The second impeachment of Donald Trump thread

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

On 1/10/2021 at 12:32 PM, Burnt Reynolds said:

Impeachment is a political system, which is why its governed by political rules.

 

Default means there's no inherent removal associated with impeachment. It has a hurdle it must clear, the end. If you can't demonstrate how it would clear that hurdle, there's no point in moving forward. You're free to play a pointless game all on your own.

 

Sure is a good sign when serial bandwagoner Joe Manchin knows this stands no chance.. too bad some didn't heed prior warnings:

 

Quote

Manchin: House impeachment plan 'ill-advised'

 

Quote

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said on Monday that a House plan to vote this week to impeach President Trump is "ill-advised," warning that there aren't the votes in the Senate to convict the president.

"I think this is so ill-advised for Joe Biden to be coming in, trying to heal the country, trying to be the president of all the people when we are going to be so divided and fighting again. Let the judicial system do its job," said Manchin, who represents a state where Trump is very popular.

Manchin added that he did not believe there would be the support in the Senate to meet the two-thirds vote required to convict Trump. He indicated that he had been trying to convey that message to the House amid its discussions about the path forward following last week's attack on the Capitol. 

"We've been trying to send that message over. They know the votes aren't there," Manchin said.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/533738-manchin-house-impeachment-plan-ill-advised?amp

 

"Why we stick to principled logic and don't cave to blindfolded darts and bad faith arguments/debate": Exhibit A. 

Edited January 12, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds

[Prizm123 1,084]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-mccarthy/mccarthy-says-trump-accepts-some-responsibility-for-capitol-riot-sources-idUSKBN29H0CN

 

this will be used in court. bank on it.

[Dashinka 23,371]

2 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

Sure is a good sign when serial bandwagoner Joe Manchin knows this stands no chance.. too bad some didn't heed prior warnings:

 

 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/533738-manchin-house-impeachment-plan-ill-advised?amp

 

"Why we stick to principled logic and don't cave to blindfolded darts and bad faith arguments/debate": Exhibit A. 

The assumption Manchin makes is that Joe Biden actually cares about healing the country.  I am not sure this is a good assumption given the message(s) Biden has given over the past few days.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Free market!:

 

 

 

[Dashinka 23,371]

12 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Free market!:

 

 

 

Is Bernie Sanders suggesting we should make decisions based on direction from Twitter and FB?  Does he not know that the world does not revolve around either of these companies.

[B_J 2,752]

The more I think about the impeachment, the less I agree with it.  After Trump's speech, where he did not encourage violence, his supporters attacked the capitol armed with pepper spray, zip ties, etc.  But here's the thing.  I'm pretty sure his supporters didn't listen to the speech and then make a trip to Walmart to buy zip ties and pepper spray.  They came to the rally already armed and prepared.  It looks like they already had bad intentions before they arrived at the rally.  Trump's speech did nothing to calm them down but his speech is also not the cause of what happened that day.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

19 minutes ago, B_J said:

The more I think about the impeachment, the less I agree with it.  After Trump's speech, where he did not encourage violence, his supporters attacked the capitol armed with pepper spray, zip ties, etc.  But here's the thing.  I'm pretty sure his supporters didn't listen to the speech and then make a trip to Walmart to buy zip ties and pepper spray.  They came to the rally already armed and prepared.  It looks like they already had bad intentions before they arrived at the rally.  Trump's speech did nothing to calm them down but his speech is also not the cause of what happened that day.

 

    Wonder why that was? I've never seen it happen after any other election. I'm not really sure how we would dissociate the actions of January 6th with the events of the last 2 months. Trump has been the driving force behind all of the stolen election propaganda. People are ready to riot over something that didn't happen but the president keeps saying. I don't see how you absolve him of any of the consequences that ultimately leads to.

[B_J 2,752]

7 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Wonder why that was? I've never seen it happen after any other election. I'm not really sure how we would dissociate the actions of January 6th with the events of the last 2 months. Trump has been the driving force behind all of the stolen election propaganda. People are ready to riot over something that didn't happen but the president keeps saying. I don't see how you absolve him of any of the consequences that ultimately leads to.

But if the Senate is actually going to convict him in the impeachment trial, assuming it goes that far, there is going to have to be actual proof of incitement to insurrection.  And, from what I've seen, there's just not enough there.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, B_J said:

But if the Senate is actually going to convict him in the impeachment trial, assuming it goes that far, there is going to have to be actual proof of incitement to insurrection.  And, from what I've seen, there's just not enough there.

 

  I think the whole impeachment process is intended to get Trump to consider resigning, or at the very least behave for two weeks with the threat of impeachment and the 25th over his head. I don't see it carrying on past the 20th even if they do vote on it in the house. 

[B_J 2,752]

Well, he definitely doesn't have enough class to resign.  If this gets him to just shut up until Biden takes over then it's a win.  

[Crazy Cat 39,627]

Removing Trump from office now would be the most idiotic move the Dems have ever made (and they have made some big ones).  If Trump is removed from office, he can not run in 2024 as an independent, thus consolidating support for the next Republican candidate.  If Trump runs as an independent, he will certainly siphon off red votes.

Edited January 13, 2021 by Lucky Cat

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, Lucky Cat said:

Removing Trump from office now would be the most idiotic move the Dems have ever made (and they have made some big ones).  If Trump is removed from office, he can not run in 2024 as an independent, thus consolidating support for the next Republican candidate.  If Trump runs as an independent, he will certainly siphon off red votes.

That's a big "if". It really depends on who that Republican is. If it's anyone like Haley, Christie, Hogan, or god forbid, any Bushes, drying paint can galvanize people better.

 

While I'd definitely be looking at all candidates (with my usual preference for people outside the two parties), my chances of voting a second time for Trump gets higher if he were to run as an independent. I'm definitely not a fan of Republicans, and I doubt the party brass wants any of the few Republicans I'd vote for being the nominee. Furthermore, we know Chuck and Nancy's primary motivation for pushing this forward isn't actually removal, because they know it stands little chance. Instead, this discussion of 14A likely means they're going to roll the dice and attempt to force a majority vote to bar him from future office, which may or may not work when its challenged in the courts (particularly if its absent a conviction).

 

Regardless, the thing to understand about the Democrats, and Republicans, is, more than winning or losing general elections, their primary goals are to prevent any third parties or write-ins from having any consequential amount of people voting for them, and to maintain control over their party because their connections (with the media, bureaus, litany of establishments) equally need it.

 

Edited January 13, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

9 hours ago, B_J said:

The more I think about the impeachment, the less I agree with it.  After Trump's speech, where he did not encourage violence, his supporters attacked the capitol armed with pepper spray, zip ties, etc.  But here's the thing.  I'm pretty sure his supporters didn't listen to the speech and then make a trip to Walmart to buy zip ties and pepper spray.  They came to the rally already armed and prepared.  It looks like they already had bad intentions before they arrived at the rally.  Trump's speech did nothing to calm them down but his speech is also not the cause of what happened that day.

Hello, old friend. I do hope you still keep those pleats in your khakis; in these days of change, it would be good to know there are still constants.

 

The example that you use to support your statement that this was not incitement is arguably support that this was incitement. The test that the courts use is from Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) when considering whether speech which would otherwise be protected is unprotected because it is incitement. The Brandenburg court held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

 

There are two parts of the test: (1) the speech advocates for the use of force or of law violation directed towards inciting or producing imminent lawless action and (2) the speech is likely to incite or produce such action. This is a very high hurdle to climb over, and very good reason: we need to guard zealously our free speech, and the courts recognize this. The lawless action must be imminent -- the spark to the tinder that's right there before you -- and likely in light of the provocative speech. It can't be vague, like: "Down with cops! We should storm the streets with illegal weapons and shoot cops!" When are you going to storm the streets? Now? Next week? Who are you talking to -- a crowd of supporters actually clutching illegal weapons wearing "ACAB" t-shirts, or are you hanging around outside Best Buy for a supposed shipment of PS5s? 

 

The classic example you get in law school of speech that is incitement is one cribbed from John Stuart Mill: there's a difference between writing that corn dealers starve the poor in an article in a newspaper, and when you've got a bunch of angry poor people outside the corn dealer's house and you say "hey, that guy inside is starving you, you should show him what for  right now with these here pitchforks" and you lean a bunch of pitchforks against the wall. You have (1) speech advocating for force/law violation, directed towards producing imminent pointy bits in bottoms of corn dealers and (2) it's likely when you say to a bunch of angry, poor people "you should poke these awful capitalists in the bottom with the pitchforks I have so handily provided" that the people may very well take you up on the suggestion right away if they are sufficiently riled up.

 

Now how does this all play into Trump? Well, as you say, these people showed up with zip ties and pepper spray, they didn't go out and buy them afterwards. They were, arguably, primed for imminent lawless action, as evidenced by, well, let's call the zip ties and pepper spray "contraband" for brevity and carpal tunnel syndrome's sake. They are the tinder. Are Trump's words the spark?

 

If I am taking the position here that his words were incitement under Brandenburg, I can find speech that is arguably directed towards inciting or producing imminent lawless action, like telling the crowd to march on the Capitol and "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore." On its own, it seems insubstantial, but in the context of the speech as a whole, where Trump was aiming to gin up anger in a riled up crowd. And given who was in the crowd -- furious supporters clutching contraband tend to, hm, have at least some desire to use it -- it was likely as their leader Trump's words would be the blessing they needed to move forward. So instead of saying that it could not be incitement because they were already primed to commit crimes, being at the ready with contraband already on their persons makes it potentially more likely it is incitement. Who'da thunk a bunch of rabid Trump supporters, some dressed in tactical gear, might be armed and ready to part-ay? 

 

On the other hand, Trump may save himself by being (as always) a hopeless and meandering orator. Sweet Satan, I read his whole dumb speech for you people!  It's like looking at a picture where you can see not only the duck and the rabbit at the same time, but you also see a walrus, a map of Zurich, the '82 New York Mets and a Hungryman dinner. It's everything and nothing at the same time. He's a clueless oaf who stumbled into something that looks like incitement but all he was doing was playing his greatest hits for his own savoring, each morsel of self-pity a delicious reminder of how put upon he is. SAD!

 

I have my own thoughts on this, and they do not fit well into yes or no boxes. On a legal level, hells yeah, DO IT because it is so interesting and so rare that incitement is ever actually proven. Can it be done? Ooooo. On the other hand, the Doofus Trump theory is quite possibly correct. 

 

Peace and pleated khakis be with you, B_J.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, Lucky Cat said:

Removing Trump from office now would be the most idiotic move the Dems have ever made (and they have made some big ones).  If Trump is removed from office, he can not run in 2024 as an independent, thus consolidating support for the next Republican candidate.  If Trump runs as an independent, he will certainly siphon off red votes.

 

  I don't think they would allow an incarcerated individual to run for office. 

[TBoneTX 43,420]

Complicating the "incitement" allegation is that the timeline doesn't fit.  Many or most of those who entered the Capitol building were already over there before Pres. Trump nearly finished his speech and mentioned the "peacefully and patriotically..." desire to march over.