Why Impeach Trump now?

[homersapien 11,367]

On 1/11/2021 at 10:58 PM, AUDub said:

Damn shame. They're one of the few outlets out there that doesnt inject a bunch of editorial BS into their reporting. 

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that it doesn't rise to a criminal definition of incitement the impeachment process doesn't require an actual law broken. If the effect of Trump's speech is that Congress is sacked, people died, and his mob attempted to kill lawmakers including his own vice president then Congress could, and should, vote to impeach and convict.

They constructed a gallows and chanted "hang Mike Pence." They tore through the halls of Congress and killed a cop. Trump timed his speech to end and the crowd to arrive as Pence certified the election and they ended the first vote. Trump lied and said he'd march with them. He said they'd cheer some votes and not cheer so much or others. He gave them the idea that they could go into the building to do this and they did it. I don't need to get into hypotheticals. If the end result of your speech and coordination efforts for your rally is that a few thousand people kill a cop and try to hang the vice president then as president you ****** around and you should find out.

Plus, Trump had ample opportunity after it began to step up and try to stop it.

[homersapien 11,367]

On 1/12/2021 at 9:21 PM, Grumps said:

The word "peacefully" was a dog-whistle, 78. Didn't you know that?

Well Trump didn't have much to say after the violence broke out, did he.

If he really wanted to see a peaceful protest, 1) why did he urge them to march on the capitol in the first place and 2) why didn't he try to stop the violence by telling his supporters to stop?

You cannot be so brainwashed to think he really wanted a peaceful protest.

[homersapien 11,367]

On 1/13/2021 at 12:20 PM, McLoofus said:

That's definitely part of the problem. A lot of people seem to have had a lot of things to say to people like you and me these last few years, but at the end of the day they really do think this is all entertainment. I just have to hope that they fail to verbally acknowledge the gravity of what happened last week- and the role their own flippancy played in allowing it to happen- out of shame or embarrassment, and that privately they are doing some real soul searching.

There's no hope for the crazies. Not until some sort of major socioeconomic change happens that makes them less angry, scared, and desperate for a false prophet to provide them with a target for their frustrations. He really is a religion. He provides simple, satisfying answers to complex, existential questions. Sorry, tangenting here. 

Plus, a lot of them are just stone cold ignorant about his past.  It's amazing to hear how so many people were attracted to him as a "businessman".   Profiting from your own business failures while conning banks out of their money doesn't mean one is a successful businessman.

He's like a living rorschach test.  He can make himself appear as whatever you want him to be.

I knew that eventually reality would intervene with his presidency and the s*** would hit the fan.  I didn't expect it to make so little difference with his supporters.  It truly is a cult.  It's very hard to admit you've been taken by a con artist. (And there's psychology to back this up.)

[McLoofus 35,182]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It's very hard to admit you've been taken by a con artist.

Soooo true. 

[homersapien 11,367]

On 1/12/2021 at 10:31 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

Correct. Likely a constitutional issue properly suited for SCOTUS

I have to admit, I like the irony of the Republican's own SCOTUS stepping in to maintain the viability of Trump's candidacy for 2024.  They embraced and enabled him. Make it forever. 

[homersapien 11,367]

On 1/14/2021 at 11:00 PM, Grumps said:

Maybe. For some reason, it is assumed that the people on the left are 100% correct and the people on the right are 100% looney. I'm used to it.

All I know to do is look at the actual words that were said and then use my intellect and education to interpret what those words mean. I will readily admit that it is possible that all of never-Trumpers are smarter and more educated than I am. It is also possible that hatred has damaged your ability to reason.

Just for fun I'll ask (and don't expect a reply) "What words did Trump use to incite the mob?"

Context matters grumps.  Always has, always will.

[homersapien 11,367]

On 1/15/2021 at 5:52 AM, CleCoTiger said:

He's been inciting his cult for months. Months before the election. Months after the election. And he along with other speakers incited them on the day of the attack on the Capitol. Taken together, Trump's public tweets, videos and statements are absolutely damning.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/01/road-to-a-second-impeachment/

And that's the problem.

Trump has created an army of people committed to the "big lie".  This army didn't just emerge from nowhere, he created it.  He defined their mission, which is insurrection in his name, on his behalf.  And when they started on that mission, he naturally didn't lift a finger to stop it.  They are his army executing his mission.

And it will continue as long as Trump is alive - with or without the Republican party. (And I personally hope he drags the "GOP" along with him.)

I hope he isn't legally barred from running again.  This insurrection needs to run its full and natural course.  Trying to circumvent it legally will only boost it.

This is a test of who we are as a country.  If we fail it, so be it.

 

[homersapien 11,367]

On 1/15/2021 at 8:25 PM, GoAU said:

I didn’t specifically state that this election was stolen or that voter fraud played enough of a role to tip the scales.  I have not seen any evidence to this point that proves the election was stolen.  I have said there were irregularities, and there absolutely were.  
 

State voting laws were changed, some say illegitimately.   A series of suspicious events in GA.  Lots of unusual and rushed accommodations due to “COVID”.  But regardless, even if this election wasn’t “stolen” why would we wait until there is massive voter fraud event to ensure that elections are as secure as possible?   You don’t get car insurance AFTER an accident.  I have also never understood the argument that requiring ID equates to voter suppression.   

"Some say"?     Donald, is that you?  

You really need to do your homework before posting - regurgitating the same old MAGA talking points isn't going to fly.  All of this stuff has been litigated weeks ago.

[homersapien 11,367]

On 1/15/2021 at 5:59 AM, CleCoTiger said:

Why? I mean really. Why? What's the point? Why should voting be harder rather than easier? Why should people have to take off from work to vote? Why should anyone have to stand in line to vote? What, other than making voter harder and reducing participation, is the point?

Of course, that is the point.   A minority party only has two ways to win: 

1) Expand the party base, or

2) Suppress the vote.

Many in the party recommended the former.  (See Republican post-mortem after Romney's defeat).  Then Trump came along and they chose suppression.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/17/gop-ditches-election-postmortem-447091

[wdefromtx 3,159]

18 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Of course, that is the point.   A minority party only has two ways to win: 

1) Expand the party base, or

2) Suppress the vote.

Many in the party recommended the former.  (See Republican post-mortem after Romney's defeat).  Then Trump came along and they chose suppression.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/17/gop-ditches-election-postmortem-447091

It is pretty simple, people are inherently lazy (maybe not the correct word.....perhaps it's we have gotten more used to convenience and we want the path that is easiest.) The dems got out and worked the ground and signed up as many people as they could to get them registered to vote by mail. They probably got to as many undecided voters as possible and by virtue of ease of dropping it in the mail and I am sure a good bit of people just voted dem based on that face to face contact as well.....meaning human interaction and feeling important hold value to people. 

 

On the other side, the Repubs just complained about mail in voting and how bad it was instead of really working the ground game.

 

Post mortem autopsy.......you suppress your own voting base when you tell them how bad something is instead of using it to your advantage. If they had worked the ground like the dems for that mail in vote we'd probably have a tighter race. 

[GoAU 1,600]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

"Some say"?     Donald, is that you?  

You really need to do your homework before posting - regurgitating the same old MAGA talking points isn't going to fly.  All of this stuff has been litigated weeks ago.

No Nancy, it wasn’t all litigated.   

[GoAU 1,600]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Of course, that is the point.   A minority party only has two ways to win: 

1) Expand the party base, or

2) Suppress the vote.

Many in the party recommended the former.  (See Republican post-mortem after Romney's defeat).  Then Trump came along and they chose suppression.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/17/gop-ditches-election-postmortem-447091

If requiring proof of identity is suppression, we should also end the suppression of the Second Amendment- do away with ID laws.   

[GoAU 1,600]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

He created a movement - based on his big lie - that attacked the congress in the U.S. Capitol.  I'd say that qualifies.

Presumably you reside at the "just take orders" level of the military. 

Thank God for that.

 

 

 

You might say that qualifies, but the law disagrees with you.  The fact is, this whole second impeachment sham doesn't meet the legal definition of inciting a riot either.  
 

Your comment about “Just taking orders” is about as poor of an example of proving a point as I’ve seen.  I am the one advocating that the individuals are responsible for their own actions.  Even if “Trump told them to” (which he did not) they are still responsible for knowing right from wrong.  You are the one saying that somehow Trump is responsible for saying something that a small percentage of the protestors in DC that day may have interpreted.   
 

Which Democrat politicians are you holding accountable for the various riots and police officer shootings that occurred over the summer?   

[Leftfield 2,595]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

You might say that qualifies, but the law disagrees with you.  The fact is, this whole second impeachment sham doesn't meet the legal definition of inciting a riot either.  

I think you may be wrong about the law disagreeing, but time may tell. It's a moot point, however. A person can be impeached and removed from office for whatever reason Congress feels appropriate. The reason does not have to meet the standard of a court of law, therefore it is not a sham.

[GoAU 1,600]

12 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I think you may be wrong about the law disagreeing, but time may tell. It's a moot point, however. A person can be impeached and removed from office for whatever reason Congress feels appropriate. The reason does not have to meet the standard of a court of law, therefore it is not a sham.

I agree that is what the law says.  I also think it’s absolutely pathetic that the Democrats have taken partisan politics to a whole new level.  Prior to the last 4 years emplacement has been used very rarely, going forward it will likely be used much more frequently and the standard for it to be used will change from “high crimes and misdemeanors” to “whenever you dont agree with politics, especially if you control the House”. The first emplacement was an absolute sham, and the second one is too.  

[GoAU 1,600]

An interesting article on this topic:

While looking up the legal definition of inciting a riot, I came across a post by law professor Jonathan Turley. While no fan of Trump, he wrote that the President’s speech on January 6th do not rise to the legal standard for inciting a riot (Brandenberg v. Ohiofrom 1969 is the precedent or standard in this type of case):

When I testified in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings, I noted that an article of impeachment does not have to be based on a clear crime but that Congress historically has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment offenses. In this current controversy, any such comparison would quickly dispel claims of criminal incitement. Despite widespread, justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” […]

There was no call for lawless action by Trump. Instead, there was a call for a protest at the Capitol. Moreover, violence was not imminent; the vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters present were not violent before the march, and most did not riot inside the Capitol. Like many violent protests we have witnessed over the last four years, including Trump’s 2017 inauguration, the criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators. Capitol police knew of the planned march but declined an offer of National Guard personnel because they did not view violence as likely.

Thus, Congress is about to seek the impeachment of a president for a speech that is protected under the First Amendment. It would create precedent for the impeachment of any president who can be blamed for the violent acts of others after the use of reckless or inflammatory language.

Turley goes on to note, as I have written, that there’s been no lack of overheated rhetoric from the other side of the aisle … but somehow that’s not inciting a riot. “They can all legitimately argue that their rhetoric was not meant to be a call for violence, but this is a standard fraught with subjectivity.” 

It’s a crime when YOU do it, not when WE do it. Is this line of argument from the I’m Rubber and You’re Glue School of Law? 

In another post, on retired Senator Ron Paul being banned from Facebook, Turley wrote about the explosion of rage and vitriol: 

Even before the riot, Democrats were calling for blacklists and retaliation against anyone deemed to be “complicit” with the Trump Administration. We have been discussing the rising threats against Trump supporters, lawyers, and officials in recent weeks from Democratic members are calling for blacklists to the Lincoln Project leading a a national effort to harass and abuse any lawyers representing the Republican party or President Trump. Others are calling for banning those “complicit” from college campuses while still others are demanding a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to “hold Trump and his enablers accountable for the crimes they have committed.” Daily Beast editor-at-large Rick Wilson has added his own call for “humiliation,” “incarceration” and even ritualistic suicides for Trump supporters in an unhinged, vulgar column.

After the riots, the big tech companies moved to ban and block sites and individuals, including Parler which is the primary alternative to Twitter.  Also, a top Forbes editor Randall Lane warned any company that they will be investigated if they hire any former Trump officials.

The riots are being used as a license to rollback on free speech and retaliate against conservatives.  In the meantime, the silence of academics and many in the media is deafening. Many of those who have spoken for years about the dark period of McCarthyism and blacklisting are either supporting this censorship or remaining silent in the face of it. Now that conservatives are the targets, speech controls and blacklists appear understandable or even commendable.

The move against Paul, a long champion of free speech, shows how raw and comprehensive this crackdown has become. It shows how the threat to free speech has changed. It is like having a state media without state control. These companies are moving in unison but not necessarily with direct collusion. The riot was immediately taken as a green light to move against a huge variety of sites and individuals.  As we have seen in Europe, such censorship becomes an insatiable appetite for greater and greater speech control.  Even Germany’s Angela Merkel (who has a long history of anti-free speech actions) has criticized Twitter’s actions as inimical to free speech.  Yet, most law professors and media figures in the United States remain silent.We are in dangerous times, people. And the danger is not coming from Trump.

 

[Leftfield 2,595]

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

I agree that is what the law says.  I also think it’s absolutely pathetic that the Democrats have taken partisan politics to a whole new level.  Prior to the last 4 years emplacement has been used very rarely, going forward it will likely be used much more frequently and the standard for it to be used will change from “high crimes and misdemeanors” to “whenever you dont agree with politics, especially if you control the House”. The first emplacement was an absolute sham, and the second one is too.  

Or, Trump could have, you know, acted completely inappropriately as President and abused his power. I think it's quite clear we will not agree on that point, and I continue to be crestfallen at how so many people cannot see how corrupt he is.

If this impeachment is truly partisan, then I guess you'll have nothing to worry about in regards to the Senate convicting him.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

45 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Or, Trump could have, you know, acted completely inappropriately as President and abused his power. I think it's quite clear we will not agree on that point, and I continue to be crestfallen at how so many people cannot see how corrupt he is.

If this impeachment is truly partisan, then I guess you'll have nothing to worry about in regards to the Senate convicting him.

Always remember that 30%+ of the public still supporter Nixon on his way out.  It took time and the lens of history for that number to go down.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

55 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I agree that is what the law says.  I also think it’s absolutely pathetic that the Democrats have taken partisan politics to a whole new level.  Prior to the last 4 years emplacement has been used very rarely, going forward it will likely be used much more frequently and the standard for it to be used will change from “high crimes and misdemeanors” to “whenever you dont agree with politics, especially if you control the House”. The first emplacement was an absolute sham, and the second one is too.  

Dude, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about an extra-marital affair.  Don't act righteous here.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

I think it's safe to say that Trump is finished politically regardless of the outcome in the Senate.

[DKW 86 7,419]

6 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Dude, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying UNDER OATH, IN A COURTROOM, AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, about an extra-marital affair sexual harassment case that he lost.   Don't act righteous here.

FTFY. He lied under oath in a legal action in front of a court. Essentially Purgery and Obstruction of Justice. The case was over sexual harassment and she won an $850,000 settlement, by the way. You are 100% Correct that it doesnt meet Trump's deeds at all, but it does fully fit the "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" Standard.

Clinton was not under any stretch of credulity Impeached over an affair.  

[GoAU 1,600]

7 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Or, Trump could have, you know, acted completely inappropriately as President and abused his power. I think it's quite clear we will not agree on that point, and I continue to be crestfallen at how so many people cannot see how corrupt he is.

If this impeachment is truly partisan, then I guess you'll have nothing to worry about in regards to the Senate convicting him.

Define his specific “abuse of power”, especially as it relates to his impeachment?    He was impeached for “Russian collusion” that was also proven to be completely false.   What was proven is that the “evidence” for this impeachment was a discredited opposition paper (paid for by his political rival) with the express intention of deflecting from he felonious use of a private e-mail server to handle official business.   Throw in some BS FISA warrants that should have never been cleared.   
 

Comparing Trump to Clinton having (allegedly only “oral”) sex with a White House intern (in the Oval Office) and lying under oath is not even close.   Maybe if Monica were a Republican plant / agent, she initiated/ attempted to seduce Bill, and nothing happened, but then she claimed it did - that would be a closer analogy.   

[Leftfield 2,595]

14 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Define his specific “abuse of power”, especially as it relates to his impeachment?    He was impeached for “Russian collusion” that was also proven to be completely false.   What was proven is that the “evidence” for this impeachment was a discredited opposition paper (paid for by his political rival) with the express intention of deflecting from he felonious use of a private e-mail server to handle official business.   Throw in some BS FISA warrants that should have never been cleared.   

I was referring to the second impeachment, but since you brought it up....I agree with you on the points about the FISA warrants and shadiness that led to the investigation. However, I'll once again point out that Mueller's investigation concluded with him saying "If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." If you want to consider that "completely false" as a claim to Russian collusion, that's your right. It is mine to think, considering his complete lack of shame at doing anything that benefits him or hurts his enemies, that he's corrupt as hell.

[TexasTiger 12,835]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

Define his specific “abuse of power”, especially as it relates to his impeachment?    He was impeached for “Russian collusion” that was also proven to be completely false.   What was proven is that the “evidence” for this impeachment was a discredited opposition paper (paid for by his political rival) with the express intention of deflecting from he felonious use of a private e-mail server to handle official business.   Throw in some BS FISA warrants that should have never been cleared.   
 

Comparing Trump to Clinton having (allegedly only “oral”) sex with a White House intern (in the Oval Office) and lying under oath is not even close.   Maybe if Monica were a Republican plant / agent, she initiated/ attempted to seduce Bill, and nothing happened, but then she claimed it did - that would be a closer analogy.   

You don’t even know why he was impeached.

[homersapien 11,367]

6 hours ago, GoAU said:

Define his specific “abuse of power”, especially as it relates to his impeachment?    He was impeached for “Russian collusion” that was also proven to be completely false.   What was proven is that the “evidence” for this impeachment was a discredited opposition paper (paid for by his political rival) with the express intention of deflecting from he felonious use of a private e-mail server to handle official business.   Throw in some BS FISA warrants that should have never been cleared.  

 

No you're wrong.  He was found innocent of "conspiracy" thanks to a legal technicality and a Kangeroo-court Senate.

He was actually guilty of "collusion" - a non legal term -  having asked for Russian assistance and agreeing to accept it (Don Jr.).  There was also testimony concerning coordination with Russia on the release of Wikileaks information which wasn't heard (Roger Stone). 

Of course, then there's the non-conclusion of the Mueller report on the issues of obstruction, which Mueller expected congress to take up. (they didn't)

The notion that Trump was completely exonerated in all this is nothing more than a Trump lie and MAGA myth.

https://www.americanprogress.org/press/statement/2020/08/18/489657/statement-u-s-senate-report-confirms-trump-campaign-colluded-russia-caps-neera-tanden-says/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/19/yes-there-was-collusion/

etc.