|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 12, 2021 10:51:46 GMT -8
Trump told them to go down to the Capitol to Fight Like Hell and Stop The Steal. He told them to do that. It's painfully clear. You are lying and you know it. Trump did not "them to go down to the Capitol to Fight Like Hell". You created that fake quote out of 2 other quotes, and you did it because you can see the problem with your whole construct. Trump directed people "over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard", and in a different part of the speech was a quote to "fight like hell". You deleted the the "peacefully and patriotically" and rammed the quotes together to create your fake instruction. That sir, is dishonest. Dishonesty is trying to equate something that was said exactly one time...while ignoring he used the word "fight" over 20 times in the same speech. And it's also intellectually dishonest to not address the fact he refused to call in the National Guard for multiple hours once it was clear, abundantly so, that this was not a peaceful action. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Feb 12, 2021 11:04:44 GMT -8
it's also intellectually dishonest to not address the fact he refused to call in the National Guard for multiple hours once it was clear, abundantly so, that this was not a peaceful action. Trump hasn't been charged with that. They'd have a better case if they did. I did bring up a list authored by lawyers of 4 serious charges they could probably make stick but instead the Dems went with Incitement which Trump didn't do. If you are unhappy with lack of attention being brought to the late deployment of the National Guard, I would suggest you write a strongly worded letter to Nancy Pelosi. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 12, 2021 11:10:49 GMT -8
it's also intellectually dishonest to not address the fact he refused to call in the National Guard for multiple hours once it was clear, abundantly so, that this was not a peaceful action. Trump hasn't been charged with that. They'd have a better case if they did. I did bring up a list authored by lawyers of 4 serious charges they could probably make stick but instead the Dems went with Incitement which Trump didn't do. If you are unhappy with lack of attention being brought to the late deployment of the National Guard, I would suggest you write a strongly worded letter to Nancy Pelosi. He clearly, crystal-like, incited. I don't know if you think people are inherently unintelligent or what, but it's rank hypocrisy to promote this while bitching about dishonesty that has no bearing on the outcome. The legal definition in the penal code of inciting a riot (which was declared at 1:49 PM) is "to organize, promote, encourage, participate or carry out." It was organized, promoted for weeks, encouraged in the speech itself....the only thing the cowardly ex-president didn't do is take up arms himself after stating "he'll be there." Nancy Pelosi has nothing to do with calling the Guard in in a timely manner. That's the job of the president, who refused to do so, while watching and smilimg with his son as violence unfolded. The president had to be coerced and convinced, yet still declined. And you know as well as I do it wouldn't matter what articles they brought against Trump. Saying so is again intellectually dishonest. He's on tape threatening the Georgia Secretary of State (in which Lindsey Graham also is guilty of doing) to "find enough votes." The GOP didn't blink at that, because they know they played an active role. Trump's above the law when it comes to integrity of oath of office.....but he will be indicted soon enough. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Feb 12, 2021 11:25:09 GMT -8
it's also intellectually dishonest to not address the fact he refused to call in the National Guard for multiple hours once it was clear, abundantly so, that this was not a peaceful action. Trump hasn't been charged with that. They'd have a better case if they did. I did bring up a list authored by lawyers of 4 serious charges they could probably make stick but instead the Dems went with Incitement which Trump didn't do. If you are unhappy with lack of attention being brought to the late deployment of the National Guard, I would suggest you write a strongly worded letter to Nancy Pelosi. All your takes are so original.."Nancy Pelosi" and the Capitol security. If we want to hear delusional Hannity/ Breitbart / Levin et al takes and excuses...we can just tune in...but you knew that. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Feb 12, 2021 11:46:58 GMT -8
Trump told them to go down to the Capitol to Fight Like Hell and Stop The Steal. He told them to do that. It's painfully clear. You are lying and you know it. Trump did not "them to go down to the Capitol to Fight Like Hell". You created that fake quote out of 2 other quotes, and you did it because you can see the problem with your whole construct. Trump directed people "over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard", and in a different part of the speech was a quote to "fight like hell". You deleted the the "peacefully and patriotically" and rammed the quotes together to create your fake instruction. That sir, is dishonest. I took the highlights of what he said. It was the core things that his followers took away from his speech - just pay attention to what they've said. Those are the three things that they focused on, and that was intentional on Trump's part. It's what he WANTED them to take away from his speech. Come on, you know that. Don't give a treasonous seditionist criminal an out on technicalities. What he meant was plain. What his goal was is plain. He and his people planned it for months. Just knock it off. At this point you are painfully close to trolling, which I'll remind you is against forum rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Feb 12, 2021 14:40:15 GMT -8
Nancy Pelosi has nothing to do with calling the Guard in in a timely manner. Nancy Pelosi has everything to do with deciding what to charge Trump with. If she had gone with "abuse of power" or "violation of the oath of office", she'd have a slam dunk. But no, she went with Incitement, which Trump didn't do. while watching and smilimg with his son as violence unfolded. Nancy didn't charge Trump for that. He's on tape threatening the Georgia Secretary of State Nancy also didn't charge Trump for that even though as I said before abuse of power would be easy to prove. Trump's above the law when it comes to integrity of oath of office ...and Nancy didn't charge for that either. She went with a single change indictment of Incitement. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 12, 2021 14:49:14 GMT -8
Nancy Pelosi has nothing to do with calling the Guard in in a timely manner. Nancy Pelosi has everything to do with deciding what to charge Trump with. If she had gone with "abuse of power" or "violation of the oath of office", she'd have a slam dunk. But no, she went with Incitement, which Trump didn't do. while watching and smilimg with his son as violence unfolded. Nancy didn't charge Trump for that. He's on tape threatening the Georgia Secretary of State Nancy also didn't charge Trump for that even though as I said before abuse of power would be easy to prove. Trump's above the law when it comes to integrity of oath of office ...and Nancy didn't charge for that either. She went with a single change indictment of Incitement. You might want to actually read the article in its entirety. Because, as usual, you're not correct. It's a single article that covers abuse of power and violating the oath of office. And again, it wouldn't matter what he was charged with. The jury is not impartial and there is no realm that exists where a guilty vote was coming, as that would indicate guilt in others. Period. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 12, 2021 14:55:24 GMT -8
Here is the full text of H. Res 24 which covers failure to discharge duties, insurrection, failure to uphold the oath of office and behavioral conduct :
"Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following article of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Article of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
ARTICLE I: INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Further, section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States from “hold[ing] any office … under the United States”. In his conduct while President of the United States—and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States, in that:
On January 6, 2021, pursuant to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representatives, and the Senate met at the United States Capitol for a Joint Session of Congress to count the votes of the Electoral College. In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, DC. There, he reiterated false claims that “we won this election, and we won it by a landslide”. He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged—and foreseeably resulted in—lawless action at the Capitol, such as: “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore”. Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts.
President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.
In all this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States."
|
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Feb 12, 2021 15:05:25 GMT -8
You are lying and you know it. Trump did not "them to go down to the Capitol to Fight Like Hell". You created that fake quote out of 2 other quotes, and you did it because you can see the problem with your whole construct. Trump directed people "over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard", and in a different part of the speech was a quote to "fight like hell". You deleted the the "peacefully and patriotically" and rammed the quotes together to create your fake instruction. That sir, is dishonest. I took the highlights of what he said. It was the core things that his followers took away from his speech It doesn't matter what his followers took away from his speech just like it didn't matter what that crazy Bernie Sanders supporter took away from Bernie's rhetoric. What matters is what Trump said, and we have long-standing precedent for what does and does not constitute Incitement. No part of that standard involves what supporters think he really meant but didn't say. It is about exactly what he said, and exactly what Trump said fails to rise to the high standard of the Brandenburg test. Don't give a treasonous seditionist criminal an out on technicalities. The law is about technicalities. You don't get to throw the law out the window just to get someone you think deserves it. The same technicalities that protect Trump protects all of us. Even if I think Trump deserves a large share of the blame for what took place on January 6th, I am more concerned with what I see as an orchestrated and broad attack by Progressives on the First Amendment. If defending the First Amendment and the standard set forth in the Brandenburg test means defending Trump then it is what it is. I'm sure the ACLU wasn't thrilled with the murder, torture, and terrorism committed by the KKK but they have defended their speeches multiple times. This is the same principle. As REAL liberals say "I disagree with what was said but I defend to the death the right to say it." |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Feb 12, 2021 15:20:55 GMT -8
It's a single article that covers abuse of power and violating the oath of office. Okay, technically yes "abuse of power" and "violating the oath of office" are mentioned but both point to a single charge of Incitement. They went with Incitement. It doesn't say "Inciting violence and...". It is the only thing they went with and so the Brandenburg test is the only thing that matters, and Trump's speech doesn't meet that standard. He will be correctly acquitted by the Senate, and if he's indicted criminally for Incitement to Violence then he'll ultimately be acquitted on that too by the Supreme Court. Prosecutors may get him on something else but they won't get him on Incitement to Violence in a textualist court. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Feb 12, 2021 15:37:40 GMT -8
I took the highlights of what he said. It was the core things that his followers took away from his speech It doesn't matter what his followers took away from his speech just like it didn't matter what that crazy Bernie Sanders supporter took away from Bernie's rhetoric. What matters is what Trump said, and we have long-standing precedent for what does and does not constitute Incitement. No part of that standard involves what supporters think he really meant but didn't say. It is about exactly what he said, and exactly what Trump said fails to rise to the high standard of the Brandenburg test. Don't give a treasonous seditionist criminal an out on technicalities. The law is about technicalities. You don't get to throw the law out the window just to get someone you think deserves it. The same technicalities that protect Trump protects all of us. Even if I think Trump deserves a large share of the blame for what took place on January 6th, I am more concerned with what I see as an orchestrated and broad attack by Progressives on the First Amendment. If defending the First Amendment and the standard set forth in the Brandenburg test means defending Trump then it is what it is. I'm sure the ACLU wasn't thrilled with the murder, torture, and terrorism committed by the KKK but they have defended their speeches multiple times. This is the same principle. As REAL liberals say "I disagree with what was said but I defend to the death the right to say it." It's not the same. It's not remotely the same. Trump organized and encouraged an insurrection - a coup. He did things MONTHS in advance to make it possible. There were several steps he took, including LYING about voter fraud and a stolen election. That's the least of it, though. You can't possibly be serious that you don't believe there's enough evidence to convict him of inciting the insurrection. He clearly did just that - pre planned, no less. Defending him is defending treason. Not a look I'd go for. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 12, 2021 16:20:49 GMT -8
It's a single article that covers abuse of power and violating the oath of office. Okay, technically yes "abuse of power" and "violating the oath of office" are mentioned but both point to a single charge of Incitement. They went with Incitement. It doesn't say "Inciting violence and...". It is the only thing they went with and so the Brandenburg test is the only thing that matters, and Trump's speech doesn't meet that standard. He will be correctly acquitted by the Senate, and if he's indicted criminally for Incitement to Violence then he'll ultimately be acquitted on that too by the Supreme Court. Prosecutors may get him on something else but they won't get him on Incitement to Violence in a textualist court. Incorrectly acquitted due to a biased, partial jury that cowers to Trump and wants to avoid their own charges in the case of Hawley, Cruz and others. Again, black and white. This is not a criminal trial. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Feb 12, 2021 16:30:15 GMT -8
Okay, technically yes "abuse of power" and "violating the oath of office" are mentioned but both point to a single charge of Incitement. They went with Incitement. It doesn't say "Inciting violence and...". It is the only thing they went with and so the Brandenburg test is the only thing that matters, and Trump's speech doesn't meet that standard. He will be correctly acquitted by the Senate, and if he's indicted criminally for Incitement to Violence then he'll ultimately be acquitted on that too by the Supreme Court. Prosecutors may get him on something else but they won't get him on Incitement to Violence in a textualist court. Incorrectly acquitted due to a biased, partial jury that cowers to Trump and wants to avoid their own charges in the case of Hawley, Cruz and others. Again, black and white. This is not a criminal trial.Exactly. Different rules apply. The security of the United States Government and democracy itself is at stake! |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Feb 12, 2021 17:06:47 GMT -8
You can't possibly be serious that you don't believe there's enough evidence to convict him of inciting the insurrection. Not "inciting" but "Incitement". One is a verb and the other is a crime. Trump may have incited the insurrection but there is not enough evidence to convict him of Incitement. The actions of Trump as presented in the evidence do not rise to the level of the Brandenburg test for criminal Incitement. It is true that this isn't a criminal trial but many are treating this farce as if it is and I do worry about the broader ramifications with regards to the culture war on the Freedom of Speech. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Feb 12, 2021 17:18:28 GMT -8
Incorrectly acquitted due to a biased, partial jury that cowers to Trump and wants to avoid their own charges in the case of Hawley, Cruz and others. Again, black and white. This is not a criminal trial.Exactly. Different rules apply. The security of the United States Government and democracy itself is at stake! Exactly, trump is the biggest threat to our democracy I've seen in my 66 years. He's an irredeemable sociopath like Jim Jones or Charles Manson. Think Mike Pence and his family have TDS now? What a fuggin joke..TDS! After he finally tells the whack jobs to cease and desist after 2 hours... he says "we love you"! What a POS, he doesn't love anybody but himself. He threw them under the bus, just like he did Pence. Most of us (the intelligent ones on this Board..and in the Nation) saw this shyster coming from a million miles away. Read the posts! Actually, the toadies cruz and Lindsey, plus Kellyann and Kayleigh etc. said the same things about him in 2016. However, they are the lowest forms of life..sell outs to the cult. These people are disgusting. I was not off base when I said if somebody pulled this same $#!+ 40 years ago, they would be in prison..or worse! |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 12, 2021 17:51:09 GMT -8
You can't possibly be serious that you don't believe there's enough evidence to convict him of inciting the insurrection. Not "inciting" but "Incitement". One is a verb and the other is a crime. Trump may have incited the insurrection but there is not enough evidence to convict him of Incitement. The actions of Trump as presented in the evidence do not rise to the level of the Brandenburg test for criminal Incitement. It is true that this isn't a criminal trial but many are treating this farce as if it is and I do worry about the broader ramifications with regards to the culture war on the Freedom of Speech. It's. Not. A. Criminal. Trial. |
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Feb 12, 2021 18:24:15 GMT -8
Word games, he did it! If you can't convict a presidente for this set of crimes and misdemeanors you might as well toss the regulations off the Constitution. As far as the Republicants go it's not a Constitution, it's a Constipation!!
I pray for a reunited states, but with those 44 or so assholes I doubt it happens. Objectivity and reason don't matter to them, it's all about "the party" and cover your ass!
I almost give up.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Feb 12, 2021 21:36:17 GMT -8
You can't possibly be serious that you don't believe there's enough evidence to convict him of inciting the insurrection. Not "inciting" but "Incitement". One is a verb and the other is a crime. Trump may have incited the insurrection but there is not enough evidence to convict him of Incitement. The actions of Trump as presented in the evidence do not rise to the level of the Brandenburg test for criminal Incitement. It is true that this isn't a criminal trial but many are treating this farce as if it is and I do worry about the broader ramifications with regards to the culture war on the Freedom of Speech. Freedom. Of. Speech. Should. NEVER. Include. ANY. Incitement. To. Insurrection. PERIOD. You clearly don't care that there was nearly an end to our democracy, but the rest of us do and do NOT want people like that to feel like they have NOTHING TO LOSE by trying again. Why you don't get that I don't understand - unless that's what you really want. Either you want that or you're a troll. Choose your comments carefully with mindfulness of the forum rules. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 12, 2021 21:46:02 GMT -8
Not "inciting" but "Incitement". One is a verb and the other is a crime. Trump may have incited the insurrection but there is not enough evidence to convict him of Incitement. The actions of Trump as presented in the evidence do not rise to the level of the Brandenburg test for criminal Incitement. It is true that this isn't a criminal trial but many are treating this farce as if it is and I do worry about the broader ramifications with regards to the culture war on the Freedom of Speech. Freedom. Of. Speech. Should. NEVER. Include. ANY. Incitement. To. Insurrection. PERIOD. You clearly don't care that there was nearly an end to our democracy, but the rest of us do and do NOT want people like that to feel like they have NOTHING TO LOSE by trying again. Why you don't get that I don't understand - unless that's what you really want. Either you want that or you're a troll. Choose your comments carefully with mindfulness of the forum rules. Pretty clear he doesn't care. |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Feb 13, 2021 10:15:06 GMT -8
Freedom. Of. Speech. Should. NEVER. Include. ANY. Incitement. To. Insurrection. PERIOD. That is *EXACTLY* what I've been trying to say. Constitutionally Protected Freedom of Speech is a class of speech. Incitement is a class of speech with a legal definition. They do not overlap. Freedom of Speech does not include Incitement. They are mutually exclusive classes of speech. The measure to determine if particular speech is in the class of Constitutionally Protected speech or in the class of Incitement is called the Brandenburg test. You summed up in 11 words why Trump is not guilty of the thing he has been charged with. If Trump's speech, as per all the evidence presented so far, does not rise to the level set in the Brandenburg test then it is not Incitement and therefor is Constitutionally Protected Freedom of Speech. A large number of Senators all know this because they themselves are lawyers, and seeing the gaping hole in the middle of their case, they have now decided to change the rules of the trial and are scrambling to bring in witnesses to fill the hole. Will the new witnesses fill in as of yet unheard details that meet the Brandenburg requirements? I don't know. What I do know is that even if you find the outcome reprehensible morally, I see the defect in their case. The Senators who want to convict Trump see the defect in their case or they wouldn't be asking for more evidence. While I won't speak for you, as both you and AztecRyan have pointed out this not being a criminal trial as to sidestep the meeting of legal requirements, I strongly suspect you see the defect in the case as well. Either you want that or you're a troll. Choose your comments carefully with mindfulness of the forum rules. Just so I'm clear on this threat, you are saying that either I agree with your opinion or I will be designated a troll and banned. If that is the case then just do it. I do not agree with your opinion here. I have a different opinion that isn't empty contrarianism but principled and backed in-post with applicable legal standards and historical precedent. If you want to follow the fashion of Jack Dorsey and prove that you don't have to tolerate opinions that don't align with yours, no one is debating that. You do have that power but at least be honest with what you are doing. I'm clearly not trolling. I just have a different opinion. |
|
