[Split Thread] A second impeachment - Page 7

acbytesla · 10th January 2021, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Latest report is that the House of Representatives will impeach Donald J Trump this week. but likely delay sending articles of Impeachment to the United States Senate.

This according to a letter Speaker Pelosi sent out in the last hour.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Then it's a farce. Another political dog and pony show.

I'm not so sure. Yes, it is a bit of political theater. But starting on January 20th it's time to get rolling on a lot of things. It's important to get a new cabinet approved and start moving on Biden's legislative agenda. The discussion is they can send the impeachment article to the Senate at any time like after Biden's first 100 days.

The Atheist · 10th January 2021, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

"When the President orders an angry mob to storm the Capitol and 5 people die CONSEQUENCES SHOULD OCCUR"

Can you show me where Trump ordered people to storm the Capitol, because I missed that bit. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/u...eech-riot.html

Thanks.

acbytesla · 10th January 2021, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Can you show me where Trump ordered people to storm the Capitol, because I missed that bit. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/u...eech-riot.html

Thanks.

Trump always leaves himself a verbal out. He's been using mobspeak for decades. He invited the mob to the White House on the 6th. He said it would be wild. He then told his audience to fight and to walk down to the Capitol. Rudy said we'll have a trial by combat.

So stop with the nonsense.

Delvo · 10th January 2021, 08:16 PM

"Can you show me where he told them to do that? By the way, here's a link to exactly where he told them to do that."

dirtywick · 10th January 2021, 08:18 PM

It’s like when they find all those dead birds. thousands of people coincidentally and independently made the same decision. No rational reason for it

The Atheist · 10th January 2021, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

So stop with the nonsense.

The NYT link seems to have all of the speech he gave to the crowd.

Point out where he calls for violence, rioting, or storming the Capitol.

Shouldn't be too hard to do - you and Joe seem very certain of your ground, but I hear the American justice system works like ours, where a conviction must come on the back of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Here's the link again in case you missed it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/u...eech-riot.html

The Atheist · 10th January 2021, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Delvo

"Can you show me where he told them to do that? By the way, here's a link to exactly where he told them to do that."

Same as the previous reply - where did he say that?

Lots of rolling eyes and snide comments don't convict people.

The Atheist · 10th January 2021, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by dirtywick

thousands of people coincidentally and independently made the same decision. No rational reason for it

Does this mean you think the BLM riots and looting were co-ordinated as well?

dirtywick · 10th January 2021, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Does this mean you think the BLM riots and looting were co-ordinated as well?

many people showed up to those protests with a predetermined intent on rioting.

if you’re asking me if joe Biden incited those riots, then the answer is no.

dirtywick · 10th January 2021, 08:37 PM

just to be clear, Trump railed for over an hour to a crowd of people about how the election was stolen and the people who are supposed to fix that just won’t do it, that the crowd needs to fight to keep the country, pointed out where they are, and told everyone to go there.

but he has no responsibility for what happens when the get there.

acbytesla · 10th January 2021, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The NYT link seems to have all of the speech he gave to the crowd.

Point out where he calls for violence, rioting, or storming the Capitol.

Shouldn't be too hard to do - you and Joe seem very certain of your ground, but I hear the American justice system works like ours, where a conviction must come on the back of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Here's the link again in case you missed it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/u...eech-riot.html

Again, Trump doesn't do that. He uses language that makes it clear what he wants, but is never so specific that he doesn't have plausible deniability. Michael Cohen testified before Congress that this is how Trump operates.

Delvo · 10th January 2021, 09:03 PM

He doesn't have plausible deniability. He just has sycophants who are willing to pretend whatever they need to pretend for him.

Thermal · 10th January 2021, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The NYT link seems to have all of the speech he gave to the crowd.

Point out where he calls for violence, rioting, or storming the Capitol.

Shouldn't be too hard to do - you and Joe seem very certain of your ground, but I hear the American justice system works like ours, where a conviction must come on the back of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Here's the link again in case you missed it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/u...eech-riot.html

Well the crime of incitement doesn't require orders or verbodum instructions. It is speech which will likely bring about imminent lawless action. Not a single direct command need be given.

acbytesla · 10th January 2021, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Delvo

He doesn't have plausible deniability. He just has sycophants who are willing to pretend whatever they need to pretend for him.

I don't think it is plausible at all. I'm just saying Trump is always suggesting and alluding to breaking the law all the while trying not to be explicit.

Delvo · 10th January 2021, 09:17 PM

The argument that he must be impeached to have a precedent about consequences doesn't really work. Consequences don't need to be in the form of a political vote by politicians. In fact, that's a very bad method to rely on, and thus bad to set a precedent of relying on, for dealing with the head of a cult whose followers are the voting based that some of those same politicians rely on. It's like telling a Sith that the Galactic Senate will decide his fate when he's already taken over the minds of most of the Senators. And in this case back on Earth, rioters are getting arrested & prosecuted, so the person who incited them can get arrested & prosecuted too.

Meadmaker · 10th January 2021, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The NYT link seems to have all of the speech he gave to the crowd.

Point out where he calls for violence, rioting, or storming the Capitol.

Shouldn't be too hard to do - you and Joe seem very certain of your ground, but I hear the American justice system works like ours, where a conviction must come on the back of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Here's the link again in case you missed it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/u...eech-riot.html

When it comes to criminal trials, I think The Atheist here is correct. I don't think he could be convicted, at least not based on the words of his speech. As he so often does, Trump uses weasel words, and someone else ends up holding the bag, and he denies responsibility. I was listening live to his speech, and I worried that the mob would storm the Capitol, but he didn't actually say that they ought to. It was painfully obvious to me, though, that some of the crowd would take it that way.

To get a criminal conviction, you would have to show that Donald Trump knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a criminal act would result from his incitement. That's a tough sell.

Impeachment is a different matter, though. There's no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

I also wonder if somehow failing to call off the crowd could be a criminal offense. Could not protecting the Capitol somehow be considered criminal negligence? I'm usually strongly against any attempt to take ordinary actions and twist them into a criminal charge, In this case, his actions weren't ordinary, and I doubt they were criminal, but if it could be shown that he knew criminal actions were occurring, and he believed he could stop them, and he deliberately chose not to stop them, I think that would be criminal, but again it's a tough sell. It might depend, though, on the testimony of others.

In general, I would not put money on a conviction in a criminal trial. I think the standards are too high. However, he did incite that crowd to storm the Capitol, and I don't really care if he knew he was doing it, or if he did it accidentally via incompetence. Throw the bum out. The man should not be President, and I say that with confidence that goes beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Atheist · 10th January 2021, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Again, Trump doesn't do that. He uses language that makes it clear what he wants, but is never so specific that he doesn't have plausible deniability.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Well the crime of incitement doesn't require orders or verbodum* instructions. It is speech which will likely bring about imminent lawless action. Not a single direct command need be given.

Originally Posted by Delvo

He doesn't have plausible deniability. He just has sycophants who are willing to pretend whatever they need to pretend for him.

Have you guys ever looked at the relevant law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

(*verbatim)

Colour me amused that after all this time, no sooner do Democrats take the reins than they decide to bring themselves down to the other side's level.

Brilliant.

The fact that none of you can point to a call for imminent action doesn't surprise me in the least. For goodness' sake don't let little things like a lack of evidence stop you from picking up the pitchforks.

The Atheist · 10th January 2021, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Impeachment is a different matter, though. There's no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

Impeachment's irrelevant, because it's purely partisan and the Republicans will vote it down in Senate.

acbytesla · 10th January 2021, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Have you guys ever looked at the relevant law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

(*verbatim)

Colour me amused that after all this time, no sooner do Democrats take the reins than they decide to bring themselves down to the other side's level.

Brilliant.

The fact that none of you can point to a call for imminent action doesn't surprise me in the least. For goodness' sake don't let little things like a lack of evidence stop you from picking up the pitchforks.

Huh? "March to the Capitol and fight". "Trial by Combat".

You're talking nonsense.

Do you have any understanding of what reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence is? And neither of these legal standards are required for impeachment. It ISN'T a criminal action.

Meadmaker · 10th January 2021, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Then it's a farce. Another political dog and pony show.

I'm so conflicted on what they ought to do, but I think I agree with this. Why bother impeaching him now, and trying him later?

I would love to see him thrown out of office on January 19, or sooner if possible, but I'm not sure I see the point of passing articles of impeachment now, and having a trial later. It sounds like an opportunity for speech giving and pompousness, which is not really what I think we are lacking in Washington today.

acbytesla · 10th January 2021, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Impeachment's irrelevant, because it's purely partisan and the Republicans will vote it down in Senate.

You don't know that.

Meadmaker · 10th January 2021, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Have you guys ever looked at the relevant law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

Quote:

speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.

I think the violations of the law that occurred were both imminent and likely. The "intent" part is more problematic.

At the trial, you could question witnesses, and if there was any indication from witnesses that Trump knew that the illegal acts were likely, it could be a winning case.

BobTheCoward · 10th January 2021, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Have you guys ever looked at the relevant law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

(*verbatim)

Colour me amused that after all this time, no sooner do Democrats take the reins than they decide to bring themselves down to the other side's level.

Brilliant.

The fact that none of you can point to a call for imminent action doesn't surprise me in the least. For goodness' sake don't let little things like a lack of evidence stop you from picking up the pitchforks.

I don't feel obligated to hold my judgement of someone to a legal precedent.

Meadmaker · 10th January 2021, 10:03 PM

I'm thinking about the reported plan to hold a vote on impeachment, but not report the articles to the Senate until after Trump's term is over.

What's the message of that?

We think he should be thrown out of office, but we aren't actually going to try to make it happen. Seems weak.

dejudge · 10th January 2021, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

It is not "just a likely". It is absolute certainty.

Behavioral scientists says lack of expected (or any for that matter) punishment is treated as reward.

Opinions like "let them get away with it or else!" are extremely foolish at best.

Trump is a living example of such foolishness.

acbytesla · 10th January 2021, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I'm thinking about the reported plan to hold a vote on impeachment, but not report the articles to the Senate until after Trump's term is over.

What's the message of that?

We think he should be thrown out of office, but we aren't actually going to try to make it happen. Seems weak.

I can see why you might think that. But if Pence doesn't invoke the 25th they won't have the trial until after Trump is out of office anyway. Now the Dems haven't said they are going to wait for the trial but the reasons for waiting make sense. But so does not waiting. As soon as the 2 new Senators are sworn in then the game changes.

dirtywick · 10th January 2021, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I'm thinking about the reported plan to hold a vote on impeachment, but not report the articles to the Senate until after Trump's term is over.

What's the message of that?

We think he should be thrown out of office, but we aren't actually going to try to make it happen. Seems weak.

it is weak. stronger than nothing.

angrysoba · 10th January 2021, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Do you not even understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats?
____________________________

Meanwhile, this:

bolding mine

I'm going to take a wild guess their insight is a little better than some unknown people on an internet forum.

Republican and Trump propagandists argue it would be a mistake to punish Trump because .... of course they say that.

Don’t be so bloody naive. Stop carrying water for him.

The Atheist · 11th January 2021, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Huh? "March to the Capitol and fight".

Can you show me where he says that, please, because I don't see it anywhere. You've put it in speech marks, so it must be a direct quote, so fire away.

Of course, you wouldn't make stuff up...

Originally Posted by acbytesla

And neither of these legal standards are required for impeachment. It ISN'T a criminal action.

Obviously.

However, I'm sure Republicans would like some actual evidence. That seemed to work when Nixon was dumped.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I think the violations of the law that occurred were both imminent and likely. The "intent" part is more problematic.

It's ambiguous at the very best. I really don't see the intent, and I'm not even impartial, as my threads on Trump show. I don't think he has the balls to call for that kind of action.

If the bar is set so low that dislike causes the dismissal of a President, then you've dug a huge hole for every other person who wants to sit in that office.

Not only do I think Republicans won't vote for it, I don't think they should. The evidence does not stack up.

dudalb · 11th January 2021, 02:01 AM

Just heard a GOP COngressperson say impeachment should not happen becuase it would "inflame" Trump Suppporters. It is to make one laugh.

dudalb · 11th January 2021, 02:02 AM

What happened as the Capitol is too damn serious for playing some kind of Contrarian Game.

The Great Zaganza · 11th January 2021, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Just heard a GOP COngressperson say impeachment should not happen becuase it would "inflame" Trump Suppporters. It is to make one laugh.

sounds like someone is scared of his own voters.
Not a great place to be.

Dave Rogers · 11th January 2021, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Just heard a GOP COngressperson say impeachment should not happen becuase it would "inflame" Trump Suppporters.

Yes, we don't want them getting angry and doing something crazy like storming the seat of government.

Oh, wait...

Dave

Dave Rogers · 11th January 2021, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

However, I'm sure Republicans would like some actual evidence. That seemed to work when Nixon was dumped.

Evidence in a court case doesn't have to reach impossible levels of proof; it has to reach the level of proof where a reasonable person has no doubt. No reasonable person can deny that Trump spent months both before and after the election claiming that it was fraudulent and intended to deny him a second term that was rightfully his. No reasonable person can deny that Trump was aware that millions of his followers were angry at their belief that this had happened. No reasonable person can deny that Trump instructed his followers to attend the rally on the 6th. No reasonable person can deny that, at that rally, he and others aggravated the feelings of the crowd present by talking of trial by combat, being strong and taking back their country. And no reasonable person can deny that Trump then instructed his followers to march to the Capitol. So the question would have to be: Could any reasonable person, in possession of the knowledge Trump had on the day, have carried out the actions Trump carried out and not expected violent civil disorder to be the inevitable result?

Whether or not Trump is a reasonable person, of course, is irrelevant to this discussion. We know he is not, but he still has an obligation in law to behave as though he were, and must face the consequences when he does not.

Dave

Firestone · 11th January 2021, 02:30 AM

The framing I see on this issue is somewhat like this:

There is no easy way out for the Democrats.
Impeachment, with no conviction in the Senate makes them look weak and inconsequential.
No impeachment makes them look weak, and will later be used by Republicans against them: "Stop whining about Trump's so-called attempted coup, you didn't even think it warranted impeachment."

As often in US politics, this framing, for some bizarre reason, ignores that Republicans too have agency.
Republicans could invoke the 25th amendment: they didn't.
Republicans in the Senate could help convict Trump if impeached: few (if any) have said they will.
Republicans could have a "Barry Goldwater"-moment and pay Trump a friendly visit, paired with an ultimatum: for now they haven't.

Republicans stoked the anger with their lies, many of them tried to steal the election, before the courts and in Congress, and even now they don't take any responsibility. On the contrary, they, almost in unison, blame the Democrats because "what the US needs now is unity."

If this post sounds partisan, well, yes, it is. There really is no "both sides" in this unprecedented crisis.

Blue Mountain · 11th January 2021, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Huh? "March to the Capitol and fight".

Can you show me where he says that, please, because I don't see it anywhere. You've put it in speech marks, so it must be a direct quote, so fire away.

I'm curious. Are you by chance on the autism spectrum? I'm not asking out of spite or trying to be rude, but your question seems to come from a person who often doesn't grasp subtleties in speech.

The canonical example is "Nice place you got here. Would be a shame if it burned down." If the person hearing it was, say, someone with Asperger's syndrome, he might reply, "Yeah, if it burned down we'd lose the building," completely failing to understand the intent behind the words.

Same here. It's not the words themselves that are the problem, it's the unspoken intent behind them. As others have noted, one of the few things Trump is actually good at is weasel speech. He somehow manages always to stop just short of "March to the Capitol, rush the building, take hostages and hang the Vice President!" He didn't say that, but he certainly incited the crowd to march on the Capitol. That after telling them we're not going to take it any more. we can't let this happen, and telling them to fight like hell.

It's the fight like hell part that's especially weaselly. In more common English it means to use a wide array of legal and procedural devices to prevent an outcome, mostly non-violent. But notice he didn't actually say that. He said fight like hell. And some people in the crowd did just that.

DevilsAdvocate · 11th January 2021, 02:52 AM

Trump should be removed from office, impeached, charged and convicted of his crimes against this nation, and thrown in jail.

The only question now is whether he should get the death penalty as a traitor to this country. I oppose the death penalty, but considering this President's desire to use it, I may make an exception for this case.

That is the only question. Whether he should be sentenced to life in prison or get the death penalty.

Impeachment is not even questionable. He should be impeached and convicted because he committed impeachable offenses. Period. No politics. No political strategy. He should be impeached for his offense.

He should be convicted for his crime of sedition. He should be sentenced to prison.

The only question is whether he should get the death penalty or a life sentnce.

catsmate · 11th January 2021, 03:02 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yes, we know. And apparently, we keep him around specifically so someone can say this in every discussion where he opens his mouth and literally no other reason.

Bob, the ISF's Golden Symbolic Totem of Our Ability to Ignore Things.

Exactly.

catsmate · 11th January 2021, 03:05 AM

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

I'm going to take a wild guess that cherrypicking an opinion from internet does not mean jack ****.

Especially one at variance with objective reality; an impeached Tantrump is one that cannot hold political office at the Federal level in the USA. Given that's his brand is poisonous and he's facing a wide array of criminal and civil charges, he is unimportant. His followers, the three Ds, are important to the Republican party (useful idiots) and to everyone else (dangerous, undemocratic, insurrectionist scum).

catsmate · 11th January 2021, 03:22 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Impeachment's irrelevant, because it's purely partisan and the Republicans will vote it down in Senate.

And thus further expose themselves as hypocritical apologists for murder.

10th January 2021, 06:35 PM	#241
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,942	Originally Posted by acbytesla Latest report is that the House of Representatives will impeach Donald J Trump this week. but likely delay sending articles of Impeachment to the United States Senate. This according to a letter Speaker Pelosi sent out in the last hour. Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Then it's a farce. Another political dog and pony show. I'm not so sure. Yes, it is a bit of political theater. But starting on January 20th it's time to get rolling on a lot of things. It's important to get a new cabinet approved and start moving on Biden's legislative agenda. The discussion is they can send the impeachment article to the Senate at any time like after Biden's first 100 days.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

10th January 2021, 07:57 PM	#242
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 27,892	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue "When the President orders an angry mob to storm the Capitol and 5 people die CONSEQUENCES SHOULD OCCUR" Can you show me where Trump ordered people to storm the Capitol, because I missed that bit. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/u...eech-riot.html Thanks.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

10th January 2021, 08:05 PM	#243
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,942	Originally Posted by The Atheist Can you show me where Trump ordered people to storm the Capitol, because I missed that bit. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/u...eech-riot.html Thanks. Trump always leaves himself a verbal out. He's been using mobspeak for decades. He invited the mob to the White House on the 6th. He said it would be wild. He then told his audience to fight and to walk down to the Capitol. Rudy said we'll have a trial by combat. So stop with the nonsense.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

10th January 2021, 08:18 PM	#245
dirtywick Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,870	It’s like when they find all those dead birds. thousands of people coincidentally and independently made the same decision. No rational reason for it
dirtywick Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,870

10th January 2021, 08:19 PM	#246
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 27,892	Originally Posted by acbytesla So stop with the nonsense. The NYT link seems to have all of the speech he gave to the crowd. Point out where he calls for violence, rioting, or storming the Capitol. Shouldn't be too hard to do - you and Joe seem very certain of your ground, but I hear the American justice system works like ours, where a conviction must come on the back of "beyond reasonable doubt". Here's the link again in case you missed it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/u...eech-riot.html
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

10th January 2021, 08:16 PM	#244
Delvo Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: North Tonawanda, NY Posts: 9,207	"Can you show me where he told them to do that? By the way, here's a link to exactly where he told them to do that."

10th January 2021, 08:20 PM	#247
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 27,892	Originally Posted by Delvo "Can you show me where he told them to do that? By the way, here's a link to exactly where he told them to do that." Same as the previous reply - where did he say that? Lots of rolling eyes and snide comments don't convict people.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

10th January 2021, 08:21 PM	#248
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 27,892	Originally Posted by dirtywick thousands of people coincidentally and independently made the same decision. No rational reason for it Does this mean you think the BLM riots and looting were co-ordinated as well?
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

10th January 2021, 08:32 PM	#249
dirtywick Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,870	Originally Posted by The Atheist Does this mean you think the BLM riots and looting were co-ordinated as well? many people showed up to those protests with a predetermined intent on rioting. if you’re asking me if joe Biden incited those riots, then the answer is no.
dirtywick Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,870

10th January 2021, 08:37 PM	#250
dirtywick Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,870	just to be clear, Trump railed for over an hour to a crowd of people about how the election was stolen and the people who are supposed to fix that just won’t do it, that the crowd needs to fight to keep the country, pointed out where they are, and told everyone to go there. but he has no responsibility for what happens when the get there.
dirtywick Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,870

10th January 2021, 08:38 PM	#251
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,942	Originally Posted by The Atheist The NYT link seems to have all of the speech he gave to the crowd. Point out where he calls for violence, rioting, or storming the Capitol. Shouldn't be too hard to do - you and Joe seem very certain of your ground, but I hear the American justice system works like ours, where a conviction must come on the back of "beyond reasonable doubt". Here's the link again in case you missed it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/u...eech-riot.html Again, Trump doesn't do that. He uses language that makes it clear what he wants, but is never so specific that he doesn't have plausible deniability. Michael Cohen testified before Congress that this is how Trump operates.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

10th January 2021, 09:03 PM	#252
Delvo Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: North Tonawanda, NY Posts: 9,207	He doesn't have plausible deniability. He just has sycophants who are willing to pretend whatever they need to pretend for him.

10th January 2021, 09:11 PM	#253
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 13,073	Originally Posted by The Atheist The NYT link seems to have all of the speech he gave to the crowd. Point out where he calls for violence, rioting, or storming the Capitol. Shouldn't be too hard to do - you and Joe seem very certain of your ground, but I hear the American justice system works like ours, where a conviction must come on the back of "beyond reasonable doubt". Here's the link again in case you missed it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/u...eech-riot.html Well the crime of incitement doesn't require orders or verbodum instructions. It is speech which will likely bring about imminent lawless action. Not a single direct command need be given.
	__________________ We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

10th January 2021, 09:12 PM	#254
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,942	Originally Posted by Delvo He doesn't have plausible deniability. He just has sycophants who are willing to pretend whatever they need to pretend for him. I don't think it is plausible at all. I'm just saying Trump is always suggesting and alluding to breaking the law all the while trying not to be explicit.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

10th January 2021, 09:17 PM	#255
Delvo Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: North Tonawanda, NY Posts: 9,207	The argument that he must be impeached to have a precedent about consequences doesn't really work. Consequences don't need to be in the form of a political vote by politicians. In fact, that's a very bad method to rely on, and thus bad to set a precedent of relying on, for dealing with the head of a cult whose followers are the voting based that some of those same politicians rely on. It's like telling a Sith that the Galactic Senate will decide his fate when he's already taken over the minds of most of the Senators. And in this case back on Earth, rioters are getting arrested & prosecuted, so the person who incited them can get arrested & prosecuted too.

10th January 2021, 09:27 PM	#256
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 24,779	Originally Posted by The Atheist The NYT link seems to have all of the speech he gave to the crowd. Point out where he calls for violence, rioting, or storming the Capitol. Shouldn't be too hard to do - you and Joe seem very certain of your ground, but I hear the American justice system works like ours, where a conviction must come on the back of "beyond reasonable doubt". Here's the link again in case you missed it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/u...eech-riot.html When it comes to criminal trials, I think The Atheist here is correct. I don't think he could be convicted, at least not based on the words of his speech. As he so often does, Trump uses weasel words, and someone else ends up holding the bag, and he denies responsibility. I was listening live to his speech, and I worried that the mob would storm the Capitol, but he didn't actually say that they ought to. It was painfully obvious to me, though, that some of the crowd would take it that way. To get a criminal conviction, you would have to show that Donald Trump knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a criminal act would result from his incitement. That's a tough sell. Impeachment is a different matter, though. There's no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. I also wonder if somehow failing to call off the crowd could be a criminal offense. Could not protecting the Capitol somehow be considered criminal negligence? I'm usually strongly against any attempt to take ordinary actions and twist them into a criminal charge, In this case, his actions weren't ordinary, and I doubt they were criminal, but if it could be shown that he knew criminal actions were occurring, and he believed he could stop them, and he deliberately chose not to stop them, I think that would be criminal, but again it's a tough sell. It might depend, though, on the testimony of others. In general, I would not put money on a conviction in a criminal trial. I think the standards are too high. However, he did incite that crowd to storm the Capitol, and I don't really care if he knew he was doing it, or if he did it accidentally via incompetence. Throw the bum out. The man should not be President, and I say that with confidence that goes beyond a reasonable doubt.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

10th January 2021, 09:29 PM	#257
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 27,892	Originally Posted by acbytesla Again, Trump doesn't do that. He uses language that makes it clear what he wants, but is never so specific that he doesn't have plausible deniability. Originally Posted by Thermal Well the crime of incitement doesn't require orders or verbodum* instructions. It is speech which will likely bring about imminent lawless action. Not a single direct command need be given. Originally Posted by Delvo He doesn't have plausible deniability. He just has sycophants who are willing to pretend whatever they need to pretend for him. Have you guys ever looked at the relevant law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action (*verbatim) Colour me amused that after all this time, no sooner do Democrats take the reins than they decide to bring themselves down to the other side's level. Brilliant. The fact that none of you can point to a call for imminent action doesn't surprise me in the least. For goodness' sake don't let little things like a lack of evidence stop you from picking up the pitchforks.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

10th January 2021, 09:31 PM	#258
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 27,892	Originally Posted by Meadmaker Impeachment is a different matter, though. There's no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Impeachment's irrelevant, because it's purely partisan and the Republicans will vote it down in Senate.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

10th January 2021, 09:32 PM	#259
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,942	Originally Posted by The Atheist Have you guys ever looked at the relevant law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action (*verbatim) Colour me amused that after all this time, no sooner do Democrats take the reins than they decide to bring themselves down to the other side's level. Brilliant. The fact that none of you can point to a call for imminent action doesn't surprise me in the least. For goodness' sake don't let little things like a lack of evidence stop you from picking up the pitchforks. Huh? "March to the Capitol and fight". "Trial by Combat". You're talking nonsense. Do you have any understanding of what reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence is? And neither of these legal standards are required for impeachment. It ISN'T a criminal action.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . Last edited by acbytesla; 10th January 2021 at 09:34 PM.

10th January 2021, 09:32 PM	#260
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 24,779	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Then it's a farce. Another political dog and pony show. I'm so conflicted on what they ought to do, but I think I agree with this. Why bother impeaching him now, and trying him later? I would love to see him thrown out of office on January 19, or sooner if possible, but I'm not sure I see the point of passing articles of impeachment now, and having a trial later. It sounds like an opportunity for speech giving and pompousness, which is not really what I think we are lacking in Washington today.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

10th January 2021, 09:35 PM	#261
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,942	Originally Posted by The Atheist Impeachment's irrelevant, because it's purely partisan and the Republicans will vote it down in Senate. You don't know that.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

10th January 2021, 09:40 PM	#262
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 24,779	Originally Posted by The Atheist Have you guys ever looked at the relevant law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action Quote: speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. I think the violations of the law that occurred were both imminent and likely. The "intent" part is more problematic. At the trial, you could question witnesses, and if there was any indication from witnesses that Trump knew that the illegal acts were likely, it could be a winning case.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

10th January 2021, 09:45 PM	#263
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,124	Originally Posted by The Atheist Have you guys ever looked at the relevant law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action (*verbatim) Colour me amused that after all this time, no sooner do Democrats take the reins than they decide to bring themselves down to the other side's level. Brilliant. The fact that none of you can point to a call for imminent action doesn't surprise me in the least. For goodness' sake don't let little things like a lack of evidence stop you from picking up the pitchforks. I don't feel obligated to hold my judgement of someone to a legal precedent.

10th January 2021, 10:03 PM	#264
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 24,779	I'm thinking about the reported plan to hold a vote on impeachment, but not report the articles to the Senate until after Trump's term is over. What's the message of that? We think he should be thrown out of office, but we aren't actually going to try to make it happen. Seems weak.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

10th January 2021, 10:09 PM	#265
dejudge Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 5,823	Originally Posted by Mader Levap It is not "just a likely". It is absolute certainty. Behavioral scientists says lack of expected (or any for that matter) punishment is treated as reward. Opinions like "let them get away with it or else!" are extremely foolish at best. Trump is a living example of such foolishness.
dejudge Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 5,823

10th January 2021, 10:14 PM	#266
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,942	Originally Posted by Meadmaker I'm thinking about the reported plan to hold a vote on impeachment, but not report the articles to the Senate until after Trump's term is over. What's the message of that? We think he should be thrown out of office, but we aren't actually going to try to make it happen. Seems weak. I can see why you might think that. But if Pence doesn't invoke the 25th they won't have the trial until after Trump is out of office anyway. Now the Dems haven't said they are going to wait for the trial but the reasons for waiting make sense. But so does not waiting. As soon as the 2 new Senators are sworn in then the game changes.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . Last edited by acbytesla; 10th January 2021 at 10:26 PM.

10th January 2021, 10:21 PM	#267
dirtywick Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,870	Originally Posted by Meadmaker I'm thinking about the reported plan to hold a vote on impeachment, but not report the articles to the Senate until after Trump's term is over. What's the message of that? We think he should be thrown out of office, but we aren't actually going to try to make it happen. Seems weak. it is weak. stronger than nothing.
dirtywick Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,870

10th January 2021, 10:28 PM	#268
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 28,988	Originally Posted by The Atheist Do you not even understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats? ____________________________ Meanwhile, this: bolding mine I'm going to take a wild guess their insight is a little better than some unknown people on an internet forum. Republican and Trump propagandists argue it would be a mistake to punish Trump because .... of course they say that. Don’t be so bloody naive. Stop carrying water for him.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

11th January 2021, 01:38 AM	#269
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 27,892	Originally Posted by acbytesla Huh? "March to the Capitol and fight". Can you show me where he says that, please, because I don't see it anywhere. You've put it in speech marks, so it must be a direct quote, so fire away. Of course, you wouldn't make stuff up... Originally Posted by acbytesla And neither of these legal standards are required for impeachment. It ISN'T a criminal action. Obviously. However, I'm sure Republicans would like some actual evidence. That seemed to work when Nixon was dumped. Originally Posted by Meadmaker I think the violations of the law that occurred were both imminent and likely. The "intent" part is more problematic. It's ambiguous at the very best. I really don't see the intent, and I'm not even impartial, as my threads on Trump show. I don't think he has the balls to call for that kind of action. If the bar is set so low that dislike causes the dismissal of a President, then you've dug a huge hole for every other person who wants to sit in that office. Not only do I think Republicans won't vote for it, I don't think they should. The evidence does not stack up.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

11th January 2021, 02:01 AM	#270
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 49,933	Just heard a GOP COngressperson say impeachment should not happen becuase it would "inflame" Trump Suppporters. It is to make one laugh.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

11th January 2021, 02:02 AM	#271
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 49,933	What happened as the Capitol is too damn serious for playing some kind of Contrarian Game.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

11th January 2021, 02:06 AM	#272
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,376	Originally Posted by dudalb Just heard a GOP COngressperson say impeachment should not happen becuase it would "inflame" Trump Suppporters. It is to make one laugh. sounds like someone is scared of his own voters. Not a great place to be.
	__________________ Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.

11th January 2021, 02:14 AM	#273
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,229	Originally Posted by dudalb Just heard a GOP COngressperson say impeachment should not happen becuase it would "inflame" Trump Suppporters. Yes, we don't want them getting angry and doing something crazy like storming the seat of government. Oh, wait... Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

11th January 2021, 02:22 AM	#274
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,229	Originally Posted by The Atheist However, I'm sure Republicans would like some actual evidence. That seemed to work when Nixon was dumped. Evidence in a court case doesn't have to reach impossible levels of proof; it has to reach the level of proof where a reasonable person has no doubt. No reasonable person can deny that Trump spent months both before and after the election claiming that it was fraudulent and intended to deny him a second term that was rightfully his. No reasonable person can deny that Trump was aware that millions of his followers were angry at their belief that this had happened. No reasonable person can deny that Trump instructed his followers to attend the rally on the 6th. No reasonable person can deny that, at that rally, he and others aggravated the feelings of the crowd present by talking of trial by combat, being strong and taking back their country. And no reasonable person can deny that Trump then instructed his followers to march to the Capitol. So the question would have to be: Could any reasonable person, in possession of the knowledge Trump had on the day, have carried out the actions Trump carried out and not expected violent civil disorder to be the inevitable result? Whether or not Trump is a reasonable person, of course, is irrelevant to this discussion. We know he is not, but he still has an obligation in law to behave as though he were, and must face the consequences when he does not. Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

11th January 2021, 02:30 AM	#275
Firestone Proud Award Award recipient Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,942	The framing I see on this issue is somewhat like this: There is no easy way out for the Democrats. Impeachment, with no conviction in the Senate makes them look weak and inconsequential. No impeachment makes them look weak, and will later be used by Republicans against them: "Stop whining about Trump's so-called attempted coup, you didn't even think it warranted impeachment." As often in US politics, this framing, for some bizarre reason, ignores that Republicans too have agency. Republicans could invoke the 25th amendment: they didn't. Republicans in the Senate could help convict Trump if impeached: few (if any) have said they will. Republicans could have a "Barry Goldwater"-moment and pay Trump a friendly visit, paired with an ultimatum: for now they haven't. Republicans stoked the anger with their lies, many of them tried to steal the election, before the courts and in Congress, and even now they don't take any responsibility. On the contrary, they, almost in unison, blame the Democrats because "what the US needs now is unity." If this post sounds partisan, well, yes, it is. There really is no "both sides" in this unprecedented crisis.
	__________________ The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan Last edited by Firestone; 11th January 2021 at 02:37 AM.