The Impeachment Thread

[kyzr]

What Trump siad is NOT indictable, so says the DOJ.
There are degrees of incitement, and Trump kept his speech well within the 1st Amendment.

The prosecutors have made it clear that it is more than what Trump said in one speech.

It is his support of RW mobs in the past
It was his encouraging and applauding violence
It was his calling the mob to DC a on Jan 6
It was a speech full of lies and rhetoric during his speech
It was his refusal to call off the mob
It was his praise of a violent mob as Patriots and special people

Are ANY of those assertions "indictable'?
Did democrats say even worse things and get away with it? Add in Cory Booker's incitement, and many others as seen on video.
View attachment 455790

The mob was created by excessive police force resulting in deaths. Those Democrats did not create a myth that it happened....It DID

Those Democrats also condemned violence as it happened.....something Trump refused to do

How the fuck can you post both of those positions and think they make sense. They don't even get to the cognitive dissonance threshold.

1. The "summer of love" mobs formed and became violent deadly riots, not peaceful protests.

2. The democrats encouraged and supported the violent and deadly riots, see their quotes again in post #441. Now they are whining about Trump supposedly encouraging protesters to commit violence, but his words are NOT as inflammatory as the democrats'.

3. The democrats did NOT condemn the violence. That's why they were quoted. Kamala even bailed out rioters so that they could riot more. Stop lying.

4. Compare the 1/6 protest to the "summer of love" riots.

 

[kyzr]

Stacey Plaskett is building an effective case of Trump complicity

I think they need a few witnesses to corroborate all of these internet quotes. Was trump aware of the crazies ? He probably was but she hasnt proved it.

This is Trumps administration. He is responsible for more than just what he tweets, but what his administration did in planning and executing this event.

If you don’t fight like hell, you will not have a country anymore

And that's the piece you're going to have to prove, that it was in fact the American government that was trying to overthrow the American government.

Trump was sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic

Trump turned out to be one of those enemies

I know that's the narrative and I understand you are contractually obligated to adhere tightly to it, but that's a fantasy in the fever swamp.

Trump defiled his oath of office

He needs to be held accountable

He was. He lost the election. You have to prove that he did what you claim is worth further abuse.

We have this thing called IMPEACHMENT that is proving what Trump did and failed to do in defending the Constitution.

He sent a mob to go after his own Vice President

You can prove that Trump sent the mob after Pence? I did not see those dots connected.

Trump condemned Pence to the TRUMPmob
He let down Democracy
Then sent them to stop the vote count.

You can hear the crowd chant......Kill Mike Pence, Bring him out, Hang Mike Pence

House manager says Capitol footage shows rioters wanted to "execute" Pence

The House impeachment managers present their case against former President Trump in the second day of the Senate trial. Follow here for the latest.

www.cnn.com

During the assault on the Capitol, extremists reportedly coordinated online and discussed how they could hunt down the vice president. Journalists in the Capitol reported they heard rioters say they were looking for Pence in order to execute him,

The police had Pence and Nancy safe.
If anything got too scary for the pols I'm sure the police would have had to use deadly force. Today's testimony had rioters entering Nancy's sanctum, then they were chased by a SWAT team. So i'm not seeing anyone swinging from gallows, or heads on pikes. The goobers were mostly sight-seeing.

This entire episode makes no sense. Even if the rioters took control of the capitol, para-military units would have been called in to remove or slaughter them. Remember what happened when the commies took control of the Russian parliament? Yeltsin called the tanks in?! It was a lose-lose operation for the idiot rioters.

Ah, so it's ok that Trump incited violence against the VPOTUS because Pence was able to escape with his life.

I did not see Trump "incite violence" against Pence. Trump said nothing "indictable".

I agree that 1/6 was a horrible day, and the 1,000,000 man protest devolved into a riot by a few hundred idiots, but still, the only person shot was an unarmed AF veteran, a mom, wrapped in a flag.
There were no fires, just broken windows and doors to "the peoples house".

After supporting the antifa riots all year the democrats' should remember: "as ye sow so shall ye reap"
View attachment 455722

You see what you want to see. In reality, Trump had already lied to his army. He told them that Pence could save his presidency. Those cult members blindly believed that and put all their hope in Mike Pence. That would be their last and only hope. Of course, it was all untrue since Pence couldn't actually do anything but oversee the counting of the electors, as stipulated by the Constitution.

That's why when Trump tweeted, "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution," his army turned on Mike Pence. Members of his cult are on video yelling out, "Mike Pence is a traitor!" "Mike Pence is a bitch!" Another cult member is on video saying, "Mike Pence, we're coming for you too, you fucking traitor!" And outside on a megaphone, another shouted, "Trump just sent out a tweet saying, 'Mike Pence let us down.' Mike Pence let us down, people. If you wanna get something done, you're gonna have to do it yourself." And ugliest of all, "hang Mike Pence!"

G'head, tell me again how Trump didn't incite that mob.

What Trump said is NOT indictable, so says the DOJ.
There are degrees of incitement, and Trump kept his speech well within the 1st Amendment.

I'm not saying that I support what Trump or the rioters did, the rioters broke the Law. 99% of the protesters left the rally peacefully, the goobers that stayed acted criminally and should be punished.

I don't know what you think the Department of Justice has to do with this? He's not being criminally charged.

Impeachment is only to be used for "high crimes and misdemeanors", generally interpreted to mean at least a felony or treason. You admit that the DOJ has no crime to pursue for citizen Trump.
Democrats think that they have an excuse to prevent Trump from running in 2024. That is NOT what the Constitution says, and the GOP senators know it. They will hold their noses and vote to acquit, based strictly on the Law and the Constitution.

The democrats should have pushed a censure instead of impeachment, that would have passed both Houses unanimously.

Except that is not what the Constitution means by "high crimes and misdemeanors." That refers to a violation of of public's trust.

Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives​

​

Origins​

​

Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.​

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Faun]

What Trump siad is NOT indictable, so says the DOJ.
There are degrees of incitement, and Trump kept his speech well within the 1st Amendment.

The prosecutors have made it clear that it is more than what Trump said in one speech.

It is his support of RW mobs in the past
It was his encouraging and applauding violence
It was his calling the mob to DC a on Jan 6
It was a speech full of lies and rhetoric during his speech
It was his refusal to call off the mob
It was his praise of a violent mob as Patriots and special people

Are ANY of those assertions "indictable'?
Did democrats say even worse things and get away with it? Add in Cory Booker's incitement, and many others as seen on video.
View attachment 455790

The mob was created by excessive police force resulting in deaths. Those Democrats did not create a myth that it happened....It DID

Those Democrats also condemned violence as it happened.....something Trump refused to do

We can bring questions to police abuses. To people who have not done much of anything in life but be a negative to the economy, society and the communities, making martyrs out of them is stupid. There is now evidence that Floyd was drugged up on Fentanyl and died from it rather then the reason the cop put his knee on his neck for the period of time. And if you want to say that the knee on the neck helped it along, then remember to say that many of the people who died with other medical maladies known and unknown also had Covid and that was the reason that we always see on the official numbers on the pseudo news stations. Well not anymore. Trump is not President. You are the harbinger of the vengeance. Well done.

No, there is no evidence he was "drugged up on Fentanyl and died from it." He had very little Fentanyl in his system and before he was killed, he didn't exhibit behavior of someone who is drugged up on Fentanyl. He was alert, responsive, and other than refusing to get in the back of the squad car, obeyed police orders. And the medical examiner's report indicates his death was a homicide.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, there is no evidence he was "drugged up on Fentanyl and died from it." He had very little Fentanyl in his system and before he was killed, he didn't exhibit behavior of someone who is drugged up on Fentanyl. He was alert, responsive, and other than refusing to get in the back of the squad car, obeyed police orders. And the medical examiner's report indicates his death was a homicide.

Amd today we find out that, 3 days after the incident, the alleged murderer was going to plead guilty to 3rd degree murder. AG Barr shut that down.

 

[DrLove]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

 

[L.K.Eder]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

having his lawyer declare that the american people were smart enough to vote out trump is the best possible outcome of these proceedings. lol

 

[kyzr]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname 'protester prosecutor' from the antiwar group CodePink."

legalinsurrection.com

 

[Faun]

Stacey Plaskett is building an effective case of Trump complicity

I think they need a few witnesses to corroborate all of these internet quotes. Was trump aware of the crazies ? He probably was but she hasnt proved it.

This is Trumps administration. He is responsible for more than just what he tweets, but what his administration did in planning and executing this event.

If you don’t fight like hell, you will not have a country anymore

And that's the piece you're going to have to prove, that it was in fact the American government that was trying to overthrow the American government.

Trump was sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic

Trump turned out to be one of those enemies

I know that's the narrative and I understand you are contractually obligated to adhere tightly to it, but that's a fantasy in the fever swamp.

Trump defiled his oath of office

He needs to be held accountable

He was. He lost the election. You have to prove that he did what you claim is worth further abuse.

We have this thing called IMPEACHMENT that is proving what Trump did and failed to do in defending the Constitution.

He sent a mob to go after his own Vice President

You can prove that Trump sent the mob after Pence? I did not see those dots connected.

Trump condemned Pence to the TRUMPmob
He let down Democracy
Then sent them to stop the vote count.

You can hear the crowd chant......Kill Mike Pence, Bring him out, Hang Mike Pence

House manager says Capitol footage shows rioters wanted to "execute" Pence

The House impeachment managers present their case against former President Trump in the second day of the Senate trial. Follow here for the latest.

www.cnn.com

During the assault on the Capitol, extremists reportedly coordinated online and discussed how they could hunt down the vice president. Journalists in the Capitol reported they heard rioters say they were looking for Pence in order to execute him,

The police had Pence and Nancy safe.
If anything got too scary for the pols I'm sure the police would have had to use deadly force. Today's testimony had rioters entering Nancy's sanctum, then they were chased by a SWAT team. So i'm not seeing anyone swinging from gallows, or heads on pikes. The goobers were mostly sight-seeing.

This entire episode makes no sense. Even if the rioters took control of the capitol, para-military units would have been called in to remove or slaughter them. Remember what happened when the commies took control of the Russian parliament? Yeltsin called the tanks in?! It was a lose-lose operation for the idiot rioters.

Ah, so it's ok that Trump incited violence against the VPOTUS because Pence was able to escape with his life.

I did not see Trump "incite violence" against Pence. Trump said nothing "indictable".

I agree that 1/6 was a horrible day, and the 1,000,000 man protest devolved into a riot by a few hundred idiots, but still, the only person shot was an unarmed AF veteran, a mom, wrapped in a flag.
There were no fires, just broken windows and doors to "the peoples house".

After supporting the antifa riots all year the democrats' should remember: "as ye sow so shall ye reap"
View attachment 455722

You see what you want to see. In reality, Trump had already lied to his army. He told them that Pence could save his presidency. Those cult members blindly believed that and put all their hope in Mike Pence. That would be their last and only hope. Of course, it was all untrue since Pence couldn't actually do anything but oversee the counting of the electors, as stipulated by the Constitution.

That's why when Trump tweeted, "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution," his army turned on Mike Pence. Members of his cult are on video yelling out, "Mike Pence is a traitor!" "Mike Pence is a bitch!" Another cult member is on video saying, "Mike Pence, we're coming for you too, you fucking traitor!" And outside on a megaphone, another shouted, "Trump just sent out a tweet saying, 'Mike Pence let us down.' Mike Pence let us down, people. If you wanna get something done, you're gonna have to do it yourself." And ugliest of all, "hang Mike Pence!"

G'head, tell me again how Trump didn't incite that mob.

What Trump said is NOT indictable, so says the DOJ.
There are degrees of incitement, and Trump kept his speech well within the 1st Amendment.

I'm not saying that I support what Trump or the rioters did, the rioters broke the Law. 99% of the protesters left the rally peacefully, the goobers that stayed acted criminally and should be punished.

I don't know what you think the Department of Justice has to do with this? He's not being criminally charged.

Impeachment is only to be used for "high crimes and misdemeanors", generally interpreted to mean at least a felony or treason. You admit that the DOJ has no crime to pursue for citizen Trump.
Democrats think that they have an excuse to prevent Trump from running in 2024. That is NOT what the Constitution says, and the GOP senators know it. They will hold their noses and vote to acquit, based strictly on the Law and the Constitution.

The democrats should have pushed a censure instead of impeachment, that would have passed both Houses unanimously.

Except that is not what the Constitution means by "high crimes and misdemeanors." That refers to a violation of of public's trust.

Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives​

​

Origins​

​

Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.​

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

I don't know why you think a link to Cornell's law website is a match for the U.S. House of Representative's website. It's the U.S. House who impeaches based on "high crimes and misdemeanors," not Cornell. And the U.S. House who decides what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means; and they say it means, "abuse or violation of some public trust." There was even a judge who was impeached for being intoxicated while on the bench. That's an "abuse or violation of some public trust."

 

[kyzr]

Stacey Plaskett is building an effective case of Trump complicity

I think they need a few witnesses to corroborate all of these internet quotes. Was trump aware of the crazies ? He probably was but she hasnt proved it.

This is Trumps administration. He is responsible for more than just what he tweets, but what his administration did in planning and executing this event.

If you don’t fight like hell, you will not have a country anymore

And that's the piece you're going to have to prove, that it was in fact the American government that was trying to overthrow the American government.

Trump was sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic

Trump turned out to be one of those enemies

I know that's the narrative and I understand you are contractually obligated to adhere tightly to it, but that's a fantasy in the fever swamp.

Trump defiled his oath of office

He needs to be held accountable

He was. He lost the election. You have to prove that he did what you claim is worth further abuse.

We have this thing called IMPEACHMENT that is proving what Trump did and failed to do in defending the Constitution.

He sent a mob to go after his own Vice President

You can prove that Trump sent the mob after Pence? I did not see those dots connected.

Trump condemned Pence to the TRUMPmob
He let down Democracy
Then sent them to stop the vote count.

You can hear the crowd chant......Kill Mike Pence, Bring him out, Hang Mike Pence

House manager says Capitol footage shows rioters wanted to "execute" Pence

The House impeachment managers present their case against former President Trump in the second day of the Senate trial. Follow here for the latest.

www.cnn.com

During the assault on the Capitol, extremists reportedly coordinated online and discussed how they could hunt down the vice president. Journalists in the Capitol reported they heard rioters say they were looking for Pence in order to execute him,

The police had Pence and Nancy safe.
If anything got too scary for the pols I'm sure the police would have had to use deadly force. Today's testimony had rioters entering Nancy's sanctum, then they were chased by a SWAT team. So i'm not seeing anyone swinging from gallows, or heads on pikes. The goobers were mostly sight-seeing.

This entire episode makes no sense. Even if the rioters took control of the capitol, para-military units would have been called in to remove or slaughter them. Remember what happened when the commies took control of the Russian parliament? Yeltsin called the tanks in?! It was a lose-lose operation for the idiot rioters.

Ah, so it's ok that Trump incited violence against the VPOTUS because Pence was able to escape with his life.

I did not see Trump "incite violence" against Pence. Trump said nothing "indictable".

I agree that 1/6 was a horrible day, and the 1,000,000 man protest devolved into a riot by a few hundred idiots, but still, the only person shot was an unarmed AF veteran, a mom, wrapped in a flag.
There were no fires, just broken windows and doors to "the peoples house".

After supporting the antifa riots all year the democrats' should remember: "as ye sow so shall ye reap"
View attachment 455722

You see what you want to see. In reality, Trump had already lied to his army. He told them that Pence could save his presidency. Those cult members blindly believed that and put all their hope in Mike Pence. That would be their last and only hope. Of course, it was all untrue since Pence couldn't actually do anything but oversee the counting of the electors, as stipulated by the Constitution.

That's why when Trump tweeted, "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution," his army turned on Mike Pence. Members of his cult are on video yelling out, "Mike Pence is a traitor!" "Mike Pence is a bitch!" Another cult member is on video saying, "Mike Pence, we're coming for you too, you fucking traitor!" And outside on a megaphone, another shouted, "Trump just sent out a tweet saying, 'Mike Pence let us down.' Mike Pence let us down, people. If you wanna get something done, you're gonna have to do it yourself." And ugliest of all, "hang Mike Pence!"

G'head, tell me again how Trump didn't incite that mob.

What Trump said is NOT indictable, so says the DOJ.
There are degrees of incitement, and Trump kept his speech well within the 1st Amendment.

I'm not saying that I support what Trump or the rioters did, the rioters broke the Law. 99% of the protesters left the rally peacefully, the goobers that stayed acted criminally and should be punished.

I don't know what you think the Department of Justice has to do with this? He's not being criminally charged.

Impeachment is only to be used for "high crimes and misdemeanors", generally interpreted to mean at least a felony or treason. You admit that the DOJ has no crime to pursue for citizen Trump.
Democrats think that they have an excuse to prevent Trump from running in 2024. That is NOT what the Constitution says, and the GOP senators know it. They will hold their noses and vote to acquit, based strictly on the Law and the Constitution.

The democrats should have pushed a censure instead of impeachment, that would have passed both Houses unanimously.

Except that is not what the Constitution means by "high crimes and misdemeanors." That refers to a violation of of public's trust.

Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives​

​

Origins​

​

Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.​

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

I don't know why you think a link to Cornell's law website is a match for the U.S. House of Representative's website. It's the U.S. House who impeaches based on "high crimes and misdemeanors," not Cornell. And the U.S. House who decides what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means; and they say it means, "abuse or violation of some public trust." There was even a judge who was impeached for being intoxicated while on the bench. That's an "abuse or violation of some public trust."

Exactly right. We agree that the House can impeach a "ham sandwich" if they so choose.
But, the Senate holds trial for those impeachment articles, and they vote "innocent or guilty" based on their individual interpretations of the Constitution and the Law. The USSC does not referee impeachments, although if I was Trump's team I'd have asked for a ruling on constitutionality from the USSC.

So if/when Trump is acquitted, since the "crime" did not reach a certain threshold of "high crime", don't whine about it. Its just partisan political theater.

 

[rightwinger]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname 'protester prosecutor' from the antiwar group CodePink."

legalinsurrection.com

Nobody is claiming the speech, on its own, is incitement to riot.

When taken in context of what he said before the speech, during the speech, while the riots were going on and after they were over......It is a clear incitement

 

[Nostra]

Another day of the Dimwinger House Clowns showing video of the idiots who stormed the Capitol and saying how scared they were.

No evidence yet.

 

[kyzr]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname 'protester prosecutor' from the antiwar group CodePink."

legalinsurrection.com

Nobody is claiming the speech, on its own, is incitement to riot.

When taken in context of what he said before the speech, during the speech, while the riots were going on and after they were over......It is a clear incitement

I see your assertion that everything taken together is incitement. You do not address the 1st Amendment and "free speech", you do not have a smoking gun that the DOJ says "we got him now because of _____"!!

I want a link clearly showing what someone in the DOJ says is criminal and indictable.
It doesn't exist, there was no crime by Trump.

 

[Faun]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname 'protester prosecutor' from the antiwar group CodePink."

legalinsurrection.com

Where in that article does it state the Department of Justice reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable? Who said his speech alone incited the seditious insurrection?

 

[OldLady]

Good argument by Raskin. T**** knew exactly what would happen--he'd stirred up his followers in Michigan against Whitmer.

 

[HaShev]

 

[Faun]

Stacey Plaskett is building an effective case of Trump complicity

I think they need a few witnesses to corroborate all of these internet quotes. Was trump aware of the crazies ? He probably was but she hasnt proved it.

This is Trumps administration. He is responsible for more than just what he tweets, but what his administration did in planning and executing this event.

If you don’t fight like hell, you will not have a country anymore

And that's the piece you're going to have to prove, that it was in fact the American government that was trying to overthrow the American government.

Trump was sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic

Trump turned out to be one of those enemies

I know that's the narrative and I understand you are contractually obligated to adhere tightly to it, but that's a fantasy in the fever swamp.

Trump defiled his oath of office

He needs to be held accountable

He was. He lost the election. You have to prove that he did what you claim is worth further abuse.

We have this thing called IMPEACHMENT that is proving what Trump did and failed to do in defending the Constitution.

He sent a mob to go after his own Vice President

You can prove that Trump sent the mob after Pence? I did not see those dots connected.

Trump condemned Pence to the TRUMPmob
He let down Democracy
Then sent them to stop the vote count.

You can hear the crowd chant......Kill Mike Pence, Bring him out, Hang Mike Pence

House manager says Capitol footage shows rioters wanted to "execute" Pence

The House impeachment managers present their case against former President Trump in the second day of the Senate trial. Follow here for the latest.

www.cnn.com

During the assault on the Capitol, extremists reportedly coordinated online and discussed how they could hunt down the vice president. Journalists in the Capitol reported they heard rioters say they were looking for Pence in order to execute him,

The police had Pence and Nancy safe.
If anything got too scary for the pols I'm sure the police would have had to use deadly force. Today's testimony had rioters entering Nancy's sanctum, then they were chased by a SWAT team. So i'm not seeing anyone swinging from gallows, or heads on pikes. The goobers were mostly sight-seeing.

This entire episode makes no sense. Even if the rioters took control of the capitol, para-military units would have been called in to remove or slaughter them. Remember what happened when the commies took control of the Russian parliament? Yeltsin called the tanks in?! It was a lose-lose operation for the idiot rioters.

Ah, so it's ok that Trump incited violence against the VPOTUS because Pence was able to escape with his life.

I did not see Trump "incite violence" against Pence. Trump said nothing "indictable".

I agree that 1/6 was a horrible day, and the 1,000,000 man protest devolved into a riot by a few hundred idiots, but still, the only person shot was an unarmed AF veteran, a mom, wrapped in a flag.
There were no fires, just broken windows and doors to "the peoples house".

After supporting the antifa riots all year the democrats' should remember: "as ye sow so shall ye reap"
View attachment 455722

You see what you want to see. In reality, Trump had already lied to his army. He told them that Pence could save his presidency. Those cult members blindly believed that and put all their hope in Mike Pence. That would be their last and only hope. Of course, it was all untrue since Pence couldn't actually do anything but oversee the counting of the electors, as stipulated by the Constitution.

That's why when Trump tweeted, "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution," his army turned on Mike Pence. Members of his cult are on video yelling out, "Mike Pence is a traitor!" "Mike Pence is a bitch!" Another cult member is on video saying, "Mike Pence, we're coming for you too, you fucking traitor!" And outside on a megaphone, another shouted, "Trump just sent out a tweet saying, 'Mike Pence let us down.' Mike Pence let us down, people. If you wanna get something done, you're gonna have to do it yourself." And ugliest of all, "hang Mike Pence!"

G'head, tell me again how Trump didn't incite that mob.

What Trump said is NOT indictable, so says the DOJ.
There are degrees of incitement, and Trump kept his speech well within the 1st Amendment.

I'm not saying that I support what Trump or the rioters did, the rioters broke the Law. 99% of the protesters left the rally peacefully, the goobers that stayed acted criminally and should be punished.

I don't know what you think the Department of Justice has to do with this? He's not being criminally charged.

Impeachment is only to be used for "high crimes and misdemeanors", generally interpreted to mean at least a felony or treason. You admit that the DOJ has no crime to pursue for citizen Trump.
Democrats think that they have an excuse to prevent Trump from running in 2024. That is NOT what the Constitution says, and the GOP senators know it. They will hold their noses and vote to acquit, based strictly on the Law and the Constitution.

The democrats should have pushed a censure instead of impeachment, that would have passed both Houses unanimously.

Except that is not what the Constitution means by "high crimes and misdemeanors." That refers to a violation of of public's trust.

Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives​

​

Origins​

​

Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.​

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

I don't know why you think a link to Cornell's law website is a match for the U.S. House of Representative's website. It's the U.S. House who impeaches based on "high crimes and misdemeanors," not Cornell. And the U.S. House who decides what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means; and they say it means, "abuse or violation of some public trust." There was even a judge who was impeached for being intoxicated while on the bench. That's an "abuse or violation of some public trust."

Exactly right. We agree that the House can impeach a "ham sandwich" if they so choose.
But, the Senate holds trial for those impeachment articles, and they vote "innocent or guilty" based on their individual interpretations of the Constitution and the Law. The USSC does not referee impeachments, although if I was Trump's team I'd have asked for a ruling on constitutionality from the USSC.

So if/when Trump is acquitted, since the "crime" did not reach a certain threshold of "high crime", don't whine about it. Its just partisan political theater.

LOL

Now you're arguing with yourself. Earlier you said "high crimes and misdemeanors" means "felony or treason." Now you admit it can include impeaching a "ham sandwich." It can't but it does mean it's a violation of of public's trust.

 

[bendog]

Stacey Plaskett is building an effective case of Trump complicity

I think they need a few witnesses to corroborate all of these internet quotes. Was trump aware of the crazies ? He probably was but she hasnt proved it.

This is Trumps administration. He is responsible for more than just what he tweets, but what his administration did in planning and executing this event.

If you don’t fight like hell, you will not have a country anymore

And that's the piece you're going to have to prove, that it was in fact the American government that was trying to overthrow the American government.

Trump was sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic

Trump turned out to be one of those enemies

I know that's the narrative and I understand you are contractually obligated to adhere tightly to it, but that's a fantasy in the fever swamp.

Trump defiled his oath of office

He needs to be held accountable

He was. He lost the election. You have to prove that he did what you claim is worth further abuse.

We have this thing called IMPEACHMENT that is proving what Trump did and failed to do in defending the Constitution.

He sent a mob to go after his own Vice President

You can prove that Trump sent the mob after Pence? I did not see those dots connected.

Trump condemned Pence to the TRUMPmob
He let down Democracy
Then sent them to stop the vote count.

You can hear the crowd chant......Kill Mike Pence, Bring him out, Hang Mike Pence

House manager says Capitol footage shows rioters wanted to "execute" Pence

The House impeachment managers present their case against former President Trump in the second day of the Senate trial. Follow here for the latest.

www.cnn.com

During the assault on the Capitol, extremists reportedly coordinated online and discussed how they could hunt down the vice president. Journalists in the Capitol reported they heard rioters say they were looking for Pence in order to execute him,

The police had Pence and Nancy safe.
If anything got too scary for the pols I'm sure the police would have had to use deadly force. Today's testimony had rioters entering Nancy's sanctum, then they were chased by a SWAT team. So i'm not seeing anyone swinging from gallows, or heads on pikes. The goobers were mostly sight-seeing.

This entire episode makes no sense. Even if the rioters took control of the capitol, para-military units would have been called in to remove or slaughter them. Remember what happened when the commies took control of the Russian parliament? Yeltsin called the tanks in?! It was a lose-lose operation for the idiot rioters.

Ah, so it's ok that Trump incited violence against the VPOTUS because Pence was able to escape with his life.

I did not see Trump "incite violence" against Pence. Trump said nothing "indictable".

I agree that 1/6 was a horrible day, and the 1,000,000 man protest devolved into a riot by a few hundred idiots, but still, the only person shot was an unarmed AF veteran, a mom, wrapped in a flag.
There were no fires, just broken windows and doors to "the peoples house".

After supporting the antifa riots all year the democrats' should remember: "as ye sow so shall ye reap"
View attachment 455722

You see what you want to see. In reality, Trump had already lied to his army. He told them that Pence could save his presidency. Those cult members blindly believed that and put all their hope in Mike Pence. That would be their last and only hope. Of course, it was all untrue since Pence couldn't actually do anything but oversee the counting of the electors, as stipulated by the Constitution.

That's why when Trump tweeted, "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution," his army turned on Mike Pence. Members of his cult are on video yelling out, "Mike Pence is a traitor!" "Mike Pence is a bitch!" Another cult member is on video saying, "Mike Pence, we're coming for you too, you fucking traitor!" And outside on a megaphone, another shouted, "Trump just sent out a tweet saying, 'Mike Pence let us down.' Mike Pence let us down, people. If you wanna get something done, you're gonna have to do it yourself." And ugliest of all, "hang Mike Pence!"

G'head, tell me again how Trump didn't incite that mob.

What Trump said is NOT indictable, so says the DOJ.
There are degrees of incitement, and Trump kept his speech well within the 1st Amendment.

I'm not saying that I support what Trump or the rioters did, the rioters broke the Law. 99% of the protesters left the rally peacefully, the goobers that stayed acted criminally and should be punished.

I don't know what you think the Department of Justice has to do with this? He's not being criminally charged.

Impeachment is only to be used for "high crimes and misdemeanors", generally interpreted to mean at least a felony or treason. You admit that the DOJ has no crime to pursue for citizen Trump.
Democrats think that they have an excuse to prevent Trump from running in 2024. That is NOT what the Constitution says, and the GOP senators know it. They will hold their noses and vote to acquit, based strictly on the Law and the Constitution.

The democrats should have pushed a censure instead of impeachment, that would have passed both Houses unanimously.

Except that is not what the Constitution means by "high crimes and misdemeanors." That refers to a violation of of public's trust.

Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives​

​

Origins​

​

Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.​

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

I don't know why you think a link to Cornell's law website is a match for the U.S. House of Representative's website. It's the U.S. House who impeaches based on "high crimes and misdemeanors," not Cornell. And the U.S. House who decides what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means; and they say it means, "abuse or violation of some public trust." There was even a judge who was impeached for being intoxicated while on the bench. That's an "abuse or violation of some public trust."

Exactly right. We agree that the House can impeach a "ham sandwich" if they so choose.
But, the Senate holds trial for those impeachment articles, and they vote "innocent or guilty" based on their individual interpretations of the Constitution and the Law. The USSC does not referee impeachments, although if I was Trump's team I'd have asked for a ruling on constitutionality from the USSC.

So if/when Trump is acquitted, since the "crime" did not reach a certain threshold of "high crime", don't whine about it. Its just partisan political theater.

LOL

Now you're arguing with yourself. Earlier you said "high crimes and misdemeanors" means "felony or treason." Now you admit it can include impeaching a "ham sandwich." It can't but it does mean it's a violation of of public's trust.

The Clinton thing messed it up. I think at the outset impeachable offense has to involve the duties of office. Some abuse or some punishment for a crime that would prevent an official from carrying out his/her duties. Before the Clinton thing, a president couldn't be sued for something he did before being elected. And until Trump, his previous crimes could be investigated

 

[DrLove]

Good argument by Raskin. T**** knew exactly what would happen--he'd stirred up his followers in Michigan against Whitmer.

Raskin has been impressive. Actually ALL of them have. If this was a real jury, it would be open and shut. T**** (i like that btw ;-) and his legal team would be begging for a plea deal right about now.

 

[DrLove]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

Th DOJ already reviewed his speech and found nothing indictable, so your "wishful thinking" is total bullshit.

Trump’s Rally Speech Was Not Illegal “Incitement”

Former Prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro: "The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname 'protester prosecutor' from the antiwar group CodePink."

legalinsurrection.com

A "former prosecutor" is not the DOJ - Don't be a maroon. And Turley has defended Rump at every turn. He used to be a respected attorney. That was before he attached himself with Gorilla Glue to the Orange Blob.

 

[DrLove]

There is no ironclad definition as to what "high crimes and misdemeaners' really means. But it is hinted at as treason and other very serious crimes that warrant removal. High crimes and misdemeanors is not a partisan ticky-tack non-crime.

impeachment

www.law.cornell.edu

I'm not worried about what spineless Senate Republicans do. He'll be tried in federal court for sedition and inciting a riot. That carries a 20 year sentence. Considering his age, he can probably reach a plea deal for 10.

Orange is the new orange.

having his lawyer declare that the american people were smart enough to vote out trump is the best possible outcome of these proceedings. lol

I wouldn't use these attorneys defend me on a freaking illegal U-Turn. The BLOB really scraped bottom with those two - The ONLY two left willing to put their reputations on the line. Hope they got a million or two up front. Otherwise not only will their reputations been destroyed, they'll be hard pressed to stay in practice and they won't get paid on this one.