|
Post by kirinke on Jan 11, 2021 22:25:11 GMT
Somehow, I think his mind is mush.
|
|
|
Post by Eldorian on Jan 11, 2021 22:59:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jan 11, 2021 23:10:40 GMT
Pretty true. Trump is in deep shit. He just doesn't realize how deep the shit he's in. Him and every single one of his enablers and cronies. The Feds are going to be after them as well as the rioters, because they lit the fuse on this. In terms of law, that makes you just as guilty if you instigated something and people die because of it.
He can't walk this back and say he was 'joking' or being 'sarcastic' or indulging in 'truthful hyperbole'.
Why Trump is in deep shit (yes it's an opinion piece, but it covers the parts of the speech that puts him in legal jeopardy):
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Jan 12, 2021 0:11:13 GMT
And your opinion is clouded by right wing propaganda. Hell, you think cops blocking access to rioters are antifa now. He clearly incited the riot. Did you not listen to his words? That in of itself is grounds for impeachment.
I've seen the speech. What part of "...peacefully and patriotically..." screams "go riot inside Congress?" It doesn't. Because he didn't tell them to, nor did he imply they should. Ergo, not inciting a riot. But hey - the Dems have already proven they love and encourage people and groups who riot and try to injure or kill Congresspersons and others. Jimmy Carter pardoned puerto rican terrorists who killed 5 representatives. Bill Clinton pardoned Susan Rosenberg who bombed Congress, was a member of multiple terror organizations, and continued advocating the overthrow of the government while in jail. She became a member of the board of directors of Thousand Currents - who fundraises for BLM. Bill Ayers bombed Congress and was planning on bombing the WH and Pentagon. Not only did he not face charges, he helped run Obama's campaign. So tell me - who are the real factions calling for the overthrow of the government, since it obviously isn't Trump and the MAGA crowd. Go check Parler. Oh, wait, you can't. Those people were planning an insurrection on Parler and other conservative social media. This is why Parler is gone, btw. Beyond that, the President's speech was full of violent language, so ending his speech with "peacefully and patriotically" doesn't really help much. Further, there's what was said by Giuliani and Trump jr. Giuliani said he wants a trial by combat. WTF other than a coup does that mean? Trump jr. threatened Republicans who didn't follow his father's wishes. And these were the warm-ups for Trump. Who continued with the violent imagery. A lot of talk about fighting. The word fight was used dozens of times. The rest of your rant is lacking context. I don't feel like doing the research to give it that context.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jan 12, 2021 1:05:49 GMT
I've seen the speech. What part of "...peacefully and patriotically..." screams "go riot inside Congress?" It doesn't. Because he didn't tell them to, nor did he imply they should. Ergo, not inciting a riot. But hey - the Dems have already proven they love and encourage people and groups who riot and try to injure or kill Congresspersons and others. Jimmy Carter pardoned puerto rican terrorists who killed 5 representatives. Bill Clinton pardoned Susan Rosenberg who bombed Congress, was a member of multiple terror organizations, and continued advocating the overthrow of the government while in jail. She became a member of the board of directors of Thousand Currents - who fundraises for BLM. Bill Ayers bombed Congress and was planning on bombing the WH and Pentagon. Not only did he not face charges, he helped run Obama's campaign. So tell me - who are the real factions calling for the overthrow of the government, since it obviously isn't Trump and the MAGA crowd. Go check Parler. Oh, wait, you can't. Those people were planning an insurrection on Parler and other conservative social media. This is why Parler is gone, btw. Beyond that, the President's speech was full of violent language, so ending his speech with "peacefully and patriotically" doesn't really help much. Further, there's what was said by Giuliani and Trump jr. Giuliani said he wants a trial by combat. WTF other than a coup does that mean? Trump jr. threatened Republicans who didn't follow his father's wishes. And these were the warm-ups for Trump. Who continued with the violent imagery. A lot of talk about fighting. The word fight was used dozens of times. The rest of your rant is lacking context. I don't feel like doing the research to give it that context. We're not talking about Giuliani or Trump Jr. We're talking about the duly elected President, whose speech is fully protected by the 1st amendment. Just because *you* think it violent doesn't make it so - which is the whole point of the first amendment to begin with. At no point did he tell protestors to storm the capitol, break things, or attack people. Here's the transcript, by the way, which clearly proves me correct: www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6Parler being taken offline by Amazon? It's analogous to the company that sold you a bookshelf coming and smashing it into splinters because they don't like the books you are storing on it. I'm betting there are more than a few people who have a copy of the communist manifesto sitting on their bookshelf - conservatives aren't coming and taken them down. Facebook is a cesspool containing (if I recall the reports) 83 million instances of child exploitation - and they don't appear to be in any hurry to address the problem. As to my "lack of context," 🙄 no context is needed. The only thing I stated that was not factual was that the representatives were killed in the puerto rican attack. They were only wounded. My mistake.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jan 12, 2021 1:41:27 GMT
Freedom of speech and the first amendment has it's limits. Inciting a riot is one of those limits. Inciting others to kill, riot and destroy is a limit to free speech. Words do have consequences, in this case, his words incited a mob. Parler violated their terms of agreement. Amazon yanked it. So did Google and Apple. If you throw a tantrum, you get privileges taken away. Being hosted on a server is a privilege, not an expectation and it can be taken away by those who run the servers if you behave badly enough in their minds. There are consequences to this sort of thing, people don't realize it until it's too late.
You don't storm the Capitol with the intention of harming our top elected officials and get away with it, even if you are the President of the United States. He pointed them towards the capital and lit the fuse that sent them off. Trump is soon going to be impeached a second time and this time, I bet he's going to get removed and barred from ever holding public office again. While the removal by this point is largely symbolic, the real reason behind the impeachment is to insure he can never run for anything again.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jan 12, 2021 2:08:45 GMT
Freedom of speech and the first amendment has it's limits. Inciting a riot is one of those limits. Inciting others to kill, riot and destroy is a limit to free speech. Words do have consequences, in this case, his words incited a mob. Parler violated their terms of agreement. Amazon yanked it. So did Google and Apple. If you throw a tantrum, you get privileges taken away. Being hosted on a server is a privilege, not an expectation and it can be taken away by those who run the servers if you behave badly enough in their minds. There are consequences to this sort of thing, people don't realize it until it's too late.
You don't storm the Capitol with the intention of harming our top elected officials and get away with it, even if you are the President of the United States. Trump is soon going to be impeached a second time and this time, I bet he's going to get removed and barred from ever holding public office again. While the removal by this point is largely symbolic, the real reason behind the impeachment is to insure he can never run for anything again. I know you won't bother reading the transcript - his ~ 70 minute speech contains no such language. As to violating ToS? People aren't pissed that Parler was shut down or that Trump's twitter was shut off. They're pissed that the ToS aren't applied uniformly by companies that enjoy section 230 protections. If you think that Trump will be convicted of impeachment and barred, you're deluding yourself. Congress doesn't want the chaos guaranteed to occur should that happen. You think January 6th was crazy? Those on the right willing to do violence would essentially declare war. Pence would need 8 cabinet heads to invoke the 25th and has already said he won't try to do so - Trump could easily demand their resignations and would legally have every right to do so. McConnell won't procedurally even allow things to proceed on impeachment until an hour after Trump leaves office, at which point it is meaningless and holds no legal implications - a private citizen can't be impeached. The worst that they can do is censure him. Pelosi and Biden are terrified of the possibility of Trump running again in 2024 because they know he'd win and that the publicizing of voting irregularities in this election means they have to address it before the midterms. The MAGA movement isn't going away. The Republicans are terrified of pissing them off because they'll start their own party or vote independent - 74 million voters, most of whom are (were) registered Republicans, would destroy their ability to ever win an election again.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jan 12, 2021 2:29:46 GMT
You're dreaming again. When push comes to shove, Trump and his supporters are cowards. Against any real show of force, they'll run.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jan 12, 2021 2:34:47 GMT
You're dreaming again. When push comes to shove, Trump and his supporters are cowards. Against any real show of force, they'll run. You fail to understand that a large majority of his supporters are veterans who are peaceful until push comes to shove - and they know actual violence because many of them have engaged in violence at the behest of the government. Push their backs up against the wall by doing anything egregious enough that they consider you to be dictatorial? No one should want to see the results.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jan 12, 2021 3:42:28 GMT
Key words "... To the best of his ability..." in conjunction with the constitution clearly calling out only treason (and explicitly what it consists of), bribery, and the undefined "high crinmes and misdemeanors" means that any President's actions that do not meet those definitions - even if he were to explicitly tell citizens to riot (which he most clearly did not) - is not an insurrection. By definition, the leader of a government *can't* be considered as having engaged in insurrection - because by definition his every action that doesn't meet those clearly and explicitly called out treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors is, in fact, the government performing it's duties. At no point did he call for violence. At no point did he call for people to overthrow him. And that is the key. The President is head of government - he is literally as President executing the duties of the government. In order for there to be an insurrection, he would have had to have called citizens to overthrow *him*, as the as the during President and head of government. By that very definition, Pelosi, as *not* the head of government, but calling for him to be thrown out, *is* engaged in insurrection. I don't expect you to understand these concepts - they require the capacity for abstract thought. Trump isn't the leader of the Government. He's only the leader of the executive branch, so he can in fact overthrow the government and be guilty of sedition. Sedition would easily qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Jan 12, 2021 4:52:41 GMT
McConnell won't procedurally even allow things to proceed on impeachment until an hour after Trump leaves office, at which point it is meaningless and holds no legal implications - a private citizen can't be impeached. The worst that they can do is censure him. Should the House adopt articles of impeachment prior to the end of Trump's term (in an attempt to ban him from being able to run for the Office of the President in the future), there is still a valid debate due to the historical precedence regarding the 1876 impeachment of William Belknap: the war secretary to President Ulysses Grant, who was impeached after he had already resigned (no longer in office). [1]The Congressional Research Service submitted a report titled Impeachment and Removal[2]. Some of the key takeaways of this report include:
- The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President, Vice President, and other federal “civil officers” upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
- A simple majority of the House is necessary to approve articles of impeachment.
- If the Senate, by vote of a two thirds majority, convicts the official on any article of impeachment, the result is removal from office and, at the Senate’s discretion, disqualification from holding future office.
- The Constitution does not articulate who qualifies as a “civil officer.” Most impeachments have applied to federal judges. With regard to the executive branch, lesser functionaries such as federal employees who belong to the civil service, do not exercise “significant authority,” and are not appointed by the President or an agency head do not appear to be subject to impeachment. At the opposite end of the spectrum, it would appear that any official who qualifies as a principal officer, including a head of an agency such as a Secretary, Administrator, or Commissioner, is likely subject to impeachment.
As for the 1876 impeachment of William Belknap, he was ultimately acquitted. Although the Senate had voted 37-29 in favor of jurisdiction and majority of Senators voted to convict Belknap, no article mustered the required two-thirds majority. [3]Pelosi and Biden are terrified of the possibility of Trump running again in 2024 because they know he'd win and that the publicizing of voting irregularities in this election means they have to address it before the midterms. The MAGA movement isn't going away. The Republicans are terrified of pissing them off because they'll start their own party or vote independent - 74 million voters, most of whom are (were) registered Republicans, would destroy their ability to ever win an election again. They are definitely worried about Trump running again in the 2024 Presidential Election. But it is not so much Trump would be guaranteed to win, but the unrest it may likely cause if Trump attempts to run. It is very likely the MAGA (Trump) movement is not going away in the foreseeable future. By eliminating Trump from contention permanently, another suitable candidate would need to be found. This could further split the Republican establishment into two conservative parties (such as the Republican Party and the Patriot[?] Party); or, both conservative demographics may still vote in lockstep if only to counter the left-wing establishment. The Democratic establishment has also run the risk of tearing itself into two parties also (such as the Democratic Party and the Progressive[?] Party). Time will tell...
Either way, the likelihood of historically significant violent acts perpetrated by extremists is very real. This itself is the true tragedy.
1 United States Senate: War Secretary's Impeachment Trial2 Congressional Research Service: Impeachment and Removal (Summary) [October 29, 2015]3 Congressional Research Service: Impeachment and the Constitution (Postbellum Prectices (1865-1900)) [November 20, 2019]]
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jan 12, 2021 7:58:58 GMT
McConnell won't procedurally even allow things to proceed on impeachment until an hour after Trump leaves office, at which point it is meaningless and holds no legal implications - a private citizen can't be impeached. The worst that they can do is censure him. Should the House adopt articles of impeachment prior to the end of Trump's term (in an attempt to ban him from being able to run for the Office of the President in the future), there is still a valid debate due to the historical precedence regarding the 1876 impeachment of William Belknap: the war secretary to President Ulysses Grant, who was impeached after he had already resigned (no longer in office). [1]The Congressional Research Service submitted a report titled Impeachment and Removal[2]. Some of the key takeaways of this report include:
- The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President, Vice President, and other federal “civil officers” upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
- A simple majority of the House is necessary to approve articles of impeachment.
- If the Senate, by vote of a two thirds majority, convicts the official on any article of impeachment, the result is removal from office and, at the Senate’s discretion, disqualification from holding future office.
- The Constitution does not articulate who qualifies as a “civil officer.” Most impeachments have applied to federal judges. With regard to the executive branch, lesser functionaries such as federal employees who belong to the civil service, do not exercise “significant authority,” and are not appointed by the President or an agency head do not appear to be subject to impeachment. At the opposite end of the spectrum, it would appear that any official who qualifies as a principal officer, including a head of an agency such as a Secretary, Administrator, or Commissioner, is likely subject to impeachment.
As for the 1876 impeachment of William Belknap, he was ultimately acquitted. Although the Senate had voted 37-29 in favor of jurisdiction and majority of Senators voted to convict Belknap, no article mustered the required two-thirds majority. [3]Pelosi and Biden are terrified of the possibility of Trump running again in 2024 because they know he'd win and that the publicizing of voting irregularities in this election means they have to address it before the midterms. The MAGA movement isn't going away. The Republicans are terrified of pissing them off because they'll start their own party or vote independent - 74 million voters, most of whom are (were) registered Republicans, would destroy their ability to ever win an election again. They are definitely worried about Trump running again in the 2024 Presidential Election. But it is not so much Trump would be guaranteed to win, but the unrest it may likely cause if Trump attempts to run. It is very likely the MAGA (Trump) movement is not going away in the foreseeable future. By eliminating Trump from contention permanently, another suitable candidate would need to be found. This could further split the Republican establishment into two conservative parties (such as the Republican Party and the Patriot[?] Party); or, both conservative demographics may still vote in lockstep if only to counter the left-wing establishment. The Democratic establishment has also run the risk of tearing itself into two parties also (such as the Democratic Party and the Progressive[?] Party). Time will tell...
Either way, the likelihood of historically significant violent acts perpetrated by extremists is very real. This itself is the true tragedy.
1 United States Senate: War Secretary's Impeachment Trial2 Congressional Research Service: Impeachment and Removal (Summary) [October 29, 2015]3 Congressional Research Service: Impeachment and the Constitution (Postbellum Prectices (1865-1900)) [November 20, 2019]]That guy's trial was held after he left office, but the Senate failed to convict so it wasn't challenged in court. As precedent goes, it's pretty darn weak. As far as Trump running in 2024, the Democrats don't have enough Republicans turning against Trump to convict, and without the conviction there is no way to prevent him from running again. He's going to be 78 in 2024, though, so he may not even be with us in 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jan 12, 2021 12:33:11 GMT
Key words "... To the best of his ability..." in conjunction with the constitution clearly calling out only treason (and explicitly what it consists of), bribery, and the undefined "high crinmes and misdemeanors" means that any President's actions that do not meet those definitions - even if he were to explicitly tell citizens to riot (which he most clearly did not) - is not an insurrection. By definition, the leader of a government *can't* be considered as having engaged in insurrection - because by definition his every action that doesn't meet those clearly and explicitly called out treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors is, in fact, the government performing it's duties. At no point did he call for violence. At no point did he call for people to overthrow him. And that is the key. The President is head of government - he is literally as President executing the duties of the government. In order for there to be an insurrection, he would have had to have called citizens to overthrow *him*, as the as the during President and head of government. By that very definition, Pelosi, as *not* the head of government, but calling for him to be thrown out, *is* engaged in insurrection. I don't expect you to understand these concepts - they require the capacity for abstract thought. Trump isn't the leader of the Government. He's only the leader of the executive branch, so he can in fact overthrow the government and be guilty of sedition. Sedition would easily qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor by the way. He absolutely *is* head of both government and head of state, as opposed to in a parliamentary system or a constitutional monarchy where you have a prime minister and a king/queen or a president and premier, chancellor, etc. He just happens to not be the chief legislator. By definition, head of government with chief executive power *is* exercising the full power and authority of the government. Ergo, not insurrection or sedition.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jan 12, 2021 12:43:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jan 12, 2021 12:46:41 GMT
Should the House adopt articles of impeachment prior to the end of Trump's term (in an attempt to ban him from being able to run for the Office of the President in the future), there is still a valid debate due to the historical precedence regarding the 1876 impeachment of William Belknap: the war secretary to President Ulysses Grant, who was impeached after he had already resigned (no longer in office). [1]The Congressional Research Service submitted a report titled Impeachment and Removal[2]. Some of the key takeaways of this report include:
- The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President, Vice President, and other federal “civil officers” upon a determination that such officers have engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
- A simple majority of the House is necessary to approve articles of impeachment.
- If the Senate, by vote of a two thirds majority, convicts the official on any article of impeachment, the result is removal from office and, at the Senate’s discretion, disqualification from holding future office.
- The Constitution does not articulate who qualifies as a “civil officer.” Most impeachments have applied to federal judges. With regard to the executive branch, lesser functionaries such as federal employees who belong to the civil service, do not exercise “significant authority,” and are not appointed by the President or an agency head do not appear to be subject to impeachment. At the opposite end of the spectrum, it would appear that any official who qualifies as a principal officer, including a head of an agency such as a Secretary, Administrator, or Commissioner, is likely subject to impeachment.
As for the 1876 impeachment of William Belknap, he was ultimately acquitted. Although the Senate had voted 37-29 in favor of jurisdiction and majority of Senators voted to convict Belknap, no article mustered the required two-thirds majority. [3]They are definitely worried about Trump running again in the 2024 Presidential Election. But it is not so much Trump would be guaranteed to win, but the unrest it may likely cause if Trump attempts to run. It is very likely the MAGA (Trump) movement is not going away in the foreseeable future. By eliminating Trump from contention permanently, another suitable candidate would need to be found. This could further split the Republican establishment into two conservative parties (such as the Republican Party and the Patriot[?] Party); or, both conservative demographics may still vote in lockstep if only to counter the left-wing establishment. The Democratic establishment has also run the risk of tearing itself into two parties also (such as the Democratic Party and the Progressive[?] Party). Time will tell...
Either way, the likelihood of historically significant violent acts perpetrated by extremists is very real. This itself is the true tragedy.
1 United States Senate: War Secretary's Impeachment Trial2 Congressional Research Service: Impeachment and Removal (Summary) [October 29, 2015]3 Congressional Research Service: Impeachment and the Constitution (Postbellum Prectices (1865-1900)) [November 20, 2019]]That guy's trial was held after he left office, but the Senate failed to convict so it wasn't challenged in court. As precedent goes, it's pretty darn weak. As far as Trump running in 2024, the Democrats don't have enough Republicans turning against Trump to convict, and without the conviction there is no way to prevent him from running again. He's going to be 78 in 2024, though, so he may not even be with us in 4 years. Being 78 didn't stop the Dems from running waterhead Joe as candidate - he'll be 78 when he takes office (if he makes it that far - did you see the wheezing exhaustion from him when he was giving a speech associated with his 2nd covid shot?) The Dems are terrified he'll run again and win because he'll shitcan whatever fucked-up laws they enact in the next 4 years and the Reps are terrified because they're never going to win again without Trump voters supporting them. As to political violence - the Dems brought that on themselves, with the help of the media, by doing nothing during the antifa/BLM, which seems to send the message that they approve of political violence when it suits them. Not a good message when your political opponents are backed by 74 million voters whose makeup includes a large quantity of combat veterans. I point back to Rogan's statement as to what happens when veterans who have killed at the behest of their government decide to unleash themselves. If a 16 year old kid managed to take out 3 degenerates, imagine what a trained and organized group comfortable with violence could achieve if they decided to? *That* is what all of the congress should be terrified of, wise up, and stop fucking over their constituents because, right now, it feels like the equivalent of Billy Ray and Louis coming to the realization of being manipulated by the Duke brothers for the princely sum of $1.
|
|