Impeachment Round Two (1 Viewer)

[Yggdrasill]

I am in the camp that Trump must -not should- be impeached. If not this President, for this behavior, then what bar would have to be cleared to merit impeachment?

Impeachment not only sends a signal to the country and the world that fomenting a coup is unacceptable and will be punished, but it also removes much of the threat Trump could pose going forward as, I understand it, he would lose his pension, his access to daily security briefings, free medical care and other amenities and benefits afforded to former Presidents. If impeached, he would not meet the definition of a Former President under the Former Presidents Act. I don't think it is clear whether he would continue to receive Secret Service protection.

 

[JRad]

Numerous people who were there said they were there doing what the President told them to. Full stop.

They didn’t just say that after they were arrested as a defense, they were saying that real time. There’s no doubt he incited it. The people doing it told us so.

This. This right here. January 6th absolutely does not happen without Trump.

 

[wardorican]

He said "peacefully" once. He said "fight" 20 times.

After hours of pleas from members of Congress and allies in Trump world, he made this tweet that clearly encapsulates the nature of his rhetoric and how he viewed those who (at that point) had violently breached Capitol security, killed a police officer, saw one of their own shot by police, and came within seconds of engaging key members of Congress and even the Vice President, whom they were chanting about executing. "A scared landslide election victory so ceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated . . . " He had been using that kind of language for weeks.



"Foment" is the correct word and he fomented the attack on the Capitol - arguing that he didn't intend it (or at least hoped to cause them to do something) is so unpersuasive that it is disingenuous. He told them over and over that something dear was being stolen from them and they only way to stop it was to "demand" or to "fight" against it (fight against what is the basic constitutional process for transfer of power to a newly-elected president).

This is not typical political rhetoric - this is the rhetoric of a demagogue who saw this horde as a chance to either (1) intimidate enough members of Congress into supporting his effective coup or (2) exacting some kind of retribution for their refusal. You can see that in this tweet, "This is what happens" . . . "this is what you get!" Repugnant.

Yes, this is where Senator Cruz's op-ed loses me. He focuses on just the speech, and how that kind of fiery political rhetoric is often used. It's not just about the speech. It's the speech, the reaction, and the continued fanning the flames, and/or doing nothing to calm it or suppress it.

It's the hours after. It's also the lead up to an extent. It's convenient to just look at his speech on an island without the rest of the context, but that's not how life works.

 

[Xeno]

Yes, this is where Senator Cruz's op-ed loses me. He focuses on just the speech, and how that kind of fiery political rhetoric is often used. It's not just about the speech. It's the speech, the reaction, and the continued fanning the flames, and/or doing nothing to calm it or suppress it.

It's the hours after. It's also the lead up to an extent. It's convenient to just look at his speech on an island without the rest of the context, but that's not how life works.

It's really November 7th through January 6th. The election being called for Biden through Congress certifying the results. Trump and his administration spent those two months priming his followers, whipping them into a rage with constant claims that the election had been stolen, not only refusing to concede but saying that he would in fact be inaugurated on January 20th. It wasn't till well after certification that he admitted, although not very strongly, that there would be a new administration. And even then, that statement seemed like it was made just to cover him from any potential liability.

edit: You can actually go back further. October 6th and before, Trump claimed that the only way he could lose would be if the election was stolen. He spent no less than three months priming his followers to do this.

 

[wardorican]

It's really November 7th through January 6th. The election being called for Biden through Congress certifying the results. Trump and his administration spent those two months priming his followers, whipping them into a rage with constant claims that the election had been stolen, not only refusing to concede but saying that he would in fact be inaugurated on January 20th. It wasn't till well after certification that he admitted, although not very strongly, that there would be a new administration. And even then, that statement seemed like it was made just to cover him from any potential liability.

edit: You can actually go back further. October 6th and before, Trump claimed that the only way he could lose would be if the election was stolen. He spent no less than three months priming his followers to do this.

Yes, that's why I said, "the lead up". I just kept it somewhat vague on the exact timeline.

Sometimes, I really do try to be brief or concise.

 

[Xeno]

Yes, that's why I said, "the lead up". I just kept it somewhat vague on the exact timeline.

Sometimes, I really do try to be brief or concise.

Yeah but that leaves too much room for the other side to wiggle through. Not that it really matters, everything's made up and the facts don't matter.

 

[Roofgardener]

Just because it mostly has been, doesn't mean it has to be.

Call me an idealist.

I'll drink to that ! Hope springs eternal.....

 

[Roofgardener]

He said "peacefully" once. He said "fight" 20 times.

After hours of pleas from members of Congress and allies in Trump world, he made this tweet that clearly encapsulates the nature of his rhetoric and how he viewed those who (at that point) had violently breached Capitol security, killed a police officer, saw one of their own shot by police, and came within seconds of engaging key members of Congress and even the Vice President, whom they were chanting about executing. "A scared landslide election victory so ceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly and unfairly treated . . . " He had been using that kind of language for weeks.



"Foment" is the correct word and he fomented the attack on the Capitol - arguing that he didn't intend it (or at least hoped to cause them to do something) is so unpersuasive that it is disingenuous. He told them over and over that something dear was being stolen from them and they only way to stop it was to "demand" or to "fight" against it (fight against what is the basic constitutional process for transfer of power to a newly-elected president).

This is not typical political rhetoric - this is the rhetoric of a demagogue who saw this horde as a chance to either (1) intimidate enough members of Congress into supporting his effective coup or (2) exacting some kind of retribution for their refusal. You can see that in this tweet, "This is what happens" . . . "this is what you get!" Repugnant.

Look at the CONTEXT of the times he used the word 'Fight'. It's obvious to me that he used the term in the sense of a struggle; a POLITICAL struggle, not a physical one. And he didn't just use the word 'peaceful'.. he explicitly stated that they should assemble peacefully outside the capital to protest.

 

[insidejob]

Why wasn't Trump whisked away for his own security to the White House bunker? Oh, that's right, because they weren't going to attack the person who gave them their marching orders.

 

[wardorican]

Yeah but that leaves too much room for the other side to wiggle through. Not that it really matters, everything's made up and the facts don't matter.

Luckily I'm not an impeachment officer.

 

[Lapaz]

The only chance of changing some Republican votes is to call witnesses. Democrats need the witnesses that witnessed Trump's behavior during the riots. Then I would subpoena Trump, and bring him in forcefully if he doesn't comply. Democrats need to force Trump to follow the law.

 

[wardorican]

McConnell not pressuring GOP to acquit Trump

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) isn’t pressuring fellow Republicans to acquit former President Trump as the impeachment trial appears poised to wrap as soon as this weekend.GOP senat…

thehill.com

Looks like McConnell is eating his cake and wanting it too. Just my interpretation, since he's not actively circling the wagons like he'd normally do.

He's probably happy to let this drag along and potentially damage Trump. But he's also happy to let this play out and let conservative media beat the drums and see where public reaction turns. Then he'll make his move.

 

[Saintamaniac]

It's obvious to me that he used the term in the sense of a struggle; a POLITICAL struggle, not a physical one.

It's very obvious that you will bend yourself into a mental gymnastic pretzel to try to find a way to not admit what the evidence presented thus far has clearly shown to be true; if not for Trump's own words to his supporters, they would not have tried to "stop the steal". It's obvious that like some of the republican senators twiddling their thumbs and doodling, you've chosen to ignore the evidence that has been presented thus far. It's obvious that short of trump walking into the chamber, putting his hand on a bible and admitting he was responsible for inciting the insurrection, you will not admit that the evidence has shown just that. I don't know what you have to gain, being that you are not a US citizen, but it has become plainly obvious that you are willing the go to extraordinary means to disregard any evidence showing what everyone knows to be true; but for Trump incessantly lying about the election and egging on his supporters to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power, none of this would have happened.

 

[DaveXA]

McConnell not pressuring GOP to acquit Trump

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) isn’t pressuring fellow Republicans to acquit former President Trump as the impeachment trial appears poised to wrap as soon as this weekend.GOP senat…

thehill.com

Looks like McConnell is eating his cake and wanting it too. Just my interpretation, since he's not actively circling the wagons like he'd normally do.

He's probably happy to let this drag along and potentially damage Trump. But he's also happy to let this play out and let conservative media beat the drums and see where public reaction turns. Then he'll make his move.

Well, from a purely strategic perspective, what he's doing makes a lot of sense. From a moral and principles standpoint, it's pretty crummy. He just needs to come out and say that based on what he's seen, Trump should be found guilty and convicted.

 

[Roofgardener]

It's very obvious that you will bend yourself into a mental gymnastic pretzel to try to find a way to not admit what the evidence presented thus far has clearly shown to be true; if not for Trump's own words to his supporters, they would not have tried to "stop the steal". It's obvious that like some of the republican senators twiddling their thumbs and doodling, you've chosen to ignore the evidence that has been presented thus far. It's obvious that short of trump walking into the chamber, putting his hand on a bible and admitting he was responsible for inciting the insurrection, you will not admit that the evidence has shown just that. I don't know what you have to gain, being that you are not a US citizen, but it has become plainly obvious that you are willing the go to extraordinary means to disregard any evidence showing what everyone knows to be true; but for Trump incessantly lying about the election and egging on his supporters to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power, none of this would have happened.

Ah, well you've got me there. I havn't seen the 'evidence' presented in the Senate trial. I'm in the middle of moving house, but when the dust settles I'll look into it.

As for the rest of your comments; I am sorry to see that you have degenerated into snidey insults. I am not disregarding ANYTHING.. I'm actually looking at the evidence objectively. Show me where Trump encouraged any of his supporters to attack the Capitol building. You can't.. because he didn't. I'm sorry that the evidence contradicts your preferences, but that's life.

 

[JRad]

edit: You can actually go back further. October 6th and before, Trump claimed that the only way he could lose would be if the election was stolen. He spent no less than three months priming his followers to do this.

I'd argue even longer - he's been crying about election fraud since 2016

 

[RobF]

It's very obvious that you will bend yourself into a mental gymnastic pretzel to try to find a way to not admit what the evidence presented thus far has clearly shown to be true; if not for Trump's own words to his supporters, they would not have tried to "stop the steal". It's obvious that like some of the republican senators twiddling their thumbs and doodling, you've chosen to ignore the evidence that has been presented thus far. It's obvious that short of trump walking into the chamber, putting his hand on a bible and admitting he was responsible for inciting the insurrection, you will not admit that the evidence has shown just that. I don't know what you have to gain, being that you are not a US citizen, but it has become plainly obvious that you are willing the go to extraordinary means to disregard any evidence showing what everyone knows to be true; but for Trump incessantly lying about the election and egging on his supporters to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power, none of this would have happened.

I think my favourite thing about the argument against Trump inciting his supporters into an angry, violent, mob, is that it presumes his supporters' interpretation of "fighting for Trump", in the face of "their election" being "stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats" who "want to indoctrinate your children", a "disgrace" that meant their "country will be destroyed", something that meant they needed to "save democracy", not with "weakness", but through "showing strength", and by "fighting like Hell" or facing "not having a country any more", could only have been for them to...

...womble over to the Capitol, chant and wave flags a bit in an obviously completely futile way while inside the election results for Biden were certified and a "group of people illegally take over the country", and then quietly go home to await the destruction of their country and indoctrination of their children.

Have to think that anyone who claims to have been genuinely completely surprised by the violence must also be genuinely surprised when the sun comes up each morning.

 

[Nebaghead]

Ah, well you've got me there. I havn't seen the 'evidence' presented in the Senate trial. I'm in the middle of moving house, but when the dust settles I'll look into it.

As for the rest of your comments; I am sorry to see that you have degenerated into snidey insults. I am not disregarding ANYTHING.. I'm actually looking at the evidence objectively. Show me where Trump encouraged any of his supporters to attack the Capitol building. You can't.. because he didn't. I'm sorry that the evidence contradicts your preferences, but that's life.

For months he told his suppprters they were robbed and the election was stolen. He was fomenting anger and risking a violent outcry by not conceding. It was widely reported that he is risking a violent outcry by his followers by feeding them this crap. It’s like getting your dog all wound up wrestling around and wondering why did he just bite my child when they tried to pet them.
His words have consequences. He was being told by his advisors this could happen. Not necessarily at the capitol but there would be a huge possibility of violence if he didn’t tone it down. Even after the breach into the capitol he didn’t tone it down. If you look at the evidence they show the time line of the breach versus his tweets and videos. Hours went by before he did anything. He literally posted Pence is a traitor as they were breaching the barricades and in the capitol. How is that not stoking a riot? If he would have immediately called in the national guard and posted please leave the capitol grounds then there is a chance of him going it wasn’t intentional. He wanted this. He suffers from NPD he had a raging hard on about what was happening. I’d love for them to bring those witnesses that said he was excited with what he saw on tv. Let him prove otherwise.

 

[Lapaz]

Ah, well you've got me there. I havn't seen the 'evidence' presented in the Senate trial. I'm in the middle of moving house, but when the dust settles I'll look into it.

As for the rest of your comments; I am sorry to see that you have degenerated into snidey insults. I am not disregarding ANYTHING.. I'm actually looking at the evidence objectively. Show me where Trump encouraged any of his supporters to attack the Capitol building. You can't.. because he didn't. I'm sorry that the evidence contradicts your preferences, but that's life.

You're not applying common sense if you're looking for a direct command. Did Trump say go attack the Capital? No. Did he incite the crowd such that it was inevitable? Yes. His exhortations to fight and go to the Capital obviously would lead to a wide variety of reactions. Some would remain peaceful, but he knew that some would not. Anyone knows that stoking anger in a crowd, especially a crowd that is known to contain many violent factions, is going to lead to violence. By not acknowledging that, one has to believe that Trump is not only stupid, but has no common sense, and no one around him does either.

How do you think mafia bosses call for executions? They don't give direct commands. They exhort their people to do what needs to be done. Trump isn't very smart, but he's learned how to command indirectly. He's not that stupid and is savvy about how to manipulate people and crowds. Trump is absolutely responsible...if not for Trump, none of that violence would've occurred.