Trumps second Impeachment Trial Dead on Arrival

[Heyo]

If it could actually be *proven*, that Trump wanted rioters to break into the Capitol building by force, even if it meant bashing police officers over the head with fire extinguishers and breaking down doors in order to enter the very chamber floor in order to stop the proceedings from happening... Then yes, Trump should be tried and placed in jail.

...But there is no way I believe that's what Trump intended, or told anyone to do...

...Does anyone here think that's really what Trump wanted?

1. That was not a spontaneous "protest". Someone planned the attack.
2. Whatever the intend was, the outcome was an insurrection. (I believe that Trump could not have foreseen that because that takes an IQ above body temperature, but stupidity should not be an excuse for a PotUS.)
3. To answer your question: My hypothesis is that Trump thought to bully Pence into not confirming the election result - by which way ever.

 

[McBell]

If it could actually be *proven*, ...

Ah...
A Kovind Challenge...

 

[Twilight Hue]

Does that mean you too have noticed Schumer is sabotaging Biden's agenda? Or did you have in mind an even more bizarre and disturbing reason for believing both parties threaten Democracy these days?

New York and California.

Those are the desired templates to be used for the Federal Government.

Neither state remotely reflects what this country stands for, or ought to be. It's strictly a partisan vision.

Conversely in fairness, I also wouldn't want this country to be based on a template with Oklahoma or Mississippi. Two of the top prison states in the nation.

 

[tytlyf]

REPUBLICAN Senators have all but killed off Democratic hopes of impeaching former President Donald Trump - leaving the charge of inciting an insurrection "dead on arrival".

Trump's 2nd impeachment trial ‘dead on arrival’ as 45 GOP senators cast vote

I'm so glad the people who were taking pages from Putin's playbook, trying to ruin the possibility of Trump pursuing politics in the future had their ***** handed to them. Freedom and Democracy always win here... Always!

...Say NO, to left-wing totalitarian dictators.

Taking "The Sun" seriously is troublesome. Who led you to believe it's over? lmao.

 

[tytlyf]

Democrats trying to impeach Trump so that he can never run again... Just like Putin ensured Navalny could never run again.

...It's the same thing.

Correct, it's not about removing someone from office. Duh.
The purpose is to prevent the stain from reappearing in our government again.
Worst president in history and people want to praise him. Dangerous.
History won't be kind to Trumper's.

 

[Friend of Mara]

I don't know, nor do I care what's been done.

So no hiding its blind partisanship? Its not about dictatorship its about democrats?

 

[Friend of Mara]

Honestly, why would you want an ex-president to be impeached? Answer me that?

This is some grand theft auto logic. You aren't safe when you get home. Trump can't do crazy impeachable stuff on his way out and have no negative consequences.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Trump never said to break doors and windows, and enter illegally. To falsely associate him that way is KGBish and total corruption.

He said to fight like hell when there was nothing to left to fight for. It was over. But he told supporters to fight for his lies. He told them those who were upholding the Constitution and serving their country rightly as their duties mandate are cowards, and those doing what they must to enforce the will of the People don't have the courage to do a great wrong.
What is KBGish is the formal support Putin is lending to Trump and the insurrectionists. It's not charging an official who did willingly and deliberately lie about a fair and free election to have it overturned.
That is dictator like, crap we see happening in highly unstable "here today, gone tomorrow" nations of high corruption.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is some grand theft auto logic. You aren't safe when you get home. Trump can't do crazy impeachable stuff on his way out and have no negative consequences.

There are some negative consequences for pursuing
an impeachment which will fail to result in conviction.
The major one is to turn Trump into a martyr because
the process looks like mere vengeance. Trump's only
punishment will be some money spent on defense.
But he'll possibly win prominence on the public stage
again. He might relish it.
Sure, sure, such behavior should be punished. But it
should be thought carefully thru. Ever play a board
game wherein you captured an enemy group, but the
cost exceeded the value of the group? It happens.

 

[Friend of Mara]

There are some negative consequences for pursuing
an impeachment which will fail to result in conviction.
The major one is to turn Trump into a martyr because
the process looks like mere vengeance. Trump's only
punishment will be some money spent on defense.
But he'll possibly win prominence on the public stage
again. He might relish it.
Sure, sure, such behavior should be punished. But it
should be thought carefully thru. Ever play a board
game wherein you captured an enemy group, but the
cost exceeded the value of the group? It happens.

Thats only if the goals of the impeachment are political. No doubt that is a huge motivating factor but for me and hopefully for many others it is justice.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thats only if the goals of the impeachment are political. No doubt that is a huge motivating factor but for me and hopefully for many others it is justice.

If Dems indeed don't have nearly enuf Senate votes to convict,
then their motive is something other than justice...unless they
equate it with vengeance. Or do they want to give Trump a very
public venue to continue airing his polemics & conspiracies?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Trump never said to break doors and windows, and enter illegally. To falsely associate him that way is KGBish and total corruption.

Trump has always spoken in "code," knowing full-well what he was inciting people to do, but always making sure that literal, out-of-context examination of just his words, might provide cover. Not just since he's been President but long before. He was taught this in part by Roy Cohn.

I'm afraid, Cooky, I consider you quite naive on the subject of Trump -- and I think part of the reason for that is that you just can't see the person that is there. He is much, much more an impaired human being than you suppose.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No. He just told them the election was stolen (it wasn't), that the democrats cheated (they didn't), that democracy was under threat (it wasn't), and that Biden's presidency is invalid (it isn't).

You forgot a little something: also that because of all of what you said, they had to "FIGHT" or they would lose their country. He did, in fact, say that right out loud.

 

[Sunstone]

New York and California.

Those are the desired templates to be used for the Federal Government.

Neither state remotely reflects what this country stands for, or ought to be. It's strictly a partisan vision.

Conversely in fairness, I also wouldn't want this country to be based on a template with Oklahoma or Mississippi. Two of the top prison states in the nation.

So are you among that tiny minority on the right these days who have very recently come to the realization that maybe Trump's vision for America ranks up there with being as evil as folks have it today in California or New York?


Not that it could matter to you, but I see California as a left wing failure that needs to be realistically appraised by the left, remedied, and have concrete measures put in place to prevent its lessons from being forgotten. Do you know of anyone on the right who today is familiar with doing any of that sort of thing in terms of taking responsibility for something? If so, could you name one or two of them for me, please?

 

[Cooky]

Trump has always spoken in "code," knowing full-well what he was inciting people to do, but always making sure that literal, out-of-context examination of just his words, might provide cover. Not just since he's been President but long before. He was taught this in part by Roy Cohn.

Who exactly understands this "code", and can it be uncoded by professional code breakers? Is it a fact..? Or is it mere "conspiracy"...? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[Revoltingest]

Who exactly understands this "code", and can it be uncoded by professional code breakers? Is it a fact..? Or is it mere "conspiracy"...? Inquiring minds want to know!

The left...the right...each reads a "code" they want.

 

[Cooky]

You forgot a little something: also that because of all of what you said, they had to "FIGHT" or they would lose their country. He did, in fact, say that right out loud.

"Fight" can be interpreted literally or as a figure of speech... When a football team says "let's get em'", it doesn't mean they literally capture their opponents and hold them against their will.

How can we be sure, without a doubt, that Trump was telling his protesters to literally go out and begin hurting people physically?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

If Dems indeed don't have nearly enuf Senate votes to convict,
then their motive is something other than justice...unless they
equate it with vengeance. Or do they want to give Trump a very
public venue to continue airing his polemics & conspiracies?

Actually, it is both about justice, as well as the idea that the US has, is, and must remain a nation of laws, with no person being above the law. Or else this country dies.

Who exactly understands this "code", and can it be uncoded by professional code breakers? Is it a fact..? Or is it mere "conspiracy"...? Inquiring minds want to know!

The legal precedent is the “If not for” idea.
If not for Trump spewing hate-filled lies about the election process over the preceeding 2 months, would the crowd have gathered in DC (many with weapons and restraints and body armor)?
Answer: No.

If not for Trump giving his “speech” about how Pence had failed them, and how the crowd needed to march down to the Capital building and fight to keep control of the US government, would they have marched down to the Capital building and attacked it? Killing 5 people and bludgening many police officers in the process?
Answer: No.

There is zero doubt that if you did not have Trump inciting the populace and the crowd how he did, and when he did, there would have been no riot against our nation’s Capital on 1/6/21.
Trump was the deciding factor in the sedition. Trump is guilty. That cannot be denied by any sane human being.
What punishment must be meted out to him in a nation of laws is the only question.

 

[Cooky]

The legal precedent is the “If not for” idea.
If not for Trump spewing hate-filled lies about the election process over the preceeding 2 months, would the crowd have gathered in DC (many with weapons and restraints and body armor)?
Answer: No.

...There is no "if not for" aspect to U.S. law... You just made that up, didn't you..?

If such a law exists, I sure would like to see some evidence for it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, it is both about justice, as well as the idea that the US has, is, and must remain a nation of laws, with no person being above the law. Or else this country dies.

It seems so existential when you put it that way. I'm more meh.
But first, our country does place some people above the law,
especially Presidents. Clinton skated on charges despite clear
guilt. Second, there's a question of whether Trump committed
a crime that would have reasonable likelihood of resulting in a
conviction. There are a several problems with that...
- Constitutionality
- Based on proving "code words".
- Lack of enuf votes in the Senate.

So....what purpose does impeachment & failed trial serve?