Serious Question

[Flopper]

Inflammatory language is not necessary to inspire people. Look at Martin Luther King's "I had a dream speech", one of the most persuasive speeches of all times yet not a hint of a need for violence. Although Trump is certainly not a gifted orator that is no excuse for his continuing suggestions of the need for violence, praise for those that commit violent acts.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. There was absolutely nothing unlawful about Trump's speech, and he did not incite violence or praise those who commit violence.

I didn't claim that any speech was unlawful. Incitement to riot or insurrection is the advocacy of any act of violence or assertion of the the right to commit such acts in the minds of the perpetrators of those acts.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I didn't claim that any speech was unlawful. Incitement to riot or insurrection is the advocacy of any act of violence or assertion of the the right to commit such acts in the minds of the perpetrators of those acts

Love how they tricked Democrats to condemn Maxine Waters own words. Dims have short memories

 

[Flopper]

Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by about 3 million and 7 million in 2020. It seems highly unlikely that Trump's future in 2024 will be improved by an attack by Trump supporters on the Capitol and a 2nd impeachment. He's being banned by social media and campaign contributions frozen by major campaign contributors, and he has lost support in congress. Only the most diehard Trump supporters would find this encouraging. Had congressional democrats done nothing about Trump's incitement, they would have lost support of their base. It would be condoning his actions.

I hate to break it to you but that's exactly why they started a second phony impeachment. They are scared to death of this guy. After four years of dementia Joe, Trump will be welcomed back by the general public with open arms, and Piglosi knows it. He signed 31 executive orders in his first 10 days in office, the most in history in that period of time. Previously he said (taking a jab at Trump) that ruling by executive order instead of going through Congress is what a dictator does--not a United States President.

In under two weeks he's pissed off the people in New Mexico, pissed off an American Indian tribe, pissed off our northern neighbors, pissed off parents with daughters in school athletics, pissed off the military, pissed off ICE and Border Control people. He's done nothing but piss everybody off. We have 206 more weeks to go. So don't tell me Trump stands no chance in 24. If this is a taste what the next four years is going to be like, Joe or Whorris might consider not even running.

I suppose they are afraid of Trump. They have good reason to be. He is no doubt a charismatic leader who is particularly effective when praising and advocating violence and raising hatred against the government. His supporters are not a majority of Americans but neither were Hitler's. Only after Hitler had seized power and destroyed the opposition did he have the support of the people. Thankfully, at Trump's age he has little chance of becoming another Hitler but that does not mean he can not do immense harm to nation.

 

[Ringtone]

Although Trump is certainly not a gifted orator that is no excuse for his continuing suggestions of the need for violence, praise for those that commit violent acts.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. There was absolutely nothing unlawful about Trump's speech, and he did not incite violence or praise those who commit violence.

I didn't claim that any speech was unlawful. Incitement to riot or insurrection is the advocacy of any act of violence or assertion of the the right to commit such acts in the minds of the perpetrators of those acts.

That's the legal definition for unlawful speech. You didn't directly claim that he engaged in unlawful speech; rather, you obfuscated the matter as you falsely accused him of insinuating "the need for violence . . . [and praising] . . . those that commit violent acts."

That was my point.

 

[Faun]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

 

[Flopper]

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office

Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.

Try being honest. That's not why they are trying to ban him from office. They are doing it because if we ever have a fair election next time, Trump will beat the hell out of them.

Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by about 3 million and 7 million in 2020. It seems highly unlikely that Trump's future in 2024 will be improved by an attack by Trump supporters on the Capitol and a 2nd impeachment. He's being banned by social media and campaign contributions frozen by major campaign contributors, and he has lost support in congress. Only the most diehard Trump supporters would find this encouraging. Had congressional democrats done nothing about Trump's incitement, they would have lost support of their base. It would be condoning his actions.

I don't find it encouraging.

I find it frightening.

You actually seem to support the idea that the media, be it print, televised or social, should have the right to decide how our government should be chosen.

That is scary.

Media states opinion and facts. They have no vote. Voters decide as they should. Media reflects the opinion of their audience. They are never balanced because they are profit driven. That has been the case for over 50 years. Media is always biased because their audience is biased.

You are assuming that all viewers are not driven by passion expressed by the choices of orators.

Truth is, most are.

SO your post, although comes across as intelligent and well thought out....it is not and holds little value to the discussion.

The news business and that is what it is, a business that provides a service to it's audience for a profit, and a main component of that service is confirmation of their audience's beliefs. No Trump or Biden supporter is going to spend much time patronizing media sites that condemn their leader. Only by removing the profit motive from the media business can you ever achieve anything even close to unbiased reporting. Unfortunately, that would lead to something even worse.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I suppose they are afraid of Trump. They have good reason to be. He is no doubt a charismatic leader who is particularly effective when praising and advocating violence and raising hatred against the government. His supporters are not a majority of Americans but neither were Hitler's. Only after Hitler had seized power and destroyed the opposition did he have the support of the people. Thankfully, at Trump's age he has little chance of becoming another Hitler but that does not mean he can not do immense harm to nation.

Wrong. When people see their taxes much higher, fuel much higher, many less jobs, more illegals, their neighborhood invaded with section 8 people bringing their property value down, they'll finally come to the realization that voting for a President based on personality instead of ability was the stupidest thing they've ever done, which again, will switch their vote if Trump runs again,

 

[Flopper]

Although Trump is certainly not a gifted orator that is no excuse for his continuing suggestions of the need for violence, praise for those that commit violent acts.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. There was absolutely nothing unlawful about Trump's speech, and he did not incite violence or praise those who commit violence.

I didn't claim that any speech was unlawful. Incitement to riot or insurrection is the advocacy of any act of violence or assertion of the the right to commit such acts in the minds of the perpetrators of those acts.

That's the legal definition for unlawful speech. You didn't directly claim that he engaged in unlawful speech; rather, you obfuscated the matter as you falsely accused him of insinuating "the need for violence . . . [and praising] . . . those that commit violent acts."

That was my point.

My point was whether the speech is illegal or not depends on how it is perceived by the audience and what action they take. Look at the old example of a person screaming fire in an crowded auditorium when that person knows there is no fire. If the crowd responds by fighting to leave the auditorium and people are trampled to death, you can be sure that speech will be considered illegal. However, if the audience looked at the person and laughed and did nothing, then the courts would not consider his speech a crime because because of how it was perceived it. Courts have ruled throughout our history that advocating a crime is wholly outside of the 1st amendment right. However, when that advocacy is judged responsible for crime, then the person can be charged depending the action.

It is hard to imagine these insurgents would have attacked the capitol without the encouragement of Trump. As some of the insurgents said, they were doing what they believed Trump wanted them to do.

 

[Flopper]

I suppose they are afraid of Trump. They have good reason to be. He is no doubt a charismatic leader who is particularly effective when praising and advocating violence and raising hatred against the government. His supporters are not a majority of Americans but neither were Hitler's. Only after Hitler had seized power and destroyed the opposition did he have the support of the people. Thankfully, at Trump's age he has little chance of becoming another Hitler but that does not mean he can not do immense harm to nation.

Wrong. When people see their taxes much higher, fuel much higher, many less jobs, more illegals, their neighborhood invaded with section 8 people bringing their property value down, they'll finally come to the realization that voting for a President based on personality instead of ability was the stupidest thing they've ever done, which again, will switch their vote if Trump runs again,

Surely, you are not saying people voted for Biden because his of his charismatic personality. There is no Biden charisma. He’s not young, handsome, eloquent or interesting. There is no Biden catchphrase. He doesn’t have “hope and change” or “make America great again.” If the party had decided to order up a generic representative, with nothing original to say and a campaign utterly untouched by new thinking or methods, it couldn’t have done any better than Joe Biden. In essence, his entire campaign platform could have been, I'm not Trump. Occasional we get a leader that is so bad, the best campaign is assuring voters he will not be anything like the opposition. Throughout Biden's 50 years in politics he has been just left of center, but willing to move to far left on some issues and occasion moving to right of center. I think this is exactly what American voters wanted after 4 years of Trump. The people were simply tired of the mad tweeter's insane comments, lies, catering to far right, and refusing to take leadership in one of the worst diesters in American history .

 

[Flopper]

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it does seem weird to impeach someone who’s not in office

Not, really. I have fired people who screwed up on the job and walked out. I did so in order to specify that they are not to be considered for re-hire.
This is what democrats are doing. They are using impeachment as means of barring Trump from holding office again. The constitution requires a person be impeached before banning them from holding office again.

So you admit it's so they can control who does and doesn't get elected, without regard to the wishes of the electorate. Because, see, the difference between this and your company is that THEY aren't supposed to make the hiring decisions.

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

 

[OKTexas]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

So you think the founders wanted the Senate to have the ability to stop a popular opposition candidate from running again by impeaching him for exercising his first amendment rights?

 

[Flopper]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

The Senate will undoubted move on with the impeachment trial assuming it is constitution since there noting in the constitution making unconstitutional. Only if Donald Trump is convicted, which will not happen will we get a court decision.

 

[OKTexas]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

The Senate will undoubted move on with the impeachment trial assuming it is constitution since there noting in the constitution making unconstitutional. Only if Donald Trump is convicted, which will not happen will we get a court decision.

Of course, they're commies after all.

.

 

[Ringtone]

Although Trump is certainly not a gifted orator that is no excuse for his continuing suggestions of the need for violence, praise for those that commit violent acts.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. There was absolutely nothing unlawful about Trump's speech, and he did not incite violence or praise those who commit violence.

I didn't claim that any speech was unlawful. Incitement to riot or insurrection is the advocacy of any act of violence or assertion of the the right to commit such acts in the minds of the perpetrators of those acts.

That's the legal definition for unlawful speech. You didn't directly claim that he engaged in unlawful speech; rather, you obfuscated the matter as you falsely accused him of insinuating "the need for violence . . . [and praising] . . . those that commit violent acts."

That was my point.

My point was whether the speech is illegal or not depends on how it is perceived by the audience and what action they take. Look at the old example of a person screaming fire in an crowded auditorium when that person knows there is no fire. If the crowd responds by fighting to leave the auditorium and people are trampled to death, you can be sure that speech will be considered illegal. However, if the audience looked at the person and laughed and did nothing, then the courts would not consider his speech a crime because because of how it was perceived it. Courts have ruled throughout our history that advocating a crime is wholly outside of the 1st amendment right. However, when that advocacy is judged responsible for crime, then the person can be charged depending the action.

Doublespeak. That is not the constitutional standard for unlawful speech, and Faun, who gave you a thumbs up for that gibberish is a fool.

Brandenburg v. Ohio is the prevailing standard in case law.

One who falsely yelled fire! in a crowded theater would at the very least be slapped with a severe fine and/or a jail sentence in most all instances for disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, or even criminal mischief regardless of the perception or reaction of the crowd.

As for incitement, mere advocacy is not enough. Unlawful speech is that which is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and "likely to incite or produce such action." A finding for unlawful speech would entail a very narrowly interpreted combination of factors: intent, likelihood, and immediacy of a resulting crime. Generally speaking, the perception or reaction of others would be irrelevant sans these factors and an unmistakably emphatic declaration directing others to engage in lawlessness.

 

[meaner gene]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

Unfortunately your "proof" is like the old idea of you can't prove a negative.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Surely, you are not saying people voted for Biden because his of his charismatic personality. There is no Biden charisma. He’s not young, handsome, eloquent or interesting. There is no Biden catchphrase. He doesn’t have “hope and change” or “make America great again.” If the party had decided to order up a generic representative, with nothing original to say and a campaign utterly untouched by new thinking or methods, it couldn’t have done any better than Joe Biden. In essence, his entire campaign platform could have been, I'm not Trump. Occasional we get a leader that is so bad, the best campaign is assuring voters he will not be anything like the opposition. Throughout Biden's 50 years in politics he has been just left of center, but willing to move to far left on some issues and occasion moving to right of center. I think this is exactly what American voters wanted after 4 years of Trump. The people were simply tired of the mad tweeter's insane comments, lies, catering to far right, and refusing to take leadership in one of the worst diesters in American history .

Trump's leadership was great during this tragedy. With his help we had a vaccine in one years time, he purchased the first 100 million doses with a contract rider for another 500 million doses on demand. He's allowed Drs. Fauci and Birx speak dozens of times providing advice. The people who did poorly with the virus are people like Cuomo who deliberately killed old people in nursing homes and then tried to hide how many he actually killed

Thank you for making my point. Joe is a complete failure, ran barely campaigning, a dope head son under FBI investigation that according to their former business partner, Democrat supporter Tony Bobulinski, Joe was part of, worked in federal government for 47 years with 0 accomplishments all that time, including his 8 years as VP, had the most economic destructive policies than any other presidential candidate in our time, and yet he won with a new record in voters. And you can't understand how we see this election as fraudulent?

So how did a misfit like this win anyhow? By Democrats using mail-in voting to attract the most politically ignorant and stupidest people to vote, because they knew they would vote on their dislike of Trump's personality instead of the many great accomplishments during his four year term. And that is exactly what I said.

 

[OKTexas]

Where does the Senate get the jurisdiction to put a private citizen on trial? From what I can find only the Article 3 courts have that authority.

Your thoughts?

.

Where it states , "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." It doesn't say, "all but impeachments where the impeached is out of office." It's states, "ALL impeachments." "ALL" includes Trump's second impeachment. Also, this is not a criminal trial as one the Judiciary would have power over. It's a political process. And the Senate already has the ability to launch hearings where they can bring in private citizens to testify, even subpoena them if necessary. And lastly, there's already uncontested precedence of a judge who resigned after being impeached to avoid his trial -- he was tried anyway in the Senate.

There's also an uncontested precedent saying the senate doesn't have the jurisdiction to try someone not in office.

.

Unfortunately your "proof" is like the old idea of you can't prove a negative.

The precedent has been posted.

.

 

[Flopper]

The constitution gives the Senate the power to bar a candidate from holding office in the future. The government has always controlled who can run for president, the Senate, and the House. In a pure democracy, government would not have that power but we are a democratic republic, not a democracy.

So you think the founders wanted the Senate to have the ability to stop a popular opposition candidate from running again by impeaching him for exercising his first amendment rights?

I think founders wanted the congress to have power to impeach and deny holding office again. If they didn't, they wouldn't have put in the constitution.

Since this country was founded courts have maintained that advocating the commission of a crime is not protected by freedom of speech..

I'm pretty sure that in the days of the founders, they would certainly agree with the impeachment of Trump and banning him from future public office regardless of how popular he might be. The founders believe that those serving in public office should be of high moral character. This is why so many public officials were impeached for drunkenness, behavior unbecoming the office, favoritism, being of low moral character, failing to pay duties, failure to supervise, and abuse of power. How popular a candidate might be with the people would not be of much concern because most of founders did not like the idea of democracy and they though limiting voting to wealthy white male property owners was just fine. They certainly did not want the riff raff voting.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think founders wanted the congress to have power to impeach and deny holding office again. If they didn't, they wouldn't have put in the constitution.

Since this country was founded courts have maintained that advocating the commission of a crime is not protected by freedom of speech..

I'm pretty sure that in the days of the founders, they would certainly agree with the impeachment of Trump and banning him from future public office regardless of how popular he might be. The founders believe that those serving in public office should be of high moral character. This is why so many public officials were impeached for drunkenness, behavior unbecoming the office, favoritism, being of low moral character, failing to pay duties, failure to supervise, and abuse of power. How popular a candidate might be with the people would not be of much concern because most of founders did not like the idea of democracy and they though limiting voting to wealthy white male property owners was just fine. They certainly did not want the riff raff voting.

The two items mentioned by our founders about presidency is outlined in the Constitution: Age and natural born citizenship to take office, and impeachment for cases of bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors.

The founders didn't believe in using their criteria for political gain of a party. This impeachment is just as phony as the last one. Trump never incited a riot. Trump never gave Zelensky an ultimatum, yet the commies impeached him on both. Trump said "I know some of you are going to march to the Capital peacefully and patriotically TO HAVE YOUR VOICES HEARD." And for that they impeach him?

If you think that if the founders could come back today, and see what the dictators are doing, that they'd approve, you don't know anything about them.