GOP defense

[DBA]

So, the second impeachment is underway. I think it's useful to go over the GOP arguments for not doing so.

As far as I can tell they fall under 2 main lines. 1. Impeaching is an empty gesture so short before Trump leaves office.
2. Impeaching Trump is divisive.

On the first, I'll say this. Impeaching makes it impossible for him to run again. Not only that but more importantly an impeachment also works as a precedent. The precedent that a president is not allowed to simply refuse to acknowledge without the courts agreeing with him that he lost the election, and try to subvert the democratic process by trying to incite a coup without severe consequences makes sense.

The second is simply cynicism. Considering that those people who bring up the argument had, or even have no problem with propagating the baseless justification for this coup. It's kind of hard to make the argument that you want less divisiveness when you have defended the most divisive president of the modern age no matter what he did until the moment that it literally put their lives in danger. Or even beyond that for some.

Wow! They better have something better than that. Not that I support their success. I just think they are entitled to mount a better defense than that or might as well just sign off on it so save time.

These are the actual arguments presented is all I can say.

Suspect he will have better representation than you. No skin off my nose, either way.

Doesn't he have to be proven guilty as opposed to proving his innocence? I guess the Democrats are destroying that notion along with everything else. They must show where Trump asks or suggests that people violently storm Capitol Hill. His speech on the same day said quite the opposite with the words "peacefully and patriotically protest". Normal, sane, non-brainwashed folks can see this is not inciting violence, but we aren't dealing with normal, sane, free-thinking people. We are dealing with Democrats.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Legal lesson 1...Evidence is required to convict.
End of Legal lesson 1.

Not a court of law. Impeachment and conviction by the Senate is a political act. Summoning a mob and loosing it on a Joint Session of Congress ... in order to stay in office and prevent the normal transfer of government ... is a perfect example of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

But it probably won’t happen if Trump does a little groveling ... and enough Republicans grovel to Trump’s conspiracy-addicted base.

 

[White 6]

So, the second impeachment is underway. I think it's useful to go over the GOP arguments for not doing so.

As far as I can tell they fall under 2 main lines. 1. Impeaching is an empty gesture so short before Trump leaves office.
2. Impeaching Trump is divisive.

On the first, I'll say this. Impeaching makes it impossible for him to run again. Not only that but more importantly an impeachment also works as a precedent. The precedent that a president is not allowed to simply refuse to acknowledge without the courts agreeing with him that he lost the election, and try to subvert the democratic process by trying to incite a coup without severe consequences makes sense.

The second is simply cynicism. Considering that those people who bring up the argument had, or even have no problem with propagating the baseless justification for this coup. It's kind of hard to make the argument that you want less divisiveness when you have defended the most divisive president of the modern age no matter what he did until the moment that it literally put their lives in danger. Or even beyond that for some.

Wow! They better have something better than that. Not that I support their success. I just think they are entitled to mount a better defense than that or might as well just sign off on it so save time.

These are the actual arguments presented is all I can say.

Suspect he will have better representation than you. No skin off my nose, either way.

Doesn't he have to be proven guilty as opposed to proving his innocence? I guess the Democrats are destroying that notion along with everything else. They must show where Trump asks or suggests that people violently storm Capitol Hill. His speech on the same day said quite the opposite with the words "peacefully and patriotically protest". Normal, sane, non-brainwashed folks can see this is not inciting violence, but we aren't dealing with normal, sane, free-thinking people. We are dealing with Democrats.

They found him guilty enough to impeach in the House of Representatives. If you will remember last time and back when Bill Clinton was impeached, that is where it is done. The Senate will take it up. In the Democrat controlled Senate, the Democrats will speak in favor of the impeachment resolution as was voted by the Democrats and the Republicans in the House of Representatives. The Republicans will be able to speak in rebuttal of the House resolution, in trumps defense if they choose. A vote will be held. It would take 17 Republican Senators if all Democrat Senators vote to affirm and convict. My understanding is that a separate vote would be taken on punishment on the charge. Punishment, if there is a conviction only requires a simple majority. I imagine the Republicans will try to mount a more agressive rebuttal and, possibly a defense, than you put fourth, but it is their choice. Impeachment is not about the law. Punishment is pretty well restricted to administrative sanctions and reductions of benefits and entitlement post office, such as ability to run for office in the United States, pension, and what you and I would call perks after office.

 

[kyzr]

1. Trump won't be convicted in the Senate, so the House impeachment is meaningless.
2. Trump won't be prosecuted by the DOJ because his speech did not break any laws.
3. It makes no sense for the senate to even hold a trial on Trump when the president is Joe Biden?!
4. Its just more partisan bullshit instead of fixing SS & Medicare and the Budget, and the economy, etc.

Not sure you have considered the damage done to the republicans by the Trump insurrection.

We'll see how much damage was done in the 2022 mid-terms, and again in 2024.
The GOP isn't damaged, Trump is. You're forgetting that you have 4-years of Joe Biden coming next.
I'm looking forward to them with anticipation. Especially the news conferences where Joe explains everything.

 

[kyzr]

1. Trump won't be convicted in the Senate, so the House impeachment is meaningless.
2. Trump won't be prosecuted by the DOJ because his speech did not break any laws.
3. It makes no sense for the senate to even hold a trial on Trump when the president is Joe Biden?!
4. Its just more partisan bullshit instead of fixing SS & Medicare and the Budget, and the economy, etc.

Oh, it's partisan to take a coup attempt seriously?

I've given 2 reasons why impeaching him regardless of who is president is a good thing.

As to prosecution. You might be right although the language in the statutes dealing with insurrection can be interpreted in a way that makes Trump responsible. It comes down to if a prosecutor can prove intent. I don't know if they can make that stick but neither can you.

1. It was a protest of election fraud "stop the steal" before some idiots attacked Congress. If it was a coup attempt they would have had guns instead of flags.
2. Very good. I saw top DOJ lawyers say that what Trump said is not prosecutable. I believe them. Can you point to any language in the speech that proves intent of insurrection? Didn't think so.

1. A protest is peaceful. When there's violence they call it a riot. When that riot is political in nature they call it an insurrection when that insurrection is trying to achieve the installment of a usurper to the elected leader it is called an attempted coup. COUP | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

2. You saw top lawyers who as of this moment are still working for this president saying it is not prosecutable. Before any actual investigation into intent was done by the way.

As to what I can show. (27) ‘You’ll never take back our country with weakness’ - Trump encourages supporters before protest - YouTube
I can show that the government response when the violence started was delayed. I can show Trump tweeted that the protest was gonna be wild and I can show that even when they rioted he didn't initially condemn them. There is of course other possible information that I'm not privy to that might be helpful in proving intent. The point is neither of us knows if a prosecutor can make a case for intent.

1. A coup is what the democrats have been doing to Trump for 4-years:
Trump's presidency was a miracle in itself, the biggest upset in US election history. Hillary and the DNC actually colluded with and paid Russians for "dirt" on Trump, the "Steele Dossier". Obama used the power of the DOJ, FBI, CIA and other Federal agencies to illegally spy on and setup Trump for failure. Operations Crossfire Hurricane and Razor, the Mueller Investigation, Russian Collusion Hoax, the MSM's constant 95% negative coverage and "fake news", Never-Trump Republicans, the Lincoln Project, globalists of every stripe, the entrenched Deep State who all oppose Trump's policies, the planted leakers and whistle-blowers, and the RINOs who'd rather shill for K-Street than work for main street. Then add to all of that the outright hatred shown by the House democrats toward Trump, to the point of "non-crime" Impeachment Articles, twice!! Yeah, I'd say all of that qualifies as a "coup".

2. The top DOJ lawyers worked for Barr, not Trump. Stop dreaming about "intent". Hillary's bathroom server didn't prove intent, so Trump has nothing to worry about.

Don't expect charges against Trump or allies for inciting Capitol siege, say DOJ officials

The Justice Department does not plan on seeking incitement charges against President Trump for his actions at the rally that led up to Wednesday's attack on the Capitol.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Indeependent]

Legal lesson 1...Evidence is required to convict.
End of Legal lesson 1.

Not a court of law. Impeachment and conviction by the Senate is a political act. Summoning a mob and loosing it on a Joint Session of Congress ... in order to stay in office and prevent the normal transfer of government ... is a perfect example of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

But it probably won’t happen if Trump does a little groveling ... and enough Republicans grovel to Trump’s conspiracy-addicted base.

Legal lesson 1...Evidence is required to convict.
End of Legal lesson 1.

Where did I mention a court of law and thanks for admitting this was a charade with 0 evidence.
I know you're too much of a pseudo-intellectual phony to admit such.

 

[forkup]

So, the second impeachment is underway. I think it's useful to go over the GOP arguments for not doing so.

As far as I can tell they fall under 2 main lines. 1. Impeaching is an empty gesture so short before Trump leaves office.
2. Impeaching Trump is divisive.

On the first, I'll say this. Impeaching makes it impossible for him to run again. Not only that but more importantly an impeachment also works as a precedent. The precedent that a president is not allowed to simply refuse to acknowledge without the courts agreeing with him that he lost the election, and try to subvert the democratic process by trying to incite a coup without severe consequences makes sense.

The second is simply cynicism. Considering that those people who bring up the argument had, or even have no problem with propagating the baseless justification for this coup. It's kind of hard to make the argument that you want less divisiveness when you have defended the most divisive president of the modern age no matter what he did until the moment that it literally put their lives in danger. Or even beyond that for some.

Wow! They better have something better than that. Not that I support their success. I just think they are entitled to mount a better defense than that or might as well just sign off on it so save time.

These are the actual arguments presented is all I can say.

Suspect he will have better representation than you. No skin off my nose, either way.

Doesn't he have to be proven guilty as opposed to proving his innocence? I guess the Democrats are destroying that notion along with everything else. They must show where Trump asks or suggests that people violently storm Capitol Hill. His speech on the same day said quite the opposite with the words "peacefully and patriotically protest". Normal, sane, non-brainwashed folks can see this is not inciting violence, but we aren't dealing with normal, sane, free-thinking people. We are dealing with Democrats.

You are right a person needs to be proven guily in order to punish them. That's why you have things called trials. Impeachment trials being one example. I'm so glad you're acknowledging that there's a procedure for assertaining truth.

So now we have established that I'm sure you are willing to state that there was no widespread voter fraud and any claim by Trump that the election was stolen from him is completely and utterly baseless? And Trump and everybody who still claim it was is not a normal, sane, free-thinking person?

 

[forkup]

1. Trump won't be convicted in the Senate, so the House impeachment is meaningless.
2. Trump won't be prosecuted by the DOJ because his speech did not break any laws.
3. It makes no sense for the senate to even hold a trial on Trump when the president is Joe Biden?!
4. Its just more partisan bullshit instead of fixing SS & Medicare and the Budget, and the economy, etc.

Oh, it's partisan to take a coup attempt seriously?

I've given 2 reasons why impeaching him regardless of who is president is a good thing.

As to prosecution. You might be right although the language in the statutes dealing with insurrection can be interpreted in a way that makes Trump responsible. It comes down to if a prosecutor can prove intent. I don't know if they can make that stick but neither can you.

1. It was a protest of election fraud "stop the steal" before some idiots attacked Congress. If it was a coup attempt they would have had guns instead of flags.
2. Very good. I saw top DOJ lawyers say that what Trump said is not prosecutable. I believe them. Can you point to any language in the speech that proves intent of insurrection? Didn't think so.

1. A protest is peaceful. When there's violence they call it a riot. When that riot is political in nature they call it an insurrection when that insurrection is trying to achieve the installment of a usurper to the elected leader it is called an attempted coup. COUP | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

2. You saw top lawyers who as of this moment are still working for this president saying it is not prosecutable. Before any actual investigation into intent was done by the way.

As to what I can show. (27) ‘You’ll never take back our country with weakness’ - Trump encourages supporters before protest - YouTube
I can show that the government response when the violence started was delayed. I can show Trump tweeted that the protest was gonna be wild and I can show that even when they rioted he didn't initially condemn them. There is of course other possible information that I'm not privy to that might be helpful in proving intent. The point is neither of us knows if a prosecutor can make a case for intent.

1. A coup is what the democrats have been doing to Trump for 4-years:
Trump's presidency was a miracle in itself, the biggest upset in US election history. Hillary and the DNC actually colluded with and paid Russians for "dirt" on Trump, the "Steele Dossier". Obama used the power of the DOJ, FBI, CIA and other Federal agencies to illegally spy on and setup Trump for failure. Operations Crossfire Hurricane and Razor, the Mueller Investigation, Russian Collusion Hoax, the MSM's constant 95% negative coverage and "fake news", Never-Trump Republicans, the Lincoln Project, globalists of every stripe, the entrenched Deep State who all oppose Trump's policies, the planted leakers and whistle-blowers, and the RINOs who'd rather shill for K-Street than work for main street. Then add to all of that the outright hatred shown by the House democrats toward Trump, to the point of "non-crime" Impeachment Articles, twice!! Yeah, I'd say all of that qualifies as a "coup".

2. The top DOJ lawyers worked for Barr, not Trump. Stop dreaming about "intent". Hillary's bathroom server didn't prove intent, so Trump has nothing to worry about.

Don't expect charges against Trump or allies for inciting Capitol siege, say DOJ officials

The Justice Department does not plan on seeking incitement charges against President Trump for his actions at the rally that led up to Wednesday's attack on the Capitol.

abcnews.go.com

1. So you object to me asserting that breaking into the Capitol building. An action where a cop is beaten to death in order to stop the election certification can be called a coup although it fits the dictionaries definition of the word. But have no problem describing the process provided in the constitution for deposing an elected official as such? Can't say I follow the logic.

2. Yes and the DC attorney General IS investigating Trump for it. So if one lawyer claims something won't happen it seems weird that another is willing to try.

 

[kyzr]

1. Trump won't be convicted in the Senate, so the House impeachment is meaningless.
2. Trump won't be prosecuted by the DOJ because his speech did not break any laws.
3. It makes no sense for the senate to even hold a trial on Trump when the president is Joe Biden?!
4. Its just more partisan bullshit instead of fixing SS & Medicare and the Budget, and the economy, etc.

Oh, it's partisan to take a coup attempt seriously?

I've given 2 reasons why impeaching him regardless of who is president is a good thing.

As to prosecution. You might be right although the language in the statutes dealing with insurrection can be interpreted in a way that makes Trump responsible. It comes down to if a prosecutor can prove intent. I don't know if they can make that stick but neither can you.

1. It was a protest of election fraud "stop the steal" before some idiots attacked Congress. If it was a coup attempt they would have had guns instead of flags.
2. Very good. I saw top DOJ lawyers say that what Trump said is not prosecutable. I believe them. Can you point to any language in the speech that proves intent of insurrection? Didn't think so.

1. A protest is peaceful. When there's violence they call it a riot. When that riot is political in nature they call it an insurrection when that insurrection is trying to achieve the installment of a usurper to the elected leader it is called an attempted coup. COUP | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

2. You saw top lawyers who as of this moment are still working for this president saying it is not prosecutable. Before any actual investigation into intent was done by the way.

As to what I can show. (27) ‘You’ll never take back our country with weakness’ - Trump encourages supporters before protest - YouTube
I can show that the government response when the violence started was delayed. I can show Trump tweeted that the protest was gonna be wild and I can show that even when they rioted he didn't initially condemn them. There is of course other possible information that I'm not privy to that might be helpful in proving intent. The point is neither of us knows if a prosecutor can make a case for intent.

1. A coup is what the democrats have been doing to Trump for 4-years:
Trump's presidency was a miracle in itself, the biggest upset in US election history. Hillary and the DNC actually colluded with and paid Russians for "dirt" on Trump, the "Steele Dossier". Obama used the power of the DOJ, FBI, CIA and other Federal agencies to illegally spy on and setup Trump for failure. Operations Crossfire Hurricane and Razor, the Mueller Investigation, Russian Collusion Hoax, the MSM's constant 95% negative coverage and "fake news", Never-Trump Republicans, the Lincoln Project, globalists of every stripe, the entrenched Deep State who all oppose Trump's policies, the planted leakers and whistle-blowers, and the RINOs who'd rather shill for K-Street than work for main street. Then add to all of that the outright hatred shown by the House democrats toward Trump, to the point of "non-crime" Impeachment Articles, twice!! Yeah, I'd say all of that qualifies as a "coup".

2. The top DOJ lawyers worked for Barr, not Trump. Stop dreaming about "intent". Hillary's bathroom server didn't prove intent, so Trump has nothing to worry about.

Don't expect charges against Trump or allies for inciting Capitol siege, say DOJ officials

The Justice Department does not plan on seeking incitement charges against President Trump for his actions at the rally that led up to Wednesday's attack on the Capitol.

abcnews.go.com

1. So you object to me asserting that breaking into the Capitol building. An action where a cop is beaten to death in order to stop the election certification can be called a coup although it fits the dictionaries definition of the word. But have no problem describing the process provided in the constitution for deposing an elected official as such? Can't say I follow the logic.

2. Yes and the DC attorney General IS investigating Trump for it. So if one lawyer claims something won't happen it seems weird that another is willing to try.

1. I don't object to you calling it a coup, you can call it anything you like. I'm saying that it wasn't a coup attempt, it was voters expressing anger at a crooked election. If it was a coup they would have had guns instead of flags.

coup d'état
a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.
Hint: no one made any moves to change the government, no one said "I'm in-charge" of the government. It was a protest that got out of control, nothing more. It was much less violent than the summer riots.

No one was paying attention that the election needs to be investigated.
– democrats spent four years calling Trump a “traitor” and a “Russian agent”
– They called him “illegitimate”
– They said he stole the 2016 election with Russian help.
– They impeached him for Biden’s extortion Burisma in Ukraine
– democrats denied the violence of Antifa and BLM
– For nine months that violence raged
– Nadler said it was a “myth”
– Hoyer denied Antifa was violent
– They said Antifa doesn’t exist
– Antifa raided and burned the Federal building in Portland while people were inside. No democrat even blinked an eye
– Antifa vandalized Federal property in Philadelphia
– During the violence in Minneapolis, Kamala Harris was asking for help bailing out the rioters
– Antifa/BLM burned the nation’s Capitol, including a Church, democrats weren’t especially bothered.

Remember this from Kenosha?

– 30 people have died in that mythical violence, among them David Dorn and Patrick Underwood.

– As Minneapolis burned in the background, Ali Velshi kept telling us it was “not unruly”

– Those mythical riots caused between $1-2 billion in damages

2. The DC AG can investigate, and even indict, but the DOJ lawyers say no crime was committed.
More partisan abuse of power, no worries.

 

[Wyatt earp]

1. Impeaching is an empty gesture so short before Trump leaves office.
2. Impeaching Trump is divisive.

1. Trump is not above the law.
2. Making false claims about an election and denying a President who rightfully won the election is divisive

Prove it or shut up

 

[rightwinger]

Prove it or shut up

 

[Lesh]

1. A coup is what the democrats have been doing to Trump for 4-years:

A coup by Democrats to install Mike fucking Pence as President?

Do you even listen to this shit in your head before you spew it?

 

[kyzr]

1. A coup is what the democrats have been doing to Trump for 4-years:

A coup by Democrats to install Mike fucking Pence as President?

Do you even listen to this shit in your head before you spew it?

Democrats did many coup attempts to remove Trump.
Apparently some democrat made the calculation that Pence would be easier to beat?!
Who knows WTF democrats think? They also think Guam will capsize?!

Why do you not believe facts as presented? Here the facts are again, yes the democrats did attempt coups:
Trump's presidency was a miracle in itself, the biggest upset in US election history. Hillary and the DNC actually colluded with and paid Russians for "dirt" on Trump, the "Steele Dossier". Obama used the power of the DOJ, FBI, CIA and other Federal agencies to illegally spy on and setup Trump for failure. Operations Crossfire Hurricane and Razor, the Mueller Investigation, Russian Collusion Hoax, the MSM's constant 95% negative coverage and "fake news", Never-Trump Republicans, the Lincoln Project, globalists of every stripe, the entrenched Deep State who all oppose Trump's policies, the planted leakers and whistle-blowers, and the RINOs who'd rather shill for K-Street than work for main street. Then add to all of that the outright hatred shown by the House democrats toward Trump, to the point of "non-crime" Impeachment Articles, twice!!

 

[SC Patriot]

So, the second impeachment is underway. I think it's useful to go over the GOP arguments for not doing so. As far as I can tell they fall under 2 main lines. 1. Impeaching is an empty gesture so short before Trump leaves office. 2. Impeaching Trump is divisive.

So, after four years, now you're going to complain about divisiveness? The lack of personal insight astounding!

If Republicans dont want to be divisive they can admit that Biden won a fair and unbiased election

you mean like democrat's said in 2016-2019?
You mean like that?

 

[L.K.Eder]

So, the second impeachment is underway. I think it's useful to go over the GOP arguments for not doing so.

As far as I can tell they fall under 2 main lines. 1. Impeaching is an empty gesture so short before Trump leaves office.
2. Impeaching Trump is divisive.

On the first, I'll say this. Impeaching makes it impossible for him to run again. Not only that but more importantly an impeachment also works as a precedent. The precedent that a president is not allowed to simply refuse to acknowledge without the courts agreeing with him that he lost the election, and try to subvert the democratic process by trying to incite a coup without severe consequences makes sense.

The second is simply cynicism. Considering that those people who bring up the argument had, or even have no problem with propagating the baseless justification for this coup. It's kind of hard to make the argument that you want less divisiveness when you have defended the most divisive president of the modern age no matter what he did until the moment that it literally put their lives in danger. Or even beyond that for some.

Legal lesson 1...Evidence is required to convict.

End of Legal lesson 1.

hilarious. please teach this lesson to team trump, professor.

 

[Aldo Raine]

1. Trump won't be convicted in the Senate, so the House impeachment is meaningless.
2. Trump won't be prosecuted by the DOJ because his speech did not break any laws.
3. It makes no sense for the senate to even hold a trial on Trump when the president is Joe Biden?!
4. Its just more partisan bullshit instead of fixing SS & Medicare and the Budget, and the economy, etc.

Not meaningless. Just being impeached represents a lifelong stain on his reputation and his legacy; not once, but TWICE!!!

It just doesn't get more MAGA than that!!!!!