The second impeachment of Donald Trump thread

[Dashinka 24,735]

I see Eric Swalwell is one of the Impeachment Managers, I guess it is the Peter Principle at work, or Xi called Nancy.

[Crazy Cat 42,062]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

I see Eric Swalwell is one of the Impeachment Managers, I guess it is the Peter Principle at work, or Xi called Nancy.

That fits the Democrat pattern.  Place the biggest liars as managers.  Swalwell, Nadler, and Schiff are all despicable and talented in that area.  Once again, these idiots are spending a great deal of taxpayer money for nothing.  These people are setting the stage for the impeachment of every future POTUS.  

Edited January 13, 2021 by Lucky Cat

[Crazy Cat 42,062]

8 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Complicating the "incitement" allegation is that the timeline doesn't fit.  Many or most of those who entered the Capitol building were already over there before Pres. Trump nearly finished his speech and mentioned the "peacefully and patriotically..." desire to march over.

Since when have the Democrats let logic, facts, or the lack of facts get in the way?

[B_J 2,752]

11 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Hello, old friend. I do hope you still keep those pleats in your khakis; in these days of change, it would be good to know there are still constants.

 

The example that you use to support your statement that this was not incitement is arguably support that this was incitement. The test that the courts use is from Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) when considering whether speech which would otherwise be protected is unprotected because it is incitement. The Brandenburg court held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

 

There are two parts of the test: (1) the speech advocates for the use of force or of law violation directed towards inciting or producing imminent lawless action and (2) the speech is likely to incite or produce such action. This is a very high hurdle to climb over, and very good reason: we need to guard zealously our free speech, and the courts recognize this. The lawless action must be imminent -- the spark to the tinder that's right there before you -- and likely in light of the provocative speech. It can't be vague, like: "Down with cops! We should storm the streets with illegal weapons and shoot cops!" When are you going to storm the streets? Now? Next week? Who are you talking to -- a crowd of supporters actually clutching illegal weapons wearing "ACAB" t-shirts, or are you hanging around outside Best Buy for a supposed shipment of PS5s? 

 

The classic example you get in law school of speech that is incitement is one cribbed from John Stuart Mill: there's a difference between writing that corn dealers starve the poor in an article in a newspaper, and when you've got a bunch of angry poor people outside the corn dealer's house and you say "hey, that guy inside is starving you, you should show him what for  right now with these here pitchforks" and you lean a bunch of pitchforks against the wall. You have (1) speech advocating for force/law violation, directed towards producing imminent pointy bits in bottoms of corn dealers and (2) it's likely when you say to a bunch of angry, poor people "you should poke these awful capitalists in the bottom with the pitchforks I have so handily provided" that the people may very well take you up on the suggestion right away if they are sufficiently riled up.

 

Now how does this all play into Trump? Well, as you say, these people showed up with zip ties and pepper spray, they didn't go out and buy them afterwards. They were, arguably, primed for imminent lawless action, as evidenced by, well, let's call the zip ties and pepper spray "contraband" for brevity and carpal tunnel syndrome's sake. They are the tinder. Are Trump's words the spark?

 

If I am taking the position here that his words were incitement under Brandenburg, I can find speech that is arguably directed towards inciting or producing imminent lawless action, like telling the crowd to march on the Capitol and "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore." On its own, it seems insubstantial, but in the context of the speech as a whole, where Trump was aiming to gin up anger in a riled up crowd. And given who was in the crowd -- furious supporters clutching contraband tend to, hm, have at least some desire to use it -- it was likely as their leader Trump's words would be the blessing they needed to move forward. So instead of saying that it could not be incitement because they were already primed to commit crimes, being at the ready with contraband already on their persons makes it potentially more likely it is incitement. Who'da thunk a bunch of rabid Trump supporters, some dressed in tactical gear, might be armed and ready to part-ay? 

 

On the other hand, Trump may save himself by being (as always) a hopeless and meandering orator. Sweet Satan, I read his whole dumb speech for you people!  It's like looking at a picture where you can see not only the duck and the rabbit at the same time, but you also see a walrus, a map of Zurich, the '82 New York Mets and a Hungryman dinner. It's everything and nothing at the same time. He's a clueless oaf who stumbled into something that looks like incitement but all he was doing was playing his greatest hits for his own savoring, each morsel of self-pity a delicious reminder of how put upon he is. SAD!

 

I have my own thoughts on this, and they do not fit well into yes or no boxes. On a legal level, hells yeah, DO IT because it is so interesting and so rare that incitement is ever actually proven. Can it be done? Ooooo. On the other hand, the Doofus Trump theory is quite possibly correct. 

 

Peace and pleated khakis be with you, B_J.

Brandenburg, Schmandenburg.  Your response sucks.  This is way over my head.  Next time give me the community college version of this.  And I really hate learning stuff.  But props for mentioning Hungryman dinners.  👍   

 

Another thought that popped into my head is that the legal issues really aren't going to be that important.  In the end, if it gets to the Senate, it will come down to Senators trying to decide what will be the best decision for them and their future political ambitions.

 

Good to hear from you, Maven.  I rarely pop in here but, when I do, I hope you continue to pop in and show me how dumb I am.

 

[Crazy Cat 42,062]

2 minutes ago, B_J said:

In the end, if it gets to the Senate, it will come down to Senators trying to decide what will be the best decision for them and their future political ambitions.

and that is exactly why the Senate could convict this time.  

[yuna628 9,700]

11 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Hello, old friend. I do hope you still keep those pleats in your khakis; in these days of change, it would be good to know there are still constants.

 

The example that you use to support your statement that this was not incitement is arguably support that this was incitement. The test that the courts use is from Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) when considering whether speech which would otherwise be protected is unprotected because it is incitement. The Brandenburg court held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

 

There are two parts of the test: (1) the speech advocates for the use of force or of law violation directed towards inciting or producing imminent lawless action and (2) the speech is likely to incite or produce such action. This is a very high hurdle to climb over, and very good reason: we need to guard zealously our free speech, and the courts recognize this. The lawless action must be imminent -- the spark to the tinder that's right there before you -- and likely in light of the provocative speech. It can't be vague, like: "Down with cops! We should storm the streets with illegal weapons and shoot cops!" When are you going to storm the streets? Now? Next week? Who are you talking to -- a crowd of supporters actually clutching illegal weapons wearing "ACAB" t-shirts, or are you hanging around outside Best Buy for a supposed shipment of PS5s? 

 

The classic example you get in law school of speech that is incitement is one cribbed from John Stuart Mill: there's a difference between writing that corn dealers starve the poor in an article in a newspaper, and when you've got a bunch of angry poor people outside the corn dealer's house and you say "hey, that guy inside is starving you, you should show him what for  right now with these here pitchforks" and you lean a bunch of pitchforks against the wall. You have (1) speech advocating for force/law violation, directed towards producing imminent pointy bits in bottoms of corn dealers and (2) it's likely when you say to a bunch of angry, poor people "you should poke these awful capitalists in the bottom with the pitchforks I have so handily provided" that the people may very well take you up on the suggestion right away if they are sufficiently riled up.

 

Now how does this all play into Trump? Well, as you say, these people showed up with zip ties and pepper spray, they didn't go out and buy them afterwards. They were, arguably, primed for imminent lawless action, as evidenced by, well, let's call the zip ties and pepper spray "contraband" for brevity and carpal tunnel syndrome's sake. They are the tinder. Are Trump's words the spark?

 

If I am taking the position here that his words were incitement under Brandenburg, I can find speech that is arguably directed towards inciting or producing imminent lawless action, like telling the crowd to march on the Capitol and "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore." On its own, it seems insubstantial, but in the context of the speech as a whole, where Trump was aiming to gin up anger in a riled up crowd. And given who was in the crowd -- furious supporters clutching contraband tend to, hm, have at least some desire to use it -- it was likely as their leader Trump's words would be the blessing they needed to move forward. So instead of saying that it could not be incitement because they were already primed to commit crimes, being at the ready with contraband already on their persons makes it potentially more likely it is incitement. Who'da thunk a bunch of rabid Trump supporters, some dressed in tactical gear, might be armed and ready to part-ay? 

 

On the other hand, Trump may save himself by being (as always) a hopeless and meandering orator. Sweet Satan, I read his whole dumb speech for you people!  It's like looking at a picture where you can see not only the duck and the rabbit at the same time, but you also see a walrus, a map of Zurich, the '82 New York Mets and a Hungryman dinner. It's everything and nothing at the same time. He's a clueless oaf who stumbled into something that looks like incitement but all he was doing was playing his greatest hits for his own savoring, each morsel of self-pity a delicious reminder of how put upon he is. SAD!

 

I have my own thoughts on this, and they do not fit well into yes or no boxes. On a legal level, hells yeah, DO IT because it is so interesting and so rare that incitement is ever actually proven. Can it be done? Ooooo. On the other hand, the Doofus Trump theory is quite possibly correct. 

 

Peace and pleated khakis be with you, B_J.

Oooh Maven, I really agree with all of this. If only we had more time huh? More evidence could be gathered that might help to solidify the case in various areas and not just for incitement. I'm seeing some reports of a group that had a lot of pre-planning involved and assistance from officials (can they be impeached or tossed out too?). The biggest question always is: what did the President know, and when did he know it? His complete inaction pretty much slam dunks it for me. Dereliction of duty perhaps? If I were Pence, I'd be soooooo angry. But I think Mitch has had quite enough of this little game.

10 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I don't think they would allow an incarcerated individual to run for office. 

A vote would be taken to prevent him from ever holding office again, but yes a convicted and or incarcerated person couldn't be doing that either

[Dashinka 24,735]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

Oooh Maven, I really agree with all of this. If only we had more time huh? More evidence could be gathered that might help to solidify the case in various areas and not just for incitement. I'm seeing some reports of a group that had a lot of pre-planning involved and assistance from officials (can they be impeached or tossed out too?). The biggest question always is: what did the President know, and when did he know it? His complete inaction pretty much slam dunks it for me. Dereliction of duty perhaps? If I were Pence, I'd be soooooo angry. But I think Mitch has had quite enough of this little game.

A vote would be taken to prevent him from ever holding office again, but yes a convicted and or incarcerated person couldn't be doing that either

Short of a criminal conviction, it would be questionable if the Congress could do this unless it happened before noon on January 20th.  It is also a question if Roberts would participate in a post inauguration impeachment trial as any question of validity would most likely end up at SCOTUS.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

  I listened to most of the house debate today and honestly 95% of Democrats said the same thing, basically boiled down to "Trump=bad", and 90% of Republicans said variations of the same two things, either "Trump didn't mean it, stop picking on him" or "what about BLM/Antifa". Painful to listen to these people, and at times it reminded me of a VJ thread where nobody reads what anyone else is saying and keeps repeating what they want to say over and over. The next 4 40 years aren't looking so good if we have any expectations of this bunch to accomplish anything.

 

  The best I heard was a Republican rep from Texas, forgot his name, saying Trump needs to be held accountable for everything but impeachment is not the way to do it. That pretty much summed up how I feel about it at the moment too. 

[Crazy Cat 42,062]

So, they just voted to impeach Trump again.......exactly how does this, in any way, help the Democrats?????  These people are nuts.....

 

Edited January 13, 2021 by Lucky Cat

[Dashinka 24,735]

So if the Senate trial begins after the Inauguration does Trump even have to put up any defense?  

[Ban Hammer 13,487]

apparently trump is a wizard now
 

Quote

“The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack,” Cheney wrote in a statement.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/suspicions-build-capitol-attack-democrats-160000481.html

[yuna628 9,700]

7 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Short of a criminal conviction, it would be questionable if the Congress could do this unless it happened before noon on January 20th.  It is also a question if Roberts would participate in a post inauguration impeachment trial as any question of validity would most likely end up at SCOTUS.

Mitch is ruling out a trial before the 20th, and certainly if that is the case any trial occurring would absolutely result in a conviction, and a vote to bar him from any further office. And you know what? I actually think that's what Mitch really wants. He's a vindictive/manipulative guy, and rather devious. All accounts is he's had it with Trump. He'd be thrilled to see him gone, right at this very moment I think, but he doesn't want to 'appear' like the person that's done it. Just like the House, there will be a majority of votes to convict, and plenty of R's will go along. Doing it after the new makeup of the Senate arrives will give them cover. I've seen a few options that could be used besides Roberts, but this is speculative atm.

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

  I listened to most of the house debate today and honestly 95% of Democrats said the same thing, basically boiled down to "Trump=bad", and 90% of Republicans said variations of the same two things, either "Trump didn't mean it, stop picking on him" or "what about BLM/Antifa". Painful to listen to these people, and at times it reminded me of a VJ thread where nobody reads what anyone else is saying and keeps repeating what they want to say over and over. The next 4 40 years aren't looking so good if we have any expectations of this bunch to accomplish anything.

 

  The best I heard was a Republican rep from Texas, forgot his name, saying Trump needs to be held accountable for everything but impeachment is not the way to do it. That pretty much summed up how I feel about it at the moment too. 

I also listened to it today. There were a few really earnest speakers, and that did include Republicans too. The rest was pretty trashy. To me... it's kind of clear. It's not necessarily an incitement issue. It's a dereliction of duty issue. There could eventually be evidence of sedition, but that would be pretty shocking.

2 hours ago, Lucky Cat said:

So, they just voted to impeach Trump again.......exactly how does this, in any way, help the Democrats?????  These people are nuts.....

 

There were Republicans that voted too. Their reasoning made sense. The impeachment process is there for a reason. It is never likely that if you support a president during an impeachment process, that you would agree with it.

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

So if the Senate trial begins after the Inauguration does Trump even have to put up any defense?  

I should think so. It's ultimately meaningless to do so, but sure, why not?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

30 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Mitch is ruling out a trial before the 20th, and certainly if that is the case any trial occurring would absolutely result in a conviction, and a vote to bar him from any further office. And you know what? I actually think that's what Mitch really wants. He's a vindictive/manipulative guy, and rather devious. All accounts is he's had it with Trump. He'd be thrilled to see him gone, right at this very moment I think, but he doesn't want to 'appear' like the person that's done it. Just like the House, there will be a majority of votes to convict, and plenty of R's will go along.

 

 

"Plenty"

 

House->207 GOP->10/207 Yes votes

Senate->50 GOP->17+/50 Convict votes??

 

Might wanna re-do that math.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds

[Orangesapples 1,954]

On 1/12/2021 at 9:49 AM, Steeleballz said:

 

  I think the whole impeachment process is intended to get Trump to consider resigning, or at the very least behave for two weeks with the threat of impeachment and the 25th over his head. I don't see it carrying on past the 20th even if they do vote on it in the house. 

Also preventing him from from the running again and stripping him of taxpayer funded government benefits. Also, that will be his legacy. They can do it after he is out of office, too. I think it's worthwhile. 

[Orangesapples 1,954]

On 1/12/2021 at 5:22 PM, Lucky Cat said:

Removing Trump from office now would be the most idiotic move the Dems have ever made (and they have made some big ones).  If Trump is removed from office, he can not run in 2024 as an independent, thus consolidating support for the next Republican candidate.  If Trump runs as an independent, he will certainly siphon off red votes.

I think we're all sick of Trump dominating the news cycle. I don't want to have to hear about him running again. I don't want to hear any more if his sometimes entertaining but also frightening ramblings.