Why Impeach Trump now?

[AUFAN78 3,894]

10 minutes ago, AUDub said:

*Ahem*

High crimes and misdemeanors are whatever the house determines them to be. 

True. It should be easy for Democrats to make the political argument that Trump’s words are at fault. And there is little doubt this process is a political one.

I think @wdefromtx was speaking to the legal challenge if there was one. That would be a tough sell, but I don't think that happens. 

[AUDub 11,147]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

True. It should be easy for Democrats to make the political argument that Trump’s words are at fault. And there is little doubt this process is a political one.

I think @wdefromtx was speaking to the legal challenge if there was one. That would be a tough sell, but I don't think that happens. 

It's essentially beyond judicial review. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

True. It should be easy for Democrats to make the political argument that Trump’s words are at fault. And there is little doubt this process is a political one.

I think @wdefromtx was speaking to the legal challenge if there was one. That would be a tough sell, but I don't think that happens. 

I think it will be hard to prove what he meant in a legal stance. Even if the House impeached him I believe the Chief Justice can scrub it before it goes to the senate. 

[savorytiger 182]

58 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Yeah I read the entire speech. Aljazeera has it up. It is a mess. Typical Trump. One of the worst orators ever. But you are correct, he even called for a peaceful march. 

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Here is a link to another article they have up: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/11/whether-trump-incited-capitol-riot-is-in-eye-of-the-beholder

I think it's a mistake to solely focus on the speech from that morning. Trump's diehard fans have just spent the last month being told that their election was stolen from them. To those people, evil was about to retake the entire government. The answer of the question of "why can't they just protest peacefully?" works for both BLM and Trump's people on Wednesday. Both groups felt that the normal peaceful mechanisms set up in our country have let them down, so the only logical next step is to take matters into their own hands. 

I can't argue legality to the issue since I'm pretty ignorant about that, but at this point I think it's very easy to predict that there would be violence after Trump sent them over there to "show strength". There's also that bit where Giuliani called for trial by combat...

(Making sure to note that I'm not equivocating the two groups, just reasoning why violence took place in both cases)

[TexasTiger 12,831]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

He’s right though. He never explicitly called for riots, one can argue what he meant by those words but without proof no court will uphold the impeachment. 

🙄🙄🙄🙄🤦‍♂️

[TexasTiger 12,831]

11 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I think it will be hard to prove what he meant in a legal stance. Even if the House impeached him I believe the Chief Justice can scrub it before it goes to the senate. 

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Show me where he explicitly told folks to riot. I’ll hang up and wait.......

[AUUSN 823]

4 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Show me where he explicitly told folks to riot. I’ll hang up and wait.......

He didn’t have to:

The federal criminal code (18 USC 373) makes it a crime to solicit, command, induce or “endeavor to persuade” another person to commit a felony that includes the threat or use of physical force. Simply put, it is a crime to persuade another person, or a mob of several thousand, to commit a violent felony.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

24 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Show me where he explicitly told folks to riot. I’ll hang up and wait.......

Make some effort to educate yourself before saying ignorant things and then getting pissy.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

He’s right though. He never explicitly called for riots, one can argue what he meant by those words but without proof no court will uphold the impeachment. 

The Constitution seems to exclude the court from the impeachment process. It grants the House of Representatives “the sole power of impeachment.” The Senate, similarly, has “the sole power to try all impeachments.” Those are the only provisions of the Constitution that use the pointed word “sole.”

The Supreme Court, too, has been pretty categorical. “The judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments,” Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court in a 1993 opinion that rejected an impeached judge’s objection to the procedures used at his Senate trial.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/trump-impeachment-supreme-court.html

[GoAU 1,600]

4 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Healing can only come if we're:

1) Holding those responsible for a damn insurrection responsible for their actions, and

2) We all start using the same basis of facts again.  Difference of opinions based on those is fine.

But you don't get set a fire to my home, walk away, and then say "We should work together to move forward".  No, there have to be consequences for that.

And where the hell was this healing talk when, just hours after an attack on the Capitol, legislators still repeatedly got up and peddled false claims of election irregularities?  Healing has to start with contrition.

Do you really think there were no irregularities with regards to this last election?   Note that I am NOT saying fraud, that has yet to be determined.   But clearly the ridiculous amount of vote by mail alone is “irregular”.  The issue with sending election observers and media home, and then resuming to count ballots from containers placed under a tablecloth is “irregular “.  The mysterious broken pipe in Atlanta is irregular.   There are lots of things that were irregular.   

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

*Ahem*

High crimes and misdemeanors are whatever the house determines them to be. 

Ahh, so let’s arbitrarily define high crimes and misdemeanors to punish a political adversary.  And you try to label Trump as a a fascist?   

[AUDub 11,147]

4 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Ahh, so let’s arbitrarily define high crimes and misdemeanors to punish a political adversary.  And you try to label Trump as a a fascist?   

Take it up with the founders. They made it ambiguous by design. 

[AUDub 11,147]

You heard it here first, folks:

The founders were fascists.

[AUDub 11,147]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

I think it will be hard to prove what he meant in a legal stance. Even if the House impeached him I believe the Chief Justice can scrub it before it goes to the senate. 

You're wrong. 

[GoAU 1,600]

20 minutes ago, AUDub said:

You heard it here first, folks:

The founders were fascists.

No, they were guilty of not having the foresight to think that people like you would try to pervert the Constitution they were crafting.  

[TexasTiger 12,831]

6 minutes ago, GoAU said:

No, they were guilty of not having the foresight to think that people like you would try to pervert the Constitution they were crafting.  

Do you think they would consider inciting a violent disruption of the electoral process impeachable?

[AUDub 11,147]

Just now, GoAU said:

No, they were guilty of not having the foresight to think that people like you would try to pervert the Constitution they were crafting.  

Hardly a perversion. Again, the ambiguity is very much by design. They were smart enough to realize that limiting impeachment to indictable offenses only would hopelessly hamstring the removal of an official that deserved it.

Each instance of impeachment is unique, with its own circumstances. The founders understood this.

Apparently it's beyond you, but you're a doorknob so whatever. 

[GoAU 1,600]

I don’t know, but since he didn’t incite anyone to storm the Capital I don’t see how it’s even relevant.   
 

 

[GoAU 1,600]

3 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Hardly a perversion. Again, the ambiguity is very much by design. They were smart enough to realize that limiting impeachment to indictable offenses only would hopelessly hamstring the removal of an official that deserved it.

Each instance of impeachment is unique, with its own circumstances. The founders understood this.

Apparently it's beyond you, but you're a doorknob so whatever. 

Sticks and stones and all that....   Because I don’t agree with you- LOL.   What a bad little liberal you are, not very inclusive.  Then again, libs are only inclusive of those that agree with them, right?  

 

What specifically did he say that would constitute. “High crime pr misdemeanor”.  A quote or some specific evidence would be nice.  

[wdefromtx 3,159]

19 minutes ago, AUDub said:

You're wrong. 

Hence why I had the words “I think” and “ I believe.” 
 

But whatever makes you feel better about yourself. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

What are the chances it gets 2/3 vote for it in the senate? Probably not much. My guess is some more lawyers get rich off this again. 

[AUDub 11,147]

10 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Hence why I had the words “I think” and “ I believe.” 
 

But whatever makes you feel better about yourself. 

Well then you believe wrong. 

Really Roberts' role is extremely limited in spite of him being highly visible. In the end the duty is the Senate's .

[AUUSN 823]

4 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

What are the chances it gets 2/3 vote for it in the senate? Probably not much. My guess is some more lawyers get rich off this again. 

You only need 2/3 of present Senators. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

3 minutes ago, AUUSN said:

You only need 2/3 of present Senators. 

I know, and I’m not sure enough R’s will break away from the pack to get the count. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

Do you really think there were no irregularities with regards to this last election?   Note that I am NOT saying fraud, that has yet to be determined.   But clearly the ridiculous amount of vote by mail alone is “irregular”.  The issue with sending election observers and media home, and then resuming to count ballots from containers placed under a tablecloth is “irregular “.  The mysterious broken pipe in Atlanta is irregular.   There are lots of things that were irregular.   

I think that all of this stuff that has been spewed out has been proven false in courts of law.  Your example of the "containers placed under a tablecloth" was directly addressed on 60 minutes last night by the Republican Georgia officials in charge of the election.  I encourage you to watch it.