Impeachment

[mchammer]

I've already explained that at length.

No length about it - Trump lost.

 

[Horn6721]

Deez
Maybe you can list a few? There are lots of threads and words.
Surely it can't be that difficult for you to list some

 

[PecosBill]

Just for the sake of Hornfans discussion, If Biden were to pardon Trump for his impeachment offense of incitement in order to create a clean slate to proceed in his first 100 day plans which groups would object and why?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Just for the sake of Hornfans discussion, If Biden were to pardon Trump for his impeachment offense of incitement in order to create a clean slate to proceed in his first 100 day plans which groups would object and why?

Good question.

- The Far-left (e.g. AOC crowd) would scream bloody murder. They are the corollary to the "lock her up" chants from Trump supporters.
- Moderate D's/liberals generally dislike Trump and simply want to see Trump held accountable would have a modicum of disdain for any pardon. Then again, acceptance of a pardon means acceptance of guilt per SCOUTUS prior rulings so that might be enough for a subset of this crowd. Additionally, acceptance of that pardon would kill any potential political office aspirations from Trump.
- Independents just want to move on and this will allow them to pour water on the impeachment talk.
- Moderate Republicans, looking for Impeachment as a remedy to purge the extremists from their party. Would a pardon be enough to effectively put Trump in a box and remove his hold on the party?
- Extreme R's/conservatives. These are the people that enabled Trump for 4 years. They supported the assault and now make excuses and divert accountability conversations.

 

[theiioftx]

Good question.

-
- Extreme R's/conservatives. These are the people that enabled Trump for 4 years. They supported the assault and now make excuses and divert accountability conversations.

This is the false narrative being vomited on the American people. Nobody was supportive of the assault except for the ones who actually did it. And I am guessing, many within that group in the capitol wish they had never entered.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

Extreme R's/conservatives. These are the people that enabled Trump for 4 years. They supported the assault and now make excuses and divert accountability conversations.

Be careful putting people is sorted boxes, SH. I'm a Conservative - and I absolutely do not support the assault, and I'm not making excuses. Biden won the election - I don't like it, but it's fact. I'm ready to move on - and support the GOP in finding principled conservatives to run for office up and down future ballots.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Be careful putting people is sorted boxes, SH. I'm a Conservative - and I absolutely do not support the assault, and I'm not making excuses. Biden won the election - I don't like it, but it's fact. I'm ready to move on - and support the GOP in finding principled conservatives to run for office up and down future ballots.

None of the groups are monolithic but rather logical groupings based primarily on the political spectrum. The operating principle was extreme R's/Conservatives.

In my head I debated putting "" around conservatives as I don't think the Trump supporters fit that descriptor any more than they fit being called "patriots". They've bastardized these terms to be void of meaning. They have become slogans that sound good and are simply used to justify rancor and division.

 

[mb227]

None of the groups are monolithic but rather logical groupings based primarily on the political spectrum. The operating principle was extreme R's/Conservatives.

In my head I debated putting "" around conservatives as I don't think the Trump supporters fit that descriptor any more than they fit being called "patriots". They've bastardized these terms to be void of meaning. They have become slogans that sound good and are simply used to justify rancor and division.

And the irony is that your post shows that you seek to actively keep that divide alive and well...McCarthy would be proud of you.

 

[Seattle Husker]

And the irony is that your post shows that you seek to actively keep that divide alive and well...McCarthy would be proud of you.

How would you answer PecosBill's question?

 

[Mr. Deez]

@Horn6721 ,I explained it here.

A few things can be true at the same time.

(1) It is true that Trump's comments would never legally support a conviction for incitement. As a matter of law, he did not incite a riot. Commentators who say he did are ignorant, and legal commentators who say he did are liars.

(2) Impeachment does not require the meeting of a criminal standard. He's not having his life, liberty, or property taken away - just his job.

(3) The totality of the situation is bad, and he was very irresponsible. He told everyone the election was rigged, and told thousands of them to go to the Capitol to exert pressure on the Vice President and Republican congressmen to take lawless actions to get electoral votes tossed out. Even if it didn't meet the legal definition of incitement, it was foreseeable that this could easily turn into an act of violence. These people think their votes literally don't count, that they have no remedy at the ballot box or in court, and that their democracy is destroyed. Why wouldn't they get violent? It's the logical thing to do if you believe what they believe.

It's like the 9/11 attackers. It seems insane to us, but in their screwed up brains, it makes sense. They believed with all their hearts that they'd live in paradise and get to defile 72 virgins. Why wouldn't they crash planes into buildings? They didn't know they'd really end up in a perpetual state of Oklahoma.

(4) Congress wants to set a precedent that this isn't ok. Impeachment is their only serious tool for doing that.

(5) Impeaching Trump is not a threat to free speech. He has no more right to be president than they have to impeach him. However, I will admit that the push on tech companies to treat this as a Reichstag Fire moment that calls for censoring people is a threat to free speech.

 

[horninchicago]

Can someone post the video of Trump telling thousands to go to the Capitol to exert pressure on the VP and (R) congressman to take lawless actions to get electoral votes tossed out?

If he said that, and that is basis for censure and/or impeachment, that video must be easy to find. And if that video exists and he said those things, then yes, that is not what he should have said.

 

[UTChE96]

Just for the sake of Hornfans discussion, If Biden were to pardon Trump for his impeachment offense of incitement in order to create a clean slate to proceed in his first 100 day plans which groups would object and why?

Actually this is an interesting scenario. I would say it would look really bizarre for then same party to both impeach Trump and then pardon him. Does a POTUS even have the authority to pardon in the case of impeachment of a former POTUS? I suspect not since this is not a criminal trial in the judiciary.

 

[horninchicago]

Let's all discuss VY coming back for his final year of eligibility. That is more likely to happen than Biden pardoning Trump. Remember, he wants to punch Trump in the mouth, which of course, the media scolded him for saying.

What's that? No scolding? Okay.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Just for the sake of Hornfans discussion, If Biden were to pardon Trump for his impeachment offense of incitement in order to create a clean slate to proceed in his first 100 day plans which groups would object and why?

A pardon wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. It would protect Trump from a criminal incitement charge, but no serious authority thinks he's in real legal jeopardy for that. It doesn't protect him from a Senate trial.

Politically, it wouldn't make much sense either. It would enrage his party's base to no end, and they'd never forgive him. I think moderates and independents would be indifferent. Trump supporters would mildly appreciate it but nowhere near enough to consider voting for Biden. That's pretty much out of the question.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Can someone post the video of Trump telling thousands to go to the Capitol to exert pressure on the VP and (R) congressman to take lawless actions to get electoral votes tossed out?

If he said that, and that is basis for censure and/or impeachment, that video must be easy to find. And if that video exists and he said those things, then yes, that is not what he should have said.

I didn't watch his speech. I read the transcript.

 

[horninchicago]

I didn't watch his speech. I read the transcript.

Same here, read it. Don't see where he told people to do those things. He said "fight" a lot. If anyone believes he meant to go and physically fight people, well you would have to be a lame brain to think that.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Same here, read it. Don't see where he told people to do those things. He said "fight" a lot. If anyone believes he meant to go and physically fight people, well you would have to be a lame brain to think that.

I know that. That's why I defended Trump on the incitement allegation.

 

[horninchicago]

I know that. That's why I defended Trump on the incitement allegation.

In your post that you re-posted above, in section 1 you say, as a matter of law, he did not incite. In section 2, you say he incited thousands to exert pressure to have lawless actions by Congress.

I say he didn't incite either way. At this point, I guess it is subjective. I don't see how any self-respecting Republican, I'm not sure if you are Republican, could think he should actually be censured for that rally speech or for "fighting" the results of the election.

 

[Horn6721]

So Deez there have been milions who have attended Trump rallies in 5 years. Can you cite one rally where violence and destruction happened? His speeches were just as passionate at the last one
Millions have peacefully attended his rallies and millions attended tea party rallies before that. No destruction, no burning of businesses.
Yet you decide Trump incited the violence that we now know was preplanned and blm/antifa was heavily involved?
It looks like you let your personal dislike of his persona influence your view of what actually happened.
That is sad.
Next you will be saying the election was transparent and totally fair

 

[UTChE96]

So Deez there have been milions who have attended Trump rallies in 5 years. Can you cite one rally where violence and destruction happened?

Ironically, I believe that's part of the reason that this riot was able to happen. Trump rallies have been very peaceful for the most part. Right or wrong, I don't believe the Capitol police expected that a riot was a possibility.

 

[Mr. Deez]

In your post that you re-posted above, in section 1 you say, as a matter of law, he did not incite. In section 2, you say he incited thousands to exert pressure to have lawless actions by Congress.

I say he didn't incite either way. At this point, I guess it is subjective. I don't see how any self-respecting Republican, I'm not sure if you are Republican, could think he should actually be censured for that rally speech or for "fighting" the results of the election.

So Deez there have been milions who have attended Trump rallies in 5 years. Can you cite one rally where violence and destruction happened? His speeches were just as passionate at the last one
Millions have peacefully attended his rallies and millions attended tea party rallies before that. No destruction, no burning of businesses.
Yet you decide Trump incited the violence that we now know was preplanned and blm/antifa was heavily involved?
It looks like you let your personal dislike of his persona influence your view of what actually happened.
That is sad.
Next you will be saying the election was transparent and totally fair

Honestly, I'm too tired to regurgitate everything I've already said. I've explained my rationale based on what he has said the last two months as well as on the day of the riot. I've explained the distinction between criminal incitement and an impeachable offense. You may not agree with it, and that's fine. You can choose to divert attention to other bad things Democrats have done or come up with other reasons to let it slide. That's partisan politics nowadays, but I'm not willing to do that.

 

[Horn6721]

Utche
As there is now proof the violence was preplanned with plenty of blm-antifa involvement.
It does NOT excuse the Trump supporters who also rushed into the Capitol.Trump did not incite this

 

[horninchicago]

Honestly, I'm too tired to regurgitate everything I've already said. I've explained my rationale based on what he has said the last two months as well as on the day of the riot. I've explained the distinction between criminal incitement and an impeachable offense. You may not agree with it, and that's fine. You can choose to divert attention to other bad things Democrats have done or come up with other reasons to let it slide. That's partisan politics nowadays, but I'm not willing to do that.

Maybe you didn't say it. I'm too tired to look.

I have seen posters on here saying Trump should not have been impeached, and you did say that. But then they have said he should be censured. Again, apologies if you didn't say that. I was merely asking, in general, if people were saying that because they feel he incited the violence or if it was other perceived wrongs he did.

 

[huisache]

High crimes and misdemeanors means whatever the voting Senators think it means. The term is so vague that it defies precision. I don’t see how a conviction could be judicially reviewed on the grounds of factual insufficiency

 

[Mr. Deez]

I didn't know you had such a filthy mouth

Where have you been for the last 15 years?

 

[EasternHorn]

High crimes and misdemeanors means whatever the voting Senators think it means. The term is so vague that it defies precision. I don’t see how a conviction could be judicially reviewed on the grounds of factual insufficiency

If enciting an insurrection does not count then
nothing does.

 

[iatrogenic]

If enciting an insurrection does not count then
nothing does.

Just think how bad inciting would be!

 

[EasternHorn]

Just think how bad inciting would be!

OK, my bad. But my point is true.

 

[iatrogenic]

So is mine.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I get the public office angle, but I do not think he has merited that. He is also old and I am not sure he would run in 2024 anyway.

He would be the same age Biden is. There's no reason to assume he wouldn't run.

Also, I think people (the rioters) are responsible for their own actions. Trump never commanded a mob to attack the capitol.

As I've said, he didn't command a mob to attack, and as a matter of law, he didn't incite. However, as I've explained previously, he knowingly pushed false allegations and told people that they have no recourse but to push Congress and the VP to do something illegal, leaving violence as the only recourse if they don't. It's not incitement, but it's bad enough to shitcan him from national politics.

In fact, I cannot say Trump has done anything more than the democrats after 2016 (4 years of claiming the russians stole the election/Trump was not legitimate), not to mention stoking the BLM riots. The rhetoric in this county has been in a bad place for a long time.

I didn't see angry mobs ready to storm the Capitol over Russia. The BLM riots were bad, but they were largely led by activists, not politicians. I'm not saying they were more morally defensible. They weren't.

It would be one thing if we were going after everyone and treating likes "alike". However, not everyone is being punished... just Trump.

Who else should be punished? There's only one president.

You already agree he did not legally incite the mob, but I still cannot hold him responsible lowering the standard unless we hold every politician responsible for every nut that does something nutty in their name.

I'm not suggesting that. Trump isn't criminally responsible for what happened. However, he is a proximate cause for it, and what he did shouldn't be normalized. It should be condemned and removed from politics.

The democrats also have basically said they hate Trump more than trying to move the country forward with their own agenda.

That may be true, but it has no bearing on whether or not he should be impeached.

I also think the real story in the capitol was the security failure.

It's definitely a story, but I wouldn't say it's the "real story." Ultimately, there shouldn't have been an attack on the Capitol to cause this to even be an issue.

. I would be fine with a censure.

I'll say what I said in 1999. Censure is a cop-out. It has no legal significance and is pretty pointless coming from the only institution with the power to actually do something.

The problem is that impeachment has only ever been abused for political purposes. All four impeachments (Johnson, Clinton, Trump and Trump) have been just political attacks. It has never been brought against a president for genuine crimes.

Is impeachment driven by politics? Of course. An abuse? Not necessarily. The Johnson impeachment was an abuse. I'll give you that one. I notice you left out Nixon, who would have been impeached had he not resigned before the process could be completed. I don't think that was abuse. Bill Clinton committed a felony to corrupt a civil trial that had been green-lit by the US Supreme Court. Impeaching him for doing that was not an abuse. The first Trump impeachment failed for lack of evidence, but I wouldn't call it an abuse. What was abusive about it?

I would actually say America has been politically stagnant the past 30 years and since Trump ultimately did little to change that, he does not deserve the love and hate he receives from his supporters and detractors.

I agree. However, a lot of the hate against him is pointlessly self-earned. I'm not talking about hate from media and Democrats, which would have existed for any Republican president. I'm talking about hate from the public.

I am concerned about our tech giants going around the world (not just in the USA) and deciding who gets to talk on their platforms and shutting down elected officials they do not like. They are going full China. That is a far bigger threat to freedom and democracy than anything Trump ever did.

I agree. However, there's an implication that this makes Trump's **** stink less. It doesn't.