Split Thread: A second impeachment

[Matthew Best]

Sorry, was that meant to be an answer to the question "what lies?"?

[metacristi]

Look mate I had enough to be in defensive only to hear again and again the kind of intolerance toward different views you and others spite here. Actually you have nothing discrediting in any way what i said, if you have the occasion look at what pr. Alan Dershowitz told BC News (it's just now on TV actually), there is a very strong case against impeaching Trump via the lines attempted by the Democrats, even without mentioning that Trump actually told his followers to act peacefully (for it's there in his speech before the assault). Double standards never do justice, protecting free speech is more important than any 'progressive' like 'justice'.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by metacristi

Look mate I had enough to be in defensive only to hear again and again the kind of intolerance toward different views you and others spite here. Actually you do not have anything against what i said, if you have the occasion look at what pr. Alan Dershowitz told BC News (it's just now on TV actually), there is a very strong case against impeaching Trump via the lines attempted by the Democrats, even without mentioning that Trump actually told his followers to act peacefully (for it's there in his speech before the assault). Double standards never do justice, protecting free speech is more important than any 'progressive' like 'justice'.

Sorry but that guy lost all credibility with me years ago.

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by metacristi

...even without mentioning that Trump actually told his followers to act peacefully (for it's there in his speech before the assault)...

Also in the speech before the riot he used the word “fight” 20 times. And prior to that he asked followers to join the “Trump Army” to fight the “liberal mob” and to wear a camo MAGA cap to identify themselves as members of that “Army” - for $35 of course, always the scammer.

I’m pretty sure the Impeachment Trial will attempt to present the totality of the pattern of incitement leading up to 1/6 for months - not just cherry pick a single admonition to “act peacefully”.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

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


...snip....

Or his appointed people did.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by metacristi

What is the 'incitement to insurrection'?.

Telling people that the election was stolen, and that the lawful President-Elect was a usurper.

What is the appropriate response to that claim? Insurrection seems to me to be the appropriate response. It seemed that way to the mob, as well.

[metacristi]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Also in the speech before the riot he used the word “fight” 20 times. And prior to that he asked followers to join the “Trump Army” to fight the “liberal mob” and to wear a camo MAGA cap to identify themselves as members of that “Army” - for $35 of course, always the scammer.

I’m pretty sure the Impeachment Trial will attempt to present the totality of the pattern of incitement leading up to 1/6 for months - not just cherry pick a single admonition to “act peacefully”.

It has no chance to succeed, that's still no evidence that he incited to actual violence, even less an imminent one. There is zero clear evidence for that I'm afraid. Besides the Brandenburg case was way worse in this respect and yet was considered as protected by the First Amendment. Mental gymnastics is of course possible but this cannot mask the double standards and that those who pursue this path are actually prepared for anything, including changing the Constitution if possible in the future.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by metacristi

It has no chance to succeed, that's still no evidence that he incited to actual violence, even less an imminent one. There is zero clear evidence for that I'm afraid. Besides the Brandenburg case was way worse in this respect and yet was considered as protected by the First Amendment. Mental gymnastics is of course possible but this cannot mask the double standards and that those who pursue this path are actually prepared for anything, including changing the Constitution if possible in the future.

In the absence of any effect of Trump's speech on the actions that immediately followed by the crowd that had just listened to him, what do you suggest was the catalyst for those actions?

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by metacristi

It has no chance to succeed, that's still no evidence that he incited to actual violence, even less an imminent one. There is zero clear evidence for that I'm afraid.

I agree in so far as getting a criminal conviction, needing proof beyond a reasonable doubt, might be problematic if D.C. decides to prosecute.

But impeachment is political in nature, and not bound by the same standards. Whether or not it has “a chance to succeed”, it will at least succeed in presenting what evidence there is, and preserving it for history. Each Senator will have to make an individual decision to convict or acquit based on that evidence, whether you think it’s “clear”, or not.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

I agree in so far as getting a criminal conviction, needing proof beyond a reasonable doubt, might be problematic if D.C. decides to prosecute.

But impeachment is political in nature, and not bound by the same standards. Whether or not it has “a chance to succeed”, it will at least succeed in presenting what evidence there is, and preserving it for history. Each Senator will have to make an individual decision to convict or acquit based on that evidence, whether you think it’s “clear”, or not.

And this particular impeachment isn't limited to what he said in that one speech, as metacristi seems to believe; he keeps on and on about the 1st Amendment as if that's the only defense Trump needs. As bruto said above, the impeachment is in regard to a pattern of actions, a totality of Trump's conduct of his office, which, taken as a whole, amounts to an impeachable offense. I linked above to an NPR article that has the text of the article of impeachment, which makes this pretty clear.

But I suspect metacristi didn't read that, or, if he did, simply disregards it, since it doesn't fit with this weird narrative he seems to have settled on, that progressives are trying to stifle free speech. That may or may not be so (I think not, if only because metacristri seems to also have decided on a pretty simplistic interpretation of what "free speech" actually entails), but, in any event, it's a totally separate argument which doesn't have anything to do with Trump's impeachment.

[metacristi]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Sorry but that guy lost all credibility with me years ago.

From my past experience with you the same is with most of those who dare to criticize Islam rationally for example. Yet what really counts is primarily the argument presented not the controversies in which the author was involved in the past, I recommend you his book Cancel Culture: The Latest Attack on Free Speech and Due to understand that the new version of progressivism based on minority identity politics born after 1990 and rampant today is actually creating much more harm than even McCarthyism, not ultimately because free speech is much more severely eroded. By contrast the old type of universalist progressivism, with roots in Enlightenment, was eons more rational than the current version. For me there is no question of what a rational person should choose.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by metacristi

From my past experience with you the same is with most of those who dare to criticize Islam rationally for example. Yet what really counts is primarily the argument presented not the controversies in which the author was involved in the past, I recommend you his book Cancel Culture: The Latest Attack on Free Speech and Due to understand that the new version of progressivism based on minority identity politics born after 1990 and rampant today is actually creating much more harm than even McCarthyism, not ultimately because free speech is much more severely eroded. By contrast the old type of universalist progressivism, with roots in Enlightenment, was eons more rational than the current version. For me there is no question of what a rational person should choose.

You are inclined, I think, to use an awful lot of words to say very little. What would a rational person choose? Please be specific.

[bruto]

Once again as so often is the case, the defense of T**** seems to be that he could not have been guilty of anything because he's too stupid to have realized that, after having dilated constantly on how smart, influential, important he is, there might be any reason to speak out against an egregious attack on American democracy. They acted based on his preposterous lies, but he did not give explicit orders. No no, he did not explicitly, word for word, say to do what was done. He just was too pitifully, abjectly, opportunistically dumb, to say not to do it.

I'm reminded of the old Tom Lehrer song about Wernher von Braun: "once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down; that's not my department...."

I don't know about others, but I think our interests are not very well served by continuing to excuse our leaders' offenses on the basis of their stupidity.

[DetectedMotion]

Originally Posted by metacristi

It has no chance to succeed, that's still no evidence that he incited to actual violence, even less an imminent one. There is zero clear evidence for that I'm afraid. Besides the Brandenburg case was way worse in this respect and yet was considered as protected by the First Amendment. Mental gymnastics is of course possible but this cannot mask the double standards and that those who pursue this path are actually prepared for anything, including changing the Constitution if possible in the future.

So your actual argument doesn't take in all the inflammatory rhetoric Trump, his family members, and worshiping supporters have said 6 weeks prior to the Capitol fiasco? All of this lead to creating a tinderbox that kept filling up with animosity and anger until the only thing left was a match to light it.
Trump was that match.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by metacristi

It has no chance to succeed, that's still no evidence that he incited to actual violence, even less an imminent one. There is zero clear evidence for that I'm afraid. Besides the Brandenburg case was way worse in this respect and yet was considered as protected by the First Amendment. Mental gymnastics is of course possible but this cannot mask the double standards and that those who pursue this path are actually prepared for anything, including changing the Constitution if possible in the future.

The standard is using words that will bring about imminent lawless action, not direct orders to commit violent acts. Without question, he did so, and imminently to boot.

The only credible argument I can see against this is that the President was too slobberingly stupid to understand that his words would cause the mob to go through with...exactly what they predictably did. That would raise the 25th, because if he was that stone dumb, he is unfit to hold the office. Schrodinger's Idiot, I suppose, or maybe a Catch-45.

[Mr Fied]

All the focus from the Trump apologists seems to be on whether his speech incited the insurrection.
I would assume that the impeachment will look at everything he has done since the election.
The constant lies regarding vote rigging, trying to get elected officials to overturn votes, urging followers to attend counting centres to pressure poll workers.
The incitement of insurrection is not based on one speech but the constant drip feeding of lies and calls for illegal actions since the election.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Mr Fied

All the focus from the Trump apologists seems to be on whether his speech incited the insurrection.
I would assume that the impeachment will look at everything he has done since the election.
The constant lies regarding vote rigging, trying to get elected officials to overturn votes, urging followers to attend counting centres to pressure poll workers.
The incitement of insurrection is not based on one speech but the constant drip feeding of lies and calls for illegal actions since the election.

Misdirection is SOP for Trumpeters.

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by Thermal

The standard is using words that will bring about imminent lawless action, not direct orders to commit violent acts. Without question, he did so, and imminently to boot.

It’s like when he said, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent Vice President?", he was only asking a question!

[Captain_Swoop]

“I thought I was following my president. I thought I was following what we were called to do. He asked us to fly there. So I was doing was he asked us to do.”
That’s Texas realtor Jenna Ryan who was arrested today by FBI after being at the D.C. riot

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

It’s like when he said, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent Vice President?", he was only asking a question!

And fighting Congress for the election results that were actually in the process of being formally certified can hardly be interpreted as going home to start a petition drive. There was pretty much only one interpretation of 'fight' at that time. It meant to stop the Democratic process, physically. Period.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

<snip>
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.

Rudy will say anything if you pay him US$20,000.

Any time, any place, anywhere. Even the Fours Seasons Total Landscaping, without even blinking. He is just like martini.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by metacristi

From my past experience with you the same is with most of those who dare to criticize Islam rationally for example. Yet what really counts is primarily the argument presented not the controversies in which the author was involved in the past, I recommend you his book Cancel Culture: The Latest Attack on Free Speech and Due to understand that the new version of progressivism based on minority identity politics born after 1990 and rampant today is actually creating much more harm than even McCarthyism, not ultimately because free speech is much more severely eroded. By contrast the old type of universalist progressivism, with roots in Enlightenment, was eons more rational than the current version. For me there is no question of what a rational person should choose.

The right to free speech isn't "eroded" just because it's held to some standard more rigorous than mere opinion when it comes to consequences from it. The speech is still free, it's the lies that incur cost.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Steve

You are inclined, I think, to use an awful lot of words to say very little. What would a rational person choose? Please be specific.

Quite agree. I used the term "verbal diarrhea" earlier. I'd like to include the adjective "pompous" in that, too.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Quite agree. I used the term "verbal diarrhea" earlier. I'd like to include the adjective "pompous" in that, too.

I had a case of pompous diarrhea once. Took a few days to get rid of it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

DO YOU HAVE A GODDAMN POINT YOU PLAN ON GETTING TO?

A totally unrelated, unhinged, poorly formatted, stream of consciousness rant of Alt-Right 101 cliches about "progressives" isn't the response a sane person has to the President launching a coup.

And I bet that is the same argument we're going to be or are hearing from the legislators who insist on supporting Trump and the Big Lie.

They are going to fill so empty when their leader leaves town without them.

4 more days!

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Paul2

I had a case of pompous diarrhea once. Took a few days to get rid of it.

That will teach you have dinner at Tucker Carlson's house.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

That will teach you have dinner at Tucker Carlson's house.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Rudy will say anything if you pay him US$20,000.

Any time, any place, anywhere. Even the Fours Seasons Total Landscaping, without even blinking. He is just like martini.

Sweating quite a bit, however ...

Hans

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Rudy will say anything if you pay him US$20,000.

Or even if you only promise to.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by metacristi

From my past experience with you the same is with most of those who dare to criticize Islam rationally for example. Yet what really counts is primarily the argument presented not the controversies in which the author was involved in the past, I recommend you his book Cancel Culture: The Latest Attack on Free Speech and Due to understand that the new version of progressivism based on minority identity politics born after 1990 and rampant today is actually creating much more harm than even McCarthyism, not ultimately because free speech is much more severely eroded. By contrast the old type of universalist progressivism, with roots in Enlightenment, was eons more rational than the current version. For me there is no question of what a rational person should choose.

That sounds really nice. Can you give any examples in relation to Trump rhetoric?

Hans

[dirtywick]

now it’s turning into rants about cancel culture lol

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

now it’s turning into rants about cancel culture lol

Not sure the President is what you'd call cultured, but he was for damned sure cancelled.

[Chris_Halkides]

First-amendment expert Ken White discusses the first amendment implications of the President's speech, starting roughly around the 20 minute mark.
EDT
TL/DL Ken White thinks a legal case on incitement is uphill but not impossible, especially considering the president's behavior. My opinion is that when Mr. White speaks on the first amendments, the rest of us should listen intently and take careful notes.

[bruto]

Metcristi compares so-called "cancel culture" unfavorably to McCarthyism. I don't know how old he is, but I wonder if he actually remembers it.

Some people are nowadays excluded from privately funded and held fora for their actions and their political views, to be true, but once people were imprisoned, blacklisted and fired not only for that but for the rumor of it, not only for politics but for their personal lives.

I'll concede that I was only a kid back when my parents were outspoken liberals in a conservative locale, and the explicitly political physical attacks on the school bus were not too serious, the vandalism not fatal, the death threats not all that serious, the anonymous phone calls mostly laughable, and so forth, but I would respectfully suggest that people who do remember those times reflect a little on what side they were actually on, and those who do not indulge in a little discreet self-cancellation.

[dirtywick]

conservatives railing against “cancel culture” is the perfect example of the kind of rank hypocrisy that they’ve turned into an art form. if I don’t like what someone says, I’m free to tell them that and also free to no longer purchase their products, and to encourage others to do the same.

It’s grass roots, free speech, and capitalism all in one. of course, only a problem when it targets someone conservatives like. or when the conservative elite tell you who is ok to cancel and who isn’t. It’s a power dynamic they don’t like, nothing more.

hey, meticristi, is Colin Kaepernick in that douchewitz book? you don’t have to answer that, I’m sure we all already know the answer

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by turingtest

The right to free speech isn't "eroded" just because it's held to some standard more rigorous than mere opinion when it comes to consequences from it. The speech is still free, it's the lies that incur cost.

To add to that, the US has a very long history of large groups of people actively holding various forms of speech to a much higher level than others. It's only relatively recently that "Republicans" pretty much declared war on truth and facts, pretty obviously because they correctly saw political advantage to be had by shamelessly spreading lies, half-truths, and entirely one-sided spin. Falsely claiming the First Amendment is a tactic in defense of that (much like the claiming the second) because it pretty much just shuts down any reasonable discussion and misleads the public by playing on biases.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by metacristi

<snippage of various and sundry gibberings?

How quaint, a Holocaust denier trying to use the Koch mouthpiece to cover over Trump's pathetic attempt at insurrection.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Darat

Which eroding of free speech?

Trump's frequent attempts at using legal threats to silence his critics?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The fact that you are comparing the statements at all is functionally insane.

Well, to be fair, there are few rational ways to defend Trump's sedition so whatever is left....

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by metacristi

From my past experience with you the same is with most of those who dare to criticize Islam rationally for example. Yet what really counts is primarily the argument presented not the controversies in which the author was involved in the past, I recommend you his book Cancel Culture: The Latest Attack on Free Speech and Due to understand that the new version of progressivism based on minority identity politics born after 1990 and rampant today is actually creating much more harm than even McCarthyism, not ultimately because free speech is much more severely eroded. By contrast the old type of universalist progressivism, with roots in Enlightenment, was eons more rational than the current version. For me there is no question of what a rational person should choose.

Well done for “daring” to criticize Islam. Let me pin the “Medal for Exceptional Daring in Online Keyboard Warrior skills” upon your avatar. I myself am also exceptionally daring which is why I also criticize Islam. I think most atheists do so there are a lot of medals to go round.

Now, Dershowitz, free speech.... I am not a lawyer but if Dershy is saying that Twitter is suppressing first amendment rights then frankly he shouldn’t be a lawyer either or rather you shouldn’t pay for his services.