Should Trump be Impeached <again>

[Stormdash]

Here’s an argument for why Brandenburg doesn’t apply:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...rst-amendment/

TLDR: In Brandenburg, defendant used weasel words and said “if/then”. Basically calling for a non-specific action in an indefinite period of time.

Trump commanded a direct order of action, which was then immediately acted upon.

Eh, it doesn't matter. There's no more point trying to convince you lot than there was trying to convince Q-natics that there was no such as a "pence card". You know what you know, and when events don't play out the way you assume you'll just coat in some conspiratorial reason why you were cheated out of that thing that you are completely sure you were right about.

[shimerra]

Talking to a message board of window-lickers who know as much law as they learn watching "The Good Wife" or some shit, that's pretty rich.

Note, this histrionic barrage I"ll be taking over the next hour or so is in response to a post in which I said Trump did something despicable for which he is no longer fit to be President, because... crazy people

I don't particularly care that you played lip service to him being despicable after 4 years of kissing his ass. Christ the shit's not even dry around your mouth from the last time. Ya'll clutched your pearls in public while cheering any little conservative win you could get under his watch. Before even took office he did/said things that literally to any sane/reasonable person would disqualify him from running for president. Had he done half of what he did at my job he would've been fired within a week of his hiring, assuming the interviewing was drugged up and stupid enough to hire him in the first place. And he pretty much always had you either out right defending or attempting to mitigate wrong doing. Your hollow attempts to finally acknowledge his shitty behavior mean little given your past defenses and in the very same post active defense.


Like when you said it would be taunting him into running when he's already openly said he wants to run again in 2024 as if that's a reason to not impeach. And I'll say this: White House council felt he better make a quick video trying to apologize/calm things down because of legal worries about being charged with incitement and other crimes.


At this point I'll say to you what I've said to many others: Trump could sexually assault a family member in front of you and if he could get you another Supreme court Justice or something similar you'd probably call the family member a liar of Trump told you to.

I'm currently with an attorney as my SO and have my own fair share of legal experience. And I've also seen you be thrashed in other threads over your legal knowledge, and by that I mean lack of. Unless you're an attorny yourself, and if you are you're clearly on the level of Giuliani or Lin "Trump is the second coming of the Messiah" Wood after being hit in the head with a hammer, you're definitely sub window-licker tier.

I'm not overly concerned with whether or not he's likely to be convicted of incitement. But he very clearly incited a mob to storm the capital to overturn the election results to anyone who doesn't eat lead paint chips every meal of the day. The single thing you've gotten right in this thread is that he most likely wont see any consequences for it. Doesn't mean he shouldn't.

Eh, it doesn't matter. There's no more point trying to convince you lot than there was trying to convince Q-natics that there was no such as a "pence card". You know what you know, and when events don't play out the way you assume you'll just coat in some conspiratorial reason why you were cheated out of that thing that you are completely sure you were right about.

I'm not surprised that you don't realize you share far more in common with the Q-natics than not.

edit- And here you are again, getting trounced by the so called Window Lickers. What shall we call you Captain Orangish Brown nose?

[Bdatik]

You know what you know, and when events don't play out the way you assume you'll just coat in some conspiratorial reason why you were cheated out of that thing that you are completely sure you were right about.

You meant like how the election was supposedly stolen and thousands of people committed sedition and attacked the very country they pretend to be patriots of?

[Draco-Onis]

I seriously doubt the scope of his influence if he’s banned from social media, ignored by the GOP institution, mainstream right-wing squawk boxes like Fox won’t have him, and on top of all of it he’s up to his eyeballs in legal battles.

Fox hasn't gone anti Trump he is the one giving them the cold shoulder, he is a huge ratings draw there's zero chance they will deny him especially since they are afraid of other right wing competition. That's not even going into the fact that he can go on other right wing media, also the GOP institution doesn't matter there's 140 house republicans and 6 senators that are ride or die Trump supporters.

I am not sure you have heard but there's Liz Cheney may now lose her position within the party for voting to impeach Trump, this is Trump's party whether Moscow Mitch likes it or not. Donald Trump is not that easily get rid of his stink is permanently stuck on the GOP, the generic candidate will no longer excite the base.

[Shadowferal]

Eh, it doesn't matter. There's no more point trying to convince you lot than there was trying to convince Q-natics that there was no such as a "pence card". You know what you know, and when events don't play out the way you assume you'll just coat in some conspiratorial reason why you were cheated out of that thing that you are completely sure you were right about.

And when the majority of the Senate rules against him, what will you say then?

[Stormdash]

And when the majority of the Senate rules against him, what will you say then?

What I literally said, that it would result in litigation that the Senate has at least a fair to decent chance of losing. There are reasonable arguments rooted in the separation of powers doctrine that the Senate's DQ power in Art I is limited to offices over which it gives advice and consent. And in principles of federalism as well; I mean, you guys get that the Senate has no way to compel any state not to let any candidate on its Presidential ballot, right? And no way to compel sworn electors not to vote for any candidate? And, without a cooperating member of the House, no way even to record an objection to the electoral count awarding the Presidency to someone they disqualified?

Would the court do it for them? We don't know, because it's never come up. But the logistics of enforcing it alone are reason to hesitate if this is something that the Senate can even do with regard to the Presidency or Vice-Presidency.

Another hypo - do you think the Senate can disqualify someone from being elected Speaker of the House? I'm 100% certain the House would disagree, on general principle - because that's theirs and theirs alone.

Point being, there is plenty of basis to suspect that push comes to shove the Senate's DQ power doesn't reach every post in the national government that 2021 Senators might wish that it did... and Trump of all fanatical people wouldn't just take that lying down without forcing the issue in court over the next few years.

[postman1782]

Fringe left partisanship is quite a thing when one of their lies can lead to a presidential impeachment.

What lie would that be? Considering his incitement is on FUCKING VIDEO.

[Shadowferal]

Point being, there is plenty of basis to suspect that push comes to shove the Senate's DQ power doesn't reach every post in the national government that 2021 Senators might wish that it did... and Trump of all fanatical people wouldn't just take that lying down without forcing the issue in court over the next few years.

uh huh...yeah..and when the majority of the Senate rules against him...you'll ignore this thread...

[Zeth Hawkins]

Why do you support a president inciting a mob to violence to kill/kidnap duly elected members of congress and his own VP?

If you are referring to President Trump, he did not incite a mob to violence, nor would I support him if he did. Why are you lying?

- - - Updated - - -

What lie would that be? Considering his incitement is on FUCKING VIDEO.

Read above, then consider supplying quote of incitement.

Suppose now is a fine enough time to mention even CNN is starting to admit the riot was planned before Trump gave his speech that day. There also appears to have been some bipartisan representation at the riot; read up on John Sullivan if you like.

[Machismo]

If you are referring to President Trump, he did not incite a mob to violence, nor would I support him if he did. Why are you lying?

- - - Updated - - -



Read above, then consider supplying quote of incitement.

Well, Congress, including many GOP politicians disagree with you.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...s-capitol-riot

[Zeth Hawkins]

Riiight. He only held a rally in which he literally told them to march on the Capitol after his lawyer called for trial by combat. No possible way to consider that an incitement to violence.

"marching over to the Capitol building" != "march on the Capitol" (And even "march on the Capitol" would not be an incitement of violence)

Perhaps this is the full incitement quote you were looking for:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

[Stormdash]

uh huh...yeah..and when the majority of the Senate rules against him...you'll ignore this thread...

Think you're kind of missing the point. Literally everything I typed refers to things that would begin to take place after (and obviously if) the Senate voted in the majority to disqualify him from future office.

Either he'd sue the Senate immediately, or he'd ignore it and decide to run. He'd go to, say, Ohio and say "Ohio I'd like to run for President". Ohio would check its own election laws, see that he satisfies them to be eligible under Ohio law, and say "here ya go, best of luck".

Now, at this point, does Chuck Schumer or the new Senate Judiciary chair (not sure who this is with Feinstein not staying on the committee?) sue the state of Ohio to enjoin them from letting Trump be on their ballot?

All it takes is an attention span slightly longer than that of a house cat to realize "huh, that could get complicated"

[Machismo]

Think you're kind of missing the point. Literally everything I typed refers to things that would begin to take place after (and obviously if) the Senate voted in the majority to disqualify him from future office.

Either he'd sue the Senate immediately, or he'd ignore it and decide to run. He'd go to, say, Ohio and say "Ohio I'd like to run for President". Ohio would check its own election laws, see that he satisfies them to be eligible under Ohio law, and say "here ya go, best of luck".

Now, at this point, does Chuck Schumer or the new Senate Judiciary chair (not sure who this is with Feinstein not staying on the committee?) sue the state of Ohio to enjoin them from letting Trump be on their ballot?

All it takes is an attention span slightly longer than that of a house cat to realize "huh, that could get complicated"

You are ignoring that the federal government does have some say in the matter.

But, considering your complete and total inability to comprehend the First Amendment... I don't hold out much hope for you.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Yeah, it was totally a call for peaceful demonstrations.

Correct. I am glad you see this now.

[Machismo]

"marching over to the Capitol building" != "march on the Capitol" (And even "march on the Capitol" would not be an incitement of violence)

Perhaps this is the full incitement quote you were looking for:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

The full transcript was made available to you.

You really should stop trying to defend Nazis.

Imagine taking the "Osama Bin Laden did nothing wrong" defense.

[Zeth Hawkins]

The full transcript was made available to you.

Correct. I found no incitements of violence, especially nothing fulfilling the legal definition of such. I was, however, able to find and post the opposite a few minutes ago.

You really should stop trying to defend Nazis.

Imagine taking the "Osama Bin Laden did nothing wrong" defense.

Who are you implying is a Nazi? President Trump, Osama Bin Laden, or both?

[Machismo]

Correct. I found no incitements of violence, especially nothing fulfilling the legal definition of such. I was, however, able to find and post the opposite a few minutes ago.


Who are you implying is a Nazi? President Trump, Osama Bin Laden, or both?

Well, as has been pointed out, you are willing to defend Nazis. Trump is a shitty, shitty Nazi.

Luckily, Congress disagrees with you, including many members of Trump's own party.

Trump could rape a child on live television, and his supporters would still defend him.

[postman1782]

If you are referring to President Trump, he did not incite a mob to violence, nor would I support him if he did. Why are you lying?

- - - Updated - - -



Read above, then consider supplying quote of incitement.

Suppose now is a fine enough time to mention even CNN is starting to admit the riot was planned before Trump gave his speech that day. There also appears to have been some bipartisan representation at the riot; read up on John Sullivan if you like.

Then you need to get your fucking eyes and ears checked.

[Xeones]

Why are you guys bothering? He's gotten his marching orders from the cult leader, do you think you're going to be able to convince someone who hasn't had their eyes opened by this insurrection attempt?

[Felya]

Correct. I found no incitements of violence, especially nothing fulfilling the legal definition of such. I was, however, able to find and post the opposite a few minutes ago.

He literally said “trial by combat”... lol

Who are you implying is a Nazi? President Trump, Osama Bin Laden, or both?

Technically, Bin Laden was a theocrat... Trump is a fascist...

- - - Updated - - -

Well, as has been pointed out, you are willing to defend Nazis. Trump is a shitty, shitty Nazi.

Fascist... don’t let him get away on a technicality.