Trump's Second Impeachment - A jump to conclusions

[Orbit]

It is a jump to conclusions when you are unwilling to consider evidence for and against. Watching the events of that day does not tell me about Trump's intent. It does not tell me if this attack was planned before Trump's speech.

I also find this to be a double standard because many in the left have used similar language but yet we don't accuse them of trying to incite violence.

No, people on the left do NOT use similar language. Now you're making things up. BLM protestors said stop killing black people and defund the police (which means to reallocate bloated police budgets). They didn't construct nooses for their enemies like the MAGA seditionists did at the Capitol, and while there was property damage in riots, they did not beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher while attempting to overthrow the US government.

 

[Ponder This]

10 flipped Republicans attests to this.

Pelosi: "non-partisan"

*only 10 republican representatives vote for impeachment*

In other words... the impeachment was partisan yet again.

 

[Windwalker]

It is a jump to conclusions when you are unwilling to consider evidence for and against. Watching the events of that day does not tell me about Trump's intent. It does not tell me if this attack was planned before Trump's speech.

I also find this to be a double standard because many in the left have used similar language but yet we don't accuse them of trying to incite violence.

They looked at the evidence against, and it's hollow lies. And please, don't tell me that evidence really matters to the insurrections anyway. They didn't believe that all the evidence legally proved that the election was fair, and Joe Biden one. It's over man. The lies are coming home to roost upon those who spread them.

 

[Orbit]

Pelosi: "non-partisan"

*only 10 republican representatives vote for impeachment*

In other words... the impeachment was partisan yet again.

It was the sedition that was partisan.

US Capitol insurrection: Questions swirl around possible 'insider' help - CNNPolitics

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's gaslighting when telling someone, "he was only joking" to some serious comment, insult, or injury. Gaslighting is when you try to make people doubt what they clearly saw and heard. It preys about your good will to manipulate you into not holding them to account. I think after 4 years of it, most people are not willing to go there with him anymore. The tides appear to have finally turned.

No, gas lighting tends to be more personal and is a form of abuse.
With Trumpeters it's simply called denial and called being a lemming. Also, they aren't abusing those who call their crap. They aren't convincing anyone, they aren't manipulating, amd it lacks the very real dynamics and damages that come with abusive relationships.

 

[Windwalker]

Pelosi: "non-partisan"

*only 10 republican representatives vote for impeachment*

In other words... the impeachment was partisan yet again.

10 Republicans, by definition, makes it bipartisan. The 1st impeachment in the house was partisan. The 2nd impeachment was bipartisan, meaning support on both sides of the aisle. Bipartisan does not mean unanimous, nor a 50/50 split.

 

[Windwalker]

No, gas lighting tends to be more personal and is a form of abuse.
With Trumpeters it's simply called denial and called being a lemming. Also, they aren't abusing those who call their crap. They aren't convincing anyone, they aren't manipulating, amd it lacks the very real dynamics and damages that come with abusive relationships.

But isn't Trump's relationship with his followers both personal, and abusive? Telling them how much he loves them, as he rallies them to do harm and suffer consequences for him? That sounds a lot like the abusive boyfriend thing. Sort of like those who see God that way, as an abusive husband.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Pelosi: "non-partisan"

*only 10 republican representatives vote for impeachment*

In other words... the impeachment was partisan yet again.

The seditionists selected the most heinous way for humans to behave. They reminded the world of just how backward America has been about race. I'm going to be paying for what they did, because I live in a red state. I bear on my back their disgrace. They've made things worse for me, here. I hope they all are publicly shamed. I say impeach and prevent this president from taking public office again, too.

What with so much money involved in campaigning, 10 flipped honest Representatives is a pretty decent number these days. I'd call it partisan.

 

[Lyndon]

The question is if Trump caused it. To not even be willing to consider if there's evidence that he did NOT cause it is troubling. It shows some close-mindedness. Anything should be open for debate or inquiry.

Obviously if there was no Trump it never would have happened, and if he had accepted the election results it never would have happened.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, it's not a criminal trial technically, but an inquiry into impeachment can occur to determine if allegations are true or merit impeachment. To not do such is just a jump to conclusions, and that's true whether or not a trial or vetting is not required under the Constitution. However, it's not against the Constitution to wait until AFTER a criminal investigation which is what Congress was waiting for when they were considering impeaching Trump for colluding with Russia. We all know the result of that investigation and so the impeachment never took place.

The Senate process is like a trial in that you hear evidence for and against. That's more reasonable than just jumping to conclusions.

You don't decide what is true. Nor do I. Congress does that. It is not a criminal process. It is a political one.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But isn't Trump's relationship with his followers both personal, and abusive? Telling them how much he loves them, as he rallies them to do harm and suffer consequences for him? That sounds a lot like the abusive boyfriend thing. Sort of like those who see God that way, as an abusive husband.

Yes, but that's not gaslighting.
Gaslighting is a process of confusing and breaking down someone to the point they become unsure of themselves, confused, and mentally breaking them by constantly doubting and questioning and ridicule and challenging someone's thoughts and conclusion. It's an extreme form of "this isn't what it seems" and attempting to break someone down until they agree with their abuser.

 

[exchemist]

This is more of a post to challenge those who believe that Trump should be impeached.

My position is not that Trump should be impeached. I believe he should only be impeached pending the outcome of an inquiry or investigation into the incident. It seems that many accept the interpretation that Trump caused the riots and they do so without question. But I see that there is room to question.

Here are some reasons:

- First, Trump used words like "fight like Hell". That can be taken both literally and non-literally. How do we know which sense he intended if we don't look into his intent? Plenty of politicians from both sides have used similar language, but then we don't impeach them nor automatically suggest that they are inciting or trying to incite violence. Also should Trump be blamed if he intended it to be non-literal but some protestors took it to be literal? That's certainly possible given the fact that not all protestors entered the US Capitol.
- There is growing evidence that the attack on the US Capitol was planned. If the attack was planned before Trump's rally then some of these pro-Trump protestors already had it in their mind to attack before listening to Trump's speech. Perhaps we can investigate if Trump played a role in that planning. We should know that before trying to impeach him.
- Another point that was brought up mostly by Democrats is that Trump did nothing to stop the attack. That should also be investigated. Trump released a video during the attack calling for protestors to stop their attack and leave. Perhaps he could've done more, Perhaps the FBI and US Capitol police could've done more given the fact they had some information on threats prior to the attack.

This impeachment was simply a rush to conclusions.

Ludicrous equivocation.

No doubt such exculpatory arguments will come up in the Senate trial, but the prima facie case for the impeachment was overwhelming. And now it's done anyway, so the point is moot.

 

[Altfish]

This is more of a post to challenge those who believe that Trump should be impeached.

My position is not that Trump should be impeached. I believe he should only be impeached pending the outcome of an inquiry or investigation into the incident. It seems that many accept the interpretation that Trump caused the riots and they do so without question. But I see that there is room to question.

Here are some reasons:

- First, Trump used words like "fight like Hell". That can be taken both literally and non-literally. How do we know which sense he intended if we don't look into his intent? Plenty of politicians from both sides have used similar language, but then we don't impeach them nor automatically suggest that they are inciting or trying to incite violence. Also should Trump be blamed if he intended it to be non-literal but some protestors took it to be literal? That's certainly possible given the fact that not all protestors entered the US Capitol.
- There is growing evidence that the attack on the US Capitol was planned. If the attack was planned before Trump's rally then some of these pro-Trump protestors already had it in their mind to attack before listening to Trump's speech. Perhaps we can investigate if Trump played a role in that planning. We should know that before trying to impeach him.
- Another point that was brought up mostly by Democrats is that Trump did nothing to stop the attack. That should also be investigated. Trump released a video during the attack calling for protestors to stop their attack and leave. Perhaps he could've done more, Perhaps the FBI and US Capitol police could've done more given the fact they had some information on threats prior to the attack.

This impeachment was simply a rush to conclusions.

If Trump is innocent he should have immediately said something like ..
"I accept the election results, there was no fraud, please stop this insurrection"

He did virtually the opposite.

If a President can be impeached for an extra-marital affair; the bar is fairly low. Trump jumped over it easily.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

No, people on the left do NOT use similar language. Now you're making things up. BLM protestors said stop killing black people and defund the police (which means to reallocate bloated police budgets). They didn't construct nooses for their enemies like the MAGA seditionists did at the Capitol, and while there was property damage in riots, they did not beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher while attempting to overthrow the US government.

“It is time for us as Democrats to be as tough as they are, to be as dedicated as they are, to be as committed as they are,” Holder said. “Michelle always says, Michelle Obama, I love her. She and my wife are really tight. Which always scares me and Barack. Michelle always says, ‘When they go low, we go high.’ No. No. When they go low, we kick them.”
Eric Holder on Republicans: 'When they go low, we kick them' (cnn.com)

Kamala Harris on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert said this about BLM protests in June 2020:
They're not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they're not going to stop after Election Day," Harris continued. "Everyone should take note of that on both levels, that they're not going to let up and they should not and we should not."
"Almost every one of those marches has been about one fundamental ideal in our country, which is equal justice under law," she said. "And fighting to make sure that we have a government and a country that, at least every few steps, gets closer to achieving that ideal." While the United States has not yet reached equality for all, Harris said that protests "are the catalyst to getting there."
Kamala Harris Says Protests Won't Stop Despite Lack of News Coverage | Hollywood Reporter

This was said in June, but Kamala did not draw a distinction or explicity condemn violence until August 27.
"Harris condemned violent protests on Aug. 27 after multiple nights of looting and two violent deaths."
Fact check: Kamala Harris said she supports protests, not ‘riots’, in Late Show clip | Reuters

What took her so long to call out violence? Poll numbers showing majority of Americans were against violent protests? Telling them to "fight", as they did, can be interpreted as encouraging or even inciting.

I can post more upon request.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

Ludicrous equivocation.

No doubt such exculpatory arguments will come up in the Senate trial, but the prima facie case for the impeachment was overwhelming. And now it's done anyway, so the point is moot.

A prima facie case is the establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption. A prima facie case is a cause of action or defense that is sufficiently established by a party's evidence to justify a verdict in his or her favor, provided such evidence is not rebutted by the other party.
Prima facie | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

Was there room for a rebuttal? There was a debate but everyone had their minds made up already. No one engaged each other's arguments. I'm taking the time here to explain why your argument is wrong, and if you can't give a logical or evidence based rebuttal, then your argument fails. This is rushed - a 3 to 5 day impeachment process? What a record!

 

[Orbit]

“It is time for us as Democrats to be as tough as they are, to be as dedicated as they are, to be as committed as they are,” Holder said. “Michelle always says, Michelle Obama, I love her. She and my wife are really tight. Which always scares me and Barack. Michelle always says, ‘When they go low, we go high.’ No. No. When they go low, we kick them.”
Eric Holder on Republicans: 'When they go low, we kick them' (cnn.com)

Kamala Harris on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert said this about BLM protests in June 2020:
They're not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they're not going to stop after Election Day," Harris continued. "Everyone should take note of that on both levels, that they're not going to let up and they should not and we should not."
"Almost every one of those marches has been about one fundamental ideal in our country, which is equal justice under law," she said. "And fighting to make sure that we have a government and a country that, at least every few steps, gets closer to achieving that ideal." While the United States has not yet reached equality for all, Harris said that protests "are the catalyst to getting there."
Kamala Harris Says Protests Won't Stop Despite Lack of News Coverage | Hollywood Reporter

This was said in June, but Kamala did not draw a distinction or explicity condemn violence until August 27.
"Harris condemned violent protests on Aug. 27 after multiple nights of looting and two violent deaths."
Fact check: Kamala Harris said she supports protests, not ‘riots’, in Late Show clip | Reuters

What took her so long to call out violence? Poll numbers showing majority of Americans were against violent protests? Telling them to "fight", as they did, can be interpreted as encouraging or even inciting.

I can post more upon request.

These are pretty weak examples, and nothing compared to the years of villifying and demonization of Democrats by Republicans--and certainly nothing compared to Trump and his allies who literally call for shooting, hanging etc of their political enemies.

 

[Debater Slayer]

This is one of the cheapest attempts to sound intellectual and rational that I've seen. It's like asking to wait for the birth of a generation of mutated animal offspring to prove a nuke was used even though everyone witnessed the mushroom cloud.

The intellectual hollowness of some arguments nowadays doesn't fail to amaze me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A prima facie case is the establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption. A prima facie case is a cause of action or defense that is sufficiently established by a party's evidence to justify a verdict in his or her favor, provided such evidence is not rebutted by the other party.
Prima facie | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

Was there room for a rebuttal? There was a debate but everyone had their minds made up already. No one engaged each other's arguments. I'm taking the time here to explain why your argument is wrong, and if you can't give a logical or evidence based rebuttal, then your argument fails. This is rushed - a 5 day impeachment process? What a record!

Stop using criminal law. Use the constitution and what it says.

Here it is a simple as I can make it. The House could impeach a president for eating cheese on a Thursday and the Senate could convict without hearing evidence and it would be according to the constitution.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is more of a post to challenge those who believe that Trump should be impeached.

My position is not that Trump should be impeached. I believe he should only be impeached pending the outcome of an inquiry or investigation into the incident. It seems that many accept the interpretation that Trump caused the riots and they do so without question. But I see that there is room to question.

Here are some reasons:

- First, Trump used words like "fight like Hell". That can be taken both literally and non-literally. How do we know which sense he intended if we don't look into his intent? Plenty of politicians from both sides have used similar language, but then we don't impeach them nor automatically suggest that they are inciting or trying to incite violence. Also should Trump be blamed if he intended it to be non-literal but some protestors took it to be literal? That's certainly possible given the fact that not all protestors entered the US Capitol.
- There is growing evidence that the attack on the US Capitol was planned. If the attack was planned before Trump's rally then some of these pro-Trump protestors already had it in their mind to attack before listening to Trump's speech. Perhaps we can investigate if Trump played a role in that planning. We should know that before trying to impeach him.
- Another point that was brought up mostly by Democrats is that Trump did nothing to stop the attack. That should also be investigated. Trump released a video during the attack calling for protestors to stop their attack and leave. Perhaps he could've done more, Perhaps the FBI and US Capitol police could've done more given the fact they had some information on threats prior to the attack.

This impeachment was simply a rush to conclusions.

Trump has no control over what people may or may not do, but there is the valid argument that his influence helped bring about all the trouble.

I'm not against impeachment but I think its too late for it to make any real difference being he will be gone by the inauguration.

 

[Ponder This]

10 Republicans, by definition, makes it bipartisan. The 1st impeachment in the house was partisan. The 2nd impeachment was bipartisan, meaning support on both sides of the aisle. Bipartisan does not mean unanimous, nor a 50/50 split.

What with so much money involved in campaigning, 10 flipped honest Representatives is a pretty decent number these days. I'd call it partisan.

FYI: there are 211 Republican representatives, which means that 10 flips is less than 5% of the Republican vote. IMO, the better description for this vote is that it was partisan.

As to the involvement of money...
2020 election to cost $14 billion, blowing away spending records
Democrats dominated spending in the 2020 election by nearly 2 to 1. The biggest source of money for the 2020 election was Large Individual Donations. Spending in 2020 in total roughly doubled what was spent in 2016 in total. There's no question which of the two parties is more obligated to big money. It's obvious.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

Stop using criminal law. Use the constitution and what it says.

Here it is a simple as I can make it. The House could impeach a president for eating cheese on a Thursday and the Senate could convict without hearing evidence and it would be according to the constitution.

You keep bringing up that it's not required by the Constitution, but do you find that to be a good thing? Such a process would amount to jumping to conclusions.