Split Thread: A second impeachment

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

"It's not my fault I told the violent mob to burn down the orphanage, they would have done it anyway"

Yeah airtight defense that.

But he didn't say to burn the orphanage .. so ..

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Quote:

"It's not my fault I told the violent mob to burn down the orphanage, they would have done it anyway"

Yeah airtight defense that.

But he didn't say to burn the orphanage .. so ..

You are right, he didn't say "Burn the orphanage"... instead he said "Those Orphans are evil, so you must fight against them."

If you tell people orphans are evil, you shouldn't be too shocked if people burn orphanages, even if you don't give them specific instructions too.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

You are right, he didn't say "Burn the orphanage"... instead he said "Those Orphans are evil, so you must fight against them."

If you tell people orphans are evil, you shouldn't be too shocked if people burn orphanages, even if you don't give them specific instructions too.

“You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”... Schumer to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

Should Schumer be held accountable for his comments?

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by No Other

“You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”... Schumer to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

Should Schumer be held accountable for his comments?

Yes, to the extent that it can be shown that his followers understood his comments to be a call to violence and then acted upon it.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Yes, to the extend that it can be shown that his followers understood his comments to be a call to violence and then acted upon it.

Inciting does not mean an act has to occur. These Judges are elected for a lifetime, they underwent personal scrutiny by Congress, the comments were made while SCOTUS was conducting business... what could Schumer mean by his comments?

[JoeMorgue]

One of my favorite comedy skits of all time is from the old days of College Humor where a beleaguered substitute teacher tries in vain to explain the simple school dress code to the students because they want to rules lawyer and make outrageous false equivalencies.

Student 1: "Can I wear my strapless dress?"
Mr. Stephens: "Yes, that is fine."
Student 2: "Then why can't I wear my dressless straps?" (Student stands up to reveal they are literally wearing an outfit that consists of only dress straps but no actual dress)

*Later*

Student 3: "Can I wear my Belly shirt?"
Mr. Stephens: "I don't see why not."
Student 4: "Can I wear my belly skirt?" (Said skirt is literally a strip of frilly fabric around her midwaist, leaving everything above and below it nude.)


That's what Republicans and all their troll army of apologist sound like right now.

[metacristi]

Originally Posted by turingtest

Then your understanding here is no better than it has been elsewhere in this thread. In order to be barred from office by that simple majority vote in the Senate, he must first be convicted by a 2/3 Senate majority of the charges brought by the impeachment. You getting this? What you "cannot agree more" should be done cannot be until after what you think should not be is. (Ok, but I like that sentence!)

And isn't it just a little inconsistent on your part to agree that he should be barred from office for an offense that you think he shouldn't be convicted for? The barring from office would be for the same thing- you're effectively saying he should do the time without any necessity of conviction for the crime.

Sorry for CNN then. Or no? No of course . As for Trump's being punished via being barred from holding office in the future that's especially for his overall attitude regarding democracy, especially after the fact that his legal attempts to change the result of the election were rejected by the courts. The Congress can definitely do that after Biden takes office, be it entirely as a political decision, there is no need to resort to all sort of lies, half truths, 'incitation to insurrection' and tortuous reinterpretations of what the First Amendment protect (restraining free speech).

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by metacristi

Sorry for CNN then. Or no? No of course . As for Trump's being punished via being barred from holding office in the future that's especially for his overall attitude regarding democracy, especially after the fact that his legal attempts to change the result of the election were rejected by the courts. The Congress can definitely do that after Biden takes office, be it entirely as a political decision, there is no need to resort to all sort of lies, half truths, 'incitation to insurrection' and tortuous reinterpretations of what the First Amendment protect (restraining free speech).

interestingly enough, his lies and half truths incited an insurrection. i like your word choice, but not the order you're using them

[Stacyhs]

Quote:

“You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”... Schumer to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

Originally Posted by No Other

Inciting does not mean an act has to occur. These Judges are elected for a lifetime, they underwent personal scrutiny by Congress, the comments were made while SCOTUS was conducting business... what could Schumer mean by his comments?

Had Schumer previously made statements in any way either directly or indirectly suggesting or supporting harm to the Supreme Court Justices? Or afterward show support for it unlike Trump did for the rioters? No. In fact, immediately after the cherry picked quote above he also said:

Quote:

"The bottom line is very simple: we will stand with the American people. We will stand with American women. We will tell President Trump and Senate Republicans who have stacked the court with right-wing ideologues, that you're gonna be gone in November and you will never be able to do what you're trying to do now, ever, ever again. You hear that over there on the far-right? You're gone in November."

He was clearly referencing the coming elections when he made the statement at an abortion rights rally. Additionally, rather than defend his remark like Trump, he said the next day:

Quote:

"I should not have used the words I used. They didn't come out the way I intended. My point was that there would be political consequences for President Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed justices stripped away at a woman's right to choose.
I shouldn't have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat, I never, never would do such a thing."

Your attempt to compare the two falls flat on its face. Hard.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by No Other

“You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”... Schumer to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

Should Schumer be held accountable for his comments?

It means Schumer is a moron. What's your point?

Should he be held accountable? You mean at election time? That's up to the people of New York, but I'm not a big fan. Sadly, though, by the time voters get to the polls, an awful lot of decisions have been made over which they have no control. They can't choose the perfect candidate, only the ones on the ballot.

It was easily among the worst things he has ever said so......start a thread about it or something.

What he did not do is lie for months about an election and finally tell a crowd to fight against the results of a democratic election.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It means Schumer is a moron. What's your point?

"The political ideology I have to keep defending because I'm not intellectually mature enough to admit I was wrong has become so morally and intellectually defunct that I have to stretch pointless equivocations to absurd lengths."

That's the point of all the Alt-Right apologists.

[dirtywick]

well let me know when trump apologizes for his comments, then we can compare them

[bruto]

Originally Posted by No Other

“You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”... Schumer to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

Should Schumer be held accountable for his comments?

Warning that stupid actions may lead to violence (or perhaps that they amount to violence themselves in their consequences), or that those stupid actions might induce other repercussions unspecified, is not the same as a call for violence. Even if you consider Schumer's statement intemperate, it is not a call for violence, and, addressed as it is to the Supreme Court justices, it is far fetched, I think, to consider it an incitement to some unspecified other party. That is quite different from T****s incitement, which was explicitly addressed to persons whose stated and known intent was to do harm to democratic government in accordance with his own stated and known intent to do the same.

One might also note in passing that one criterion for evaluating incitement might be whether something actually ensues, and the difference here seems pretty great.

edit to add: if one really thinks Schumer's warning amounts to incitement, then so, obviously is the recent warning of conservatives that impeachment and prosecution will make the mob, definitively shown to be dangerously anti-democratic, murderous and violent, dangerously angry. If "Don't do X or you'll be sorry" is an unallowable incitement, we're left with little that isn't.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by No Other

“You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”... Schumer to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

Should Schumer be held accountable for his comments?

Did he make the comments to an audience comprised mainly of people who were prone to violence?

Did he make the comments after lying about what exactly those "awful decisions" were?

Did anyone attack Drunky McRapeface, and afterwards schumer told the attacker "love you"?

[metacristi]

Originally Posted by Darat

Er.. that is still not widening the 1st amendment which was your claim.

I said that some try to 'loose the interpretation of the First Amendment' via claiming that not only the clear incitement to violence is punishable by law but much more, usually along 'progressive' lines. One of the first tenets of good argumentation is to answer the strongest interpretation of one's argument, what you did is I'm afraid mere word games.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by metacristi

Sorry for CNN then. Or no? No of course . As for Trump's being punished via being barred from holding office in the future that's especially for his overall attitude regarding democracy, especially after the fact that his legal attempts to change the result of the election were rejected by the courts. The Congress can definitely do that after Biden takes office, be it entirely as a political decision, there is no need to resort to all sort of lies, half truths, 'incitation to insurrection' and tortuous reinterpretations of what the First Amendment protect (restraining free speech).

Sorry, what? Look, if you want to say they can't impeach him at all after he leaves office, that's fine, do that. But the point here is that, if they don't, they cannot "punish" him for some unspecified "attitude" problem by barring him from office, it can only be for what they've first convicted him of after impeachment. Do you understand this part of that article?

Quote:

Except that voting to remove Trump from office isn't all Senate Republicans could do. See, if 67 senators vote to convict and remove Trump, then another vote could be held on whether to ban Trump from seeking any future public office. And that vote would only require a simple majority (50+1) of senators to pass.

So, no...the Congress can not "definitely" bar Trump from holding office in the future unless they've convicted him first on the specific charge in the impeachment- it's a pretty simple "if-then" construction in your article, and I don't get why you're having such a hard time with this.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

"The political ideology I have to keep defending because I'm not intellectually mature enough to admit I was wrong has become so morally and intellectually defunct that I have to stretch pointless equivocations to absurd lengths."

That's the point of all the Alt-Right apologists.

Indeed.


Here's one of the many things I don't get. The defenders of the President will try to parse that speech to show that of course he didn't want them to storm the Capitol. I can't read his mind. I don't know what he was thinking, but I don't need to know the exact thought in his head during any given sentence.

I know that he told falsehoods about the election results for two months. That either means:
1) He is lying and is trying to steal the election or
2) He is insane.

Either way, it's a good reason to throw the bum out.

I know that during the speech and for weeks in advance, he said that Mike Pence could do something about the results. That means either
1) He is lying. or
2) He is insane.

And I don't mean "insane" in the colloquial sense of believing things that are not true. That would work for you, or me, or the people on this board, because we don't have access to the kind of information and advice that Trump has.

He is listening to lots of lawyers, scholars, advisers, and government officials, and I will guarantee you that not one of those people ever told him that Mike Pence had the authority to refuse those electoral votes. Not even Rudy would say that. Ok, maybe Sydney Powell might say that, because she's nuts. If that group of people told him, "Mr. President. The Vice President has no authority to do this," and he still went out and told a rally that he expected Mike Pence to do it, what explanation is there for that action?

Stupidity is not an adequate explanation. It's one thing to not understand the Constitution. Lots of people don't understand it. To tell a bunch of people who have lots and lots of knowledge about this that they are all wrong is a completely different thing. If he believes that Pence could do it, and all of those advisors are wrong, then he's mentally ill. If he doesn't believe it, and he knows Pence couldn't do it, then he's criminal.

There really are no other options.

Even if Charles Schumer said something stupid.

[Meadmaker]

One more thing that really does have to be considered about the President's actions on January 6. The President-Elect got on the airwaves to tell the crowd to stop before the President did. That's totally unforgivable.

[metacristi]

Originally Posted by turingtest

Sorry, what? Look, if you want to say they can't impeach him at all after he leaves office, that's fine, do that. But the point here is that, if they don't, they cannot "punish" him for some unspecified "attitude" problem by barring him from office, it can only be for what they've first convicted him of after impeachment. Do you understand this part of that article?

So, no...the Congress can not "definitely" bar Trump from holding office in the future unless they've convicted him first on the specific charge in the impeachment- it's a pretty simple "if-then" construction in your article, and I don't get why you're having such a hard time with this.

Even if it may be how you put it here (not be that sure though) I only said that 'from what I understand Trump can be barred from holding future office with a simple majority'* and the wider idea was that Trump should rather be isolated politically instead of marching ahead with the lie that we have clear evidence that he instigated 'insurrection' (Trump's eviction will very probably be speculated way further by the 'progressive justice') . What you say is entirely marginal to my argument and definitely does not make the reasons behind this impeachment more plausible ('insurrection' , when in fact this falls apart from the beginning, if one reads carefully what Trump said before the assault). Sorry but I see much more merits in this.


* I saw one of CNN's analysts saying that a few days ago, without any other comments however

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by No Other

“You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”... Schumer to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

Should Schumer be held accountable for his comments?

A HUUUGE difference...

Schumer said something improper and dumb. Something all humans do from time to time.

He very quickly apologized for his choice of words and tried to explain what he should have said instead. Something Trump is incapable of doing, due to either a deep psychological impairment, or slavish devotion to tenets established by Roy Cohn and later carried forward by Roger Stone. Regardless, the result is the same: NEVER admit fault - the blame always lies elsewhere.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by metacristi

Even if it may be how you put it here (not be that sure though) I only said that 'from what I understand Trump can be barred from holding future office with a simple majority'* and the wider idea was that Trump should rather be isolated politically instead of marching ahead with the lie that we have clear evidence that he instigated 'insurrection'. What you say is entirely marginal to my argument and definitely does not make the reasons behind this impeachment more plausible ('insurrection' , when in fact this falls apart from the beginning, if one reads carefully what Trump said before the assault). Sorry but I see much more merits in this.


* I saw one of CNN's analysts saying that a few days ago, without any other comments however

In other words, slap his hand with a censure rather than even attempt to make sure that this madman can never hold office again because we can't be sure that there are enough Republican senators who aren't partisan enough or who have enough cajones to do what's clearly right. That's what you're saying, amirite?

[metacristi]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

In other words, slap his hand with a censure rather than even attempt to make sure that this madman can never hold office again because we can't be sure that there are enough Republican senators who aren't partisan enough or who have enough cajones to do what's clearly right. That's what you're saying, amirite?

What do the Democrats offer instead? Lies and the prospect of widespread 'progressive' abuse of the interpretation of the First Amendment? Let's be serious, Trump is already rather history. If I were an American I wouldn't vote for a party which internalized so thoroughly the 'progressive' concept of justice and the idea that basically everything is allowed to reach it. The problem is of course that no real justice is based on lies and half truths.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by metacristi

What do the Democrats offer instead? Lies and the prospect of widespread 'progressive' abuse of the interpretation of the First Amendment? If I were an American I wouldn't vote for a party which internalized so thoroughly the 'progressive' concept of justice and the idea that basically everything is allowed to reach it. The problem is of course that no real justice is based on lies and half truths.

What lies?
What abuse?
Not what Fox News says that Democrats will do, but what actual Democrats say they will do.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by metacristi

Even if it may be how you put it here (not be that sure though) I only said that 'from what I understand Trump can be barred from holding future office with a simple majority'* and the wider idea was that Trump should rather be isolated politically instead of marching ahead with the lie that we have clear evidence that he instigated 'insurrection' (Trump's eviction will very probably be speculated way further by the 'progressive justice') . What you say is entirely marginal to my argument and definitely does not make the reasons behind this impeachment more plausible ('insurrection' , when in fact this falls apart from the beginning, if one reads carefully what Trump said before the assault). Sorry but I see much more merits in this.


* I saw one of CNN's analysts saying that a few days ago, without any other comments however

By "reads carefully," of course, you mean "cherry-picks the part where he used the word 'peacefully' and ignores the parts where he used the word 'fight' in speaking to a mob of people he'd been inciting with lies for two months beforehand." Because here's the thing- the article of impeachment isn't only based on that one speech. Here's a relevant excerpt from the text (you can read the whole thing at NPR):

Quote:

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, provide, 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, D.C. 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."
...
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.

Context- that's the word you need to learn here. You're criticizing Congress for impeaching on a narrow basis that is not the basis they've actually impeached him on.

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by metacristi

You are specifically trying to claim that what Trump said is not covered by the First Amendment as free speech.

Incitement to violence is not protected speech. Seditious conspiracy is not protected speech.

This isn't some new, unprecedented idea. It's pretty commonplace stuff. The only issue is whether Trump is, in fact, guilty of the incitement and sedition of which he is accused. If he is, the First Amendment does not shield him. This is well-established, long-standing, mainstream practice. Stop trying to pretend it's some recent invention of "progressives".

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by turingtest

By "reads carefully," of course, you mean "cherry-picks the part where he used the word 'peacefully' and ignore the parts where he used the word 'fight' in speaking to a mob of people he'd been inciting with lies for two months beforehand." Because here's the thing- the article of impeachment isn't only based on that one speech. Here's a relevant excerpt from the text (you can read the whole thing at NPR):



Context- that's the word you need to learn here. You're criticizing Congress for impeaching on a narrow basis that is not the basis they've actually impeached him on.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2394e460c3.png

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by No Other

“You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”... Schumer to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

Should Schumer be held accountable for his comments?

Was he directing these comments to a mob of brain damaged hyper-violent Confederate Nazis in the form of marching orders? Did his comments result in said mob trying to murder his enemies?

[Fast Eddie B]

The latest Legal Eagle video on YouTube goes pretty deeply on the concept of protected speech, whether what Trump said matters, and whether it matters during an impeachment trial.

[Waffle Slayer]

But what exactly did he say that truly said hey go storm the capital? I seen his tweet and I did not take what he wrote as that, maybe I am logical or he’ll I might be crazy. **** makes you wonder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by metacristi

What do the Democrats offer instead?

Not Confederate Nazis? Not retarded? Not illiterate?

Sounds better to me.

[DetectedMotion]

Originally Posted by metacristi

What do the Democrats offer instead? Lies and the prospect of widespread 'progressive' abuse of the interpretation of the First Amendment? Let's be serious, Trump is already rather history. If I were an American I wouldn't vote for a party which internalized so thoroughly the 'progressive' concept of justice and the idea that basically everything is allowed to reach it. The problem is of course that no real justice is based on lies and half truths.

Whatever you're attempting to explain here, it seems political speech is given more leeway, but the fact of the matter is best explained by this guy:

https://youtu.be/XwqAInN9HWI

ETA: Ninja'd by Fast Eddie B

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Waffle Slayer

But what exactly did he say that truly said hey go storm the capital?

Where did the guy yelling fire in a packed movie theater while operating a smoke machine ever say "hey... everybody start trampling each other" ?

[JoeMorgue]

Tell you what trolls.

Next time a cop pulls you over, don't argue about or fight the ticket but engage the cop in a broad philosophical debate about police and their place in society. See what happens.

[bruto]

I was under the impression that impeachment, unlike the first amendment, involves the conduct of a particular job namely that of the Presidency, and adherence to the oath of that office. Metacristi seems to be conflating the two. I suspect that actions which might be considered crimes against the presidential office, the people of the country, and the oath of upholding the Constitution could include utterances, actions and inactions that are not by themselves prosecutable under the first amendment.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by metacristi

Sorry for CNN then. Or no? No of course . As for Trump's being punished via being barred from holding office in the future that's especially for his overall attitude regarding democracy, especially after the fact that his legal attempts to change the result of the election were rejected by the courts. The Congress can definitely do that after Biden takes office, be it entirely as a political decision, there is no need to resort to all sort of lies, half truths, 'incitation to insurrection' and tortuous reinterpretations of what the First Amendment protect (restraining free speech).

You so funny.

Sorry, there is nothing torturous about it. Free Speech is not nor has it ever been an unlimited right. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater or that you have a bomb at an airport. But, you're right, it is a political act. Do you know what also is a political act? War.

The question is did Trump incite an insurrection? I'd argue he was actively committing insurrection. The question is, was the result foreseeable? In my view, it is dishonest to suggest it wasn't.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection.
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Impeachment is not a criminal procedure and doesn't require the commission of a criminal statute. That isn't what "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by bruto

I was under the impression that impeachment, unlike the first amendment, involves the conduct of a particular job namely that of the Presidency, and adherence to the oath of that office. Metacristi seems to be conflating the two. I suspect that actions which might be considered crimes against the presidential office, the people of the country, and the oath of upholding the Constitution could include utterances, actions and inactions that are not by themselves prosecutable under the first amendment.

The entire screeching act about the first amendment is just a red herring that has nothing to do with Trump being impeached.

Again when someone is wrong and they know they are wrong they will argue the philosophy of the question as a way to avoid the question.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

I like how fascist degenerates whine about free speech (or rather their strawman of it), though it would be one of first things to go if they had any say.

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

BTW, regarding "you can't impeach him because he has free speech"

How many Trump employees have been fired because they said something in opposition to Dear Leader?

The head of Cyber Security was fired because he had the audacity to say that the election was secure.

Where were all these wonderful free speech warriors then?

So take your free speech crap and shove it. We can see it's a lie.

"Conservatives are so much better than libruls because WE value free speech. With that in mind, I have some criticism to share about recent decisions made by Trum-" *right-wing radio host is fired in the middle of the broadcast for criticizing Trump*

Yeah, that's totally valuing free speech, right there. That event wasn't even remotely an isolated incident, either, by the look of it. That's showing that "conservatives" are engaging in much more egregious forms of "cancel culture," then making a big fuss over "cancel culture" as a distraction and diversion. For that matter, when multiple sources have reported and confirmed that a number of Republican representatives voted no to impeach because of believeable death threats made towards them and their families if they voted yes. That's not even remotely acceptable at any level, even if one opines that it's a sure sign that those who were intimidated should not be in politics.

Originally Posted by metacristi

What do the Democrats offer instead? Lies and the prospect of widespread 'progressive' abuse of the interpretation of the First Amendment? Let's be serious,

Yes, let's be serious. Right-wing extremists have been utterly and completely mangling the 1st Amendment (and 2nd) and have rather effectively convinced a much broader swath of the public that their utter mangling of it is how it actually is. You seem very likely to have fallen for their lies.

[DevilsAdvocate]

A very serious question is whether Trump took action to hinder law enforcement at the Capitol.

He was involved in some degree in planning for the rally because he encouraged people to come and was even a speaker. News reports before the rally say that the permit for the rally was for a "March for Trump" rally at the Ellipse. That permit specifically said that although it was titled as a "March" that there would be no march to the Capitol or anywhere else.

Trump spoke at the rally and called on the mob to march to the Capitol. That raises the question of whether Trump may have helped organize the event to occur at the Ellipse, about a mile away from the Capitol, so that law enforcement would concentrate on the Ellipse and not the Capitol.

There were almost no Federal forces at the Capitol: Park Service, FBI, ATF, etc.

Requests for DC National Guard took about 90 minutes to get even approved by the Pentagon. Virginia rapid response teams were held at the border waiting for Pentagon approval to go in to DC.

Trump made many changes to positions of Pentagon officials over the last few months. That raises the question of whether he did that to have people in place to ensure that the Capitol would not be properly protected.

That is especially disconcerting because the previous Secretary of Defense was terminated by Trump when it was determined that he was a loser. He even raised concerns that there may be an attempted coup and that the Acting Secretary my be complicit with attempt.


Now I feel like a crazy conspiracy theorist. But these are issues that need to be investigated.

[metacristi]

Originally Posted by fishbob

What lies?
What abuse?
Not what Fox News says that Democrats will do, but what actual Democrats say they will do.

What is the 'incitement to insurrection'? Not even a 0.1 truth given the fact that Trump also told his supporters to make their voices heard peacefully. The Democrats lost the chance of a show trial of Trump based on more realistic accusations (like how Trump is rather against democracy) which at least to try to turn as many of his supporters away from him. Finally Trump is in large part the creation of the cultural wars of the last 30 years (fuelled mainly by the 'progressives') and the 'progressive' actions of the Democrats cannot help here. Even if Trump disappears the problem is still here in full, ready for different Trumps to use it.

In other order of ideas If Trump is convicted via the 'progressive' tactics used now by the Democrats a dangerous precedent will be created, one which will very likely invite all sort of 'progressive' interferences with free speech, anyone can be a victim in the future. A much better solution is to try to isolate Trump politically and erode his support among his electoral base if the most rational one (put an end to 'progressive' abuse via 'cancel culture' and so on) is out of agenda.