The trial

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sculptor, Feb 9, 2021.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,537
    I'm watching
    OK
    many of the early speeches seemed to be an emotional cure for insomnia
    and
    then I saw one refer to his pocket constitution

    really an excellent little booklet

    and so
    it will unfold
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,537
    Today had to do with jurisdiction...perhaps more of a declinatory plea than a dilatory plea
    anyway
    moot
    Well, that's one days entertainment culminating in a 56 x 44 vote to continue to trial.
    (Tune in tomorrow at noon for a continuation of this thrilling saga)

    perhaps a playbook specifying (at a minimum)the party of the speakers would be enlightening?

    ........................
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,437
    Yep. That was one of the Trump team's goals - to put everyone to sleep, so they can be convinced to forget the mob he tried to incite to kill them.

    In that way delaying the trial was a good move by the GOP. Time to plaster over the bulletholes, repair the broken glass and clean up the feces and bloodstains. See if they can get the senate to forget what happened.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,537
    billvon---your radical partisan political agenda is showing
    (would you really vote for a yellow dog?)
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,437
    It is a "radical partisan political agenda" to decide that crimes should be prosecuted? OK then!

    Do you live in a place where criminals go unpunished, so that no one can ever accuse you and yours of having a "radical partisan political agenda?"
     
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,537
    billvon
    In your heart and mind you have already convicted Trump.
    You have an obvious bias.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,437
    Not at all. I am content to see how this plays out, and I suspect he will not be convicted.
     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,537
    billvon
    your words
    "the mob he tried to incite to kill them."
    kinda says---lets skip the trial and go straight to the hanging---

    and, as/re
    "delaying the trial was a good move by the GOP."
    the house held the articles of impeachment for 9 days before presenting them to the senate
    -------------------------who was delaying?
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,437
    Not at all. He tried to incite the mob; his own words, and the words of his lawyer and his supporters who were there, prove that. They did indeed try to kill senators and congressmen - their own videos prove that. Those are all facts.

    The question remaining is - is that sufficient to convict him in an impeachment? I suspect it will not be, since republicans will vote to protect him.
     
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,537
    again
    in your heart and mind, you have already convicted trump
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,437
    You must have trouble understanding English. Is it a second language? (not that there's anything wrong with that.)
     
  15. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,537
    your words
    "He tried to incite the mob..."
    and you know this because.......................................................
     
  16. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,634
    As a 2 cent non lawyer I don't think his conduct got to impeachment level

    As I understand impeachment, in the American version, is to protect THE OFFICE, not to punish the holder of the function of the office

    Protecting the OFFICE requires the holder to be removed from the function of the office ie fired from the job but no actual civil punishment

    Well since he is out of office such option is moot

    So I would reason this exercise is being run in an attempt to prevent him running in 2024

    To me seems strange Dems are so afraid of Trump (as a politician, which he clearly is not) or Dems have a fear Repubs will pick Trump again

    Would they??? Truly something to ponder

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sculptor likes this.
  17. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,578
    Just curious sculptor, do you take the position that Trump's speech should've been protected (or should be), or do you believe that his speech didn't incite violence?
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2021
  18. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,311
    because a couple hundred million of us watched him do it live on television
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    I just watched an interesting interview with a former judge on PBS Newshour.

    He made the point that the articles of impeachment drawn up by the House are unfortunately narrow, which he thinks is a mistake. He points out that the Senate trial is not a criminal trial. The articles of impeachment are framed as if Trump is guilty of a criminal offence, namely incitement to violence. But the constitutional power to impeach a president goes beyond trying him for crimes that are on the criminal statutes. Trump is being tried for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, which means abusing the powers of his office and failing to uphold his oath to protect the Constitution etc.

    His "incitement" of the Capitol insurrection is relevant, but it ought not to be the only thing on the table in the trial. Ideally, the Senate should be considering Trump's entire sequence of behaviour in continually denying the results of a free and fair election, as well as his nefarious attempts to try to overturn the results by pressuring election officials to "find" votes, to cancel legal votes and so on.

    Regarding the protests on 6 January, it is not just that Trump urged the crowd on. The Senate should look a what the duty of a president should be in a situation where rioters are attacking the seat of government, and compare what Trump actually did. Trump was in a prime position at all times to stop the invasion of the Capitol. It was, in fact, his duty under the Constitution to stop it and to uphold the Constitution. Instead, he riled up his supports, told them "We love you" even after they had committed many acts of violence and vandalism, urged them more than 20 separate times to "fight", and so on and so forth, all the while maintaining his lie that the election was "stolen" from him, and warning that "this is what happens" when he doesn't get his way, like a tin pot dictator.

    We'll see how the trial plays out.

    It is not a good sign that 44 Republican senators have already voted to say that the trial process itself is unconstitutional (which it clearly isn't).

    This is a critical time for the Republican Party. The Senators will make a choice right now as to whether they are for the Constitution and democracy, or whether they are for a strong-man dictatorship under Trump or some equivalent successor. Are Republican senators (with a few exceptions) beholden to Trump, or do they serve under the US Constitution?
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,437
    Because of the words he (and his lawyer, and family) spoke.

    "If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
    "Let's have trial by combat"
    "Going to have to fight much harder"
    "You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength"
    " 'We want to be SOOO respectful of everybody, including bad people.' We’re going to have to fight much harder."
    "We will not take it anymore . . .you will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can’t let that happen."
    "You are allowed to go by very different rules."
    "We’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you"
    "Our country has had enough, we will not take it anymore, and that’s what this is all about."

    And then after the riot had begun, and rioters had smashed windows to try to reach Pence - "Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution."

    Those are incitements, spoken to an angry mob that had built a mock gallows in plain view of the stage. Now, you can argue that he mitigated those incitements with other words (like "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard") but that was a mitigation of his incitement - it does not erase the incitements, which in any case greatly outnumbered any mitigating statements he made.

    So now it will go to the senate, and they will likely not find him guilty because most republicans will vote along party lines.

    So yes, he tried to incite the mob - and then his recently appointed acting Secretary of Defense crippled the National Guard response, to allow the rioters more freedom. We are all very fortunate that they were stopped after they killed ONLY one police officer, and were not able to kidnap or kill Pence, or any senators or representatives as they stated they were going to.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2021
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  21. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,168
    Yep. Trump has been lying about him winning the election for months. IF that was true then the people storming Congress would be patriots. If the presidential election was stolen then we would no longer be a democracy and an armed revolt would legitimate.

    But Trump didn't win, he lost in a fair election. His lies resulted in an insurrection of traitors, who thought they were patriots, because the fools believed Trump. Regardless of the outcome in the Senate, history will count Trump as a shit stain on the U.S.
     
  22. foghorn Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    627
    So, if Trump gets away with it, can anybody take him to an ordinary Criminal Court of Law for incitement resulting in deaths and injuries?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,537
    I do not know.
    According to what my(left wing) spouse has heard(most likely on msnbc):
    It seems that many of the rioters came to washington dc with weapons(looking to rumble?) long before trump's speech that supposedly incited them to violence.
    If people come looking for a rumble, how much incitement do they need?
    I do not understand the mindset of people who go looking for a fight.
    I don't know.
    I'm gonna watch the trial, and when away from the computer, turn up the volume and listen as much as possible.
    while i think that this could prove entertaining, i hope that it will prove enlightening as well.
     

Share This Page