis for this basis for this statement? Is there evidence to support it?

 

[zorro99]

Before Jan 6, the FBI and Pelosi's Capitol Police chief had warnings that troublemakers were coming.

Pelosi declined Trump's advance offer of 10K National Guardsmen for protecting the Capitol.

Trump said "... have a peaceful protest"

There is clear footage of Capitol guards allowing the mob access by moving barricades aside.

When that actual footage was posted on this site, a fake skeptic saw it and said: "What the actual ****...?"

It was a set up.

Lies.

 

[SezMe]

It was a set up.

Bubba!! I hope you're enjoying life in Biden's paradise.

What was a set up? Be specific and back it up with citations.

 

[Bob001]

.....
If this were a criminal trial, I don't hink there's enough to convict. Maybe something will come up, but from what I've seen, I don't think there is any proof that he knew that crimes would occur as a result of his speech.

He should have known. I was listening live to that speech, and when I heard him talking about marching to the Capitol and "fight like Hell", I was certain there would be violence, and I thought it entirely possible that they would literally storm the Capitol.
.....

It's not a criminal trial. He's not at risk of liberty or property. The only issue is whether he is allowed to run for office again. I would think by a civil liability standard -- the preponderance of the evidence -- he knew or should have known that his words and behavior were incendiary, not just on the day but in all the weeks and months following the election when he claimed that the results were fraudulent.

His oath is to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. He didn't, and that's enough to make him guilty.