The second impeachment of Donald Trump thread

[Dashinka 23,376]

7 hours ago, Orangesapples said:

I think we're all sick of Trump dominating the news cycle. I don't want to have to hear about him running again. I don't want to hear any more if his sometimes entertaining but also frightening ramblings. 

I agree, we need to start hearing how Biden sells his influence as a career politician.

[Dashinka 23,376]

6 hours ago, Orangesapples said:

She's not even vice president yet, how can you impeach her? 

 

And Trump did do the thing he's accused of. What exactly has Kamala done? 

As we saw yesterday, and last year the House can impeach anyone for anything.  I expect we may see more of these functions coming especially with the snap impeachment with no deliberation that happened yesterday.

[Boiler 43,745]

So Hillary and Obama are not in the clear.

[Crazy Cat 39,656]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

As we saw yesterday, and last year the House can impeach anyone for anything.  I expect we may see more of these functions coming especially with the snap impeachment with no deliberation that happened yesterday.

Now, the saying will be "The House can impeach a ham sandwich"........LOL

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

So Hillary and Obama are not in the clear.

With the current climate, I'm all in on impeaching Biden's dogs.

[seekingthetruth 1,219]

8 hours ago, Orangesapples said:

What case? 

 

8 hours ago, Boiler said:

She has actually done what Trump is accused of, how will she be able to take the oath?

Good old Snopes, biased as usually.  If you Google Snopes Kamala Harris, one of the first hits that came up was "The Kamala Harris Collection".  The list of 17 claims is prefaced by "Misinformation about the presumptive vice presidential nominee on the Democratic party ticket abounded in the months leading up to the 2020 election." 

https://www.snopes.com/collections/the-kamala-harris-collection/

 

They don't include this one below on the list, so you have to dig for it.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kamala-harris-protests/

 

 

[Crazy Cat 39,656]

Just saying......words can be interpreted in many ways.  These protests were filled with violent acts.

 

Edited January 14, 2021 by Lucky Cat

[laylalex 7,261]

But I don't think those aren't incitement? There was a long post on here the other day about what incitement is and isn't. To me that read like unlawful activity had to be imminent, like right on the edge of happening and the words were the spark to kindling. Were the words in that meme (also suffering from "this meme: brought to you by meth" syndrome) the spark to violence or other illegal behavior? That's a big difference. 

 

Also, nice that they only selected women there. Not indicative of anything.

[Boiler 43,745]

5 minutes ago, laylalex said:

But I don't think those aren't incitement? There was a long post on here the other day about what incitement is and isn't. To me that read like unlawful activity had to be imminent, like right on the edge of happening and the words were the spark to kindling. Were the words in that meme (also suffering from "this meme: brought to you by meth" syndrome) the spark to violence or other illegal behavior? That's a big difference. 

 

Also, nice that they only selected women there. Not indicative of anything.

If that is the definition then Trump has a pass as this was obviously planned well ahead of what he said, so you do not even have to get into a discussion on how is the above any different.

[laylalex 7,261]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

If that is the definition then Trump has a pass as this was obviously planned well ahead of what he said, so you do not even have to get into a discussion on how is the above any different.

But that's not what that post said, assuming it was right. The conditions have to be right. If one person showed up, angry about the big lie that Trump was the true winner, angry enough to do something about it illegal, and Trump tipped them into doing it, that would be incitement. My reading of it. But I'm no lawyer.

[B_J 2,752]

12 minutes ago, laylalex said:

But I don't think those aren't incitement? There was a long post on here the other day about what incitement is and isn't. To me that read like unlawful activity had to be imminent, like right on the edge of happening and the words were the spark to kindling. Were the words in that meme (also suffering from "this meme: brought to you by meth" syndrome) the spark to violence or other illegal behavior? That's a big difference. 

 

Also, nice that they only selected women there. Not indicative of anything.

 

1 minute ago, laylalex said:

But that's not what that post said, assuming it was right. The conditions have to be right. If one person showed up, angry about the big lie that Trump was the true winner, angry enough to do something about it illegal, and Trump tipped them into doing it, that would be incitement. My reading of it. But I'm no lawyer.

 

I wish Maven would get back on because I'm curious about something concerning that.  As you pointed out, the activity had to be imminent but does the person, Trump in this case, have to know that the activity is imminent?  If he thinks he's just talking to a fired up crowd that's ready to march to the capitol and be really loud but the crowd actually had other plans that he wasn't aware of, is it still incitement?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

If they planned it, as in, days, weeks, months, using an ounce of common sense, then Trump's speech only a few hours before could not have "incited" them to do something they were already doing. And that's even with me stupidly validating the clearly cherry picking caricatures selectively interpreting Trump's speech in the most heinous way possible. It's also simply impossible to look at the accusation in isolation when we've already seen how everything Trump does is similarly caricatured in the hopes that kicking and screaming gets people their way on Trump.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds

[laylalex 7,261]

2 minutes ago, B_J said:

 

 

I wish Maven would get back on because I'm curious about something concerning that.  As you pointed out, the activity had to be imminent but does the person, Trump in this case, have to know that the activity is imminent?  If he thinks he's just talking to a fired up crowd that's ready to march to the capitol and be really loud but the crowd actually had other plans that he wasn't aware of, is it still incitement?

I think those are excellent questions! @elmcitymaven can you shed light on this?

[Boiler 43,745]

I was watching CNN yesterday and there were interviewing Dem members who both said it was planned in advance, they saw people they said were doing a recce and had reported it.

 

So which is it?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Just now, Boiler said:

I was watching CNN yesterday and there were interviewing Dem members who both said it was planned in advance, they saw people they said were doing a recce and had reported it.

 

So which is it?

They clearly anticipated Trump would give some speech that could in any way possible be interpreted as inciting them! Trump's toast. #MuellerTime