Trump’s weak defense will expose the depravity of GOP senators who acquit him

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  john-russell  •  4 weeks ago  •  155 comments

Trump’s weak defense will expose the depravity of GOP senators who acquit him
All this is pure baloney. Trump spent months urging his supporters to mobilize for war over the election results, which he said could not be legitimate if he lost, meaning a struggle to overturn them would inevitably be a righteous cause in their own defense. If some preplanned the attack, they did so at what they understood — correctly — as his direction, as their own language has confirmed.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



www.washingtonpost.com   /opinions/2021/02/09/trumps-weak-defense-will-expose-depravity-gop-senators-who-acquit-him/

Trump’s weak defense will expose the depravity of GOP senators who acquit him


Greg Sargent

6-7 minutes



As former president Donald Trump’s impeachment trial gets underway, the choice GOP senators face is being wildly mischaracterized. We keep hearing that they must choose between sticking with the former president or opposing him — between showing “loyalty” to Trump or not showing loyalty to him.

In one typical framing, the   Associated Press reports   that the Senate trial will test “the loyalty of Trump’s Republican allies.” A   CNN analysis declares   GOP senators must now decide whether to pay a price for “deserting an ex-president who still dominates his party.”

Either GOP senators are loyal to Trump, or they desert him and face the consequences: The choice is entirely framed as revolving around Trump.

But that isn’t the choice GOP senators actually face, and describing this choice accurately is of paramount importance.

The real choice they face is not between sticking with Trump or going against him. Rather, it’s between sticking with Trump or remaining faithful to their   oath of office , which requires them to defend the Constitution against those who would undermine or destroy it, and to the   oath of impartiality   they take as impeachment jurors.

Trump tried to overthrow U.S. democracy to keep himself in power illegitimately, first through corrupt legal efforts, then through   nakedly extralegal means , and then by inciting intimidation and violence to disrupt the   constitutionally designated process   for securing the peaceful conclusion of free and fair elections.

Trump fully intended to subvert   the constitutional process   designating how our elections unfold, and intended this   every step of the way . GOP senators cannot remain “loyal” to Trump without breaking their oaths to execute their public positions faithfully.

The weakness of Trump’s own defense will reveal the true contours of this choice — and demonstrate how his defenders, both on his legal team and in the GOP Senate caucus, will try to bury the inescapable nature of this choice under mounds of obfuscation.

Trump’s laughably weak defense


Trump’s lawyers   will first argue   that the Senate “lacks jurisdiction” to try Trump, on the grounds that he no longer holds office. This idea has been   roundly debunked   by lawyers across the political spectrum, including Chuck Cooper, a conservative legal icon.

As   Cooper argued , the Constitution provides for a Senate vote not just on removal for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but also for “disqualification” from ever holding office again, which by definition must also apply to those who are no longer in office but might run again later.

But the larger thrust of this “defense” is pernicious in another way.

GOP senators hope to take refuge in the idea that former presidents are exempt to give themselves a rhetorical and political means of dodging a direct vote on whether what Trump actually did constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.

This has been widely depicted as mere tactical maneuvering. But it’s much worse than that: It’s an active evasion of   their   own duty   as public officials to defend the Constitution. This defense, then, actually unmasks their dereliction of this duty.

Trump incited violent insurrection


Trump’s lawyers   will also argue   he is not guilty of “incitement of insurrection.” They will say he didn’t “direct anyone” to carry out the attack, as he used the word “peacefully” while haranguing the mob on Jan. 6.

And they will say that because the riots were “preplanned by a small group of criminals,” then Trump   cannot   have “incited” them.

All this is pure baloney. Trump   spent months urging his supporters   to mobilize for war over the election results, which he said could not be legitimate if he lost, meaning a struggle to overturn them would inevitably be a righteous cause in their own defense. If some preplanned the attack, they did so at what they understood — correctly — as his direction, as   their own language has confirmed .

What’s more, if some preplanned the attack well in advance,   many did not , and people in this latter group   also   attacked the Capitol. They, too,   were incited by Trump’s haranguing   leading up to and on Jan. 6.

And if Trump intended them to be peaceful, it’s strange that he   again whipped up rage   at then-Vice President Mike Pence   while   the mob rampaged into the Capitol   looking for Pence and lawmakers   who were counting electoral votes. It’s also odd that as the rampage worsened, he   refused entreaties to call   for the very calm his lawyers claim he wanted to see.

Acquitting Trump means declaring that   these known facts   do not point to high crimes and misdemeanors.

Senators have a duty


Senators take an   oath of office   to “support and defend the Constitution.” When serving as impeachment jurors, they take   another oath   to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution.”

“That second oath doesn’t replace the first,” Brettschneider tells me. “It clarifies it.”

In acting as jurors, Brettschneider says, senators are supposed to answer “the specific question” of whether the president is guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

“Trump tried to subvert a free and fair election by spreading disinformation, trying to force public officials to overturn the results and riling his supporters up to attack the Capitol,” Brettschneider continued. “That is about as paradigmatic a high crime as one can get.”

When senators are in the role of jurors, Brettschneider continues, the two oaths interlock to set the terms of their “constitutional duty,” which precludes operating out of “partisan loyalty to a president.”

In other words, it’s either the former or the latter. The choice is not just about whether they are going to be “loyal” to Trump or not. That idea actually undersells the extraordinary dereliction of duty GOP senators will be committing if and when they vote to acquit.



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago
Trump tried to overthrow U.S. democracy to keep himself in power illegitimately, first through corrupt legal efforts, then through      nakedly extralegal means   , and then by inciting intimidation and violence to disrupt the      constitutionally designated process       for securing the peaceful conclusion of free and fair elections. Trump fully intended to subvert      the constitutional process       designating how our elections unfold, and intended this      every step of the way   . GOP senators cannot remain “loyal” to Trump without breaking their oaths to execute their public positions faithfully.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

The impeachment managers just showed about a 20 minute video that followed the events of the 6th. 

None of it would have happened had Trump not lied about the election results and egged these people on for two months, culminating with his speech on the 6th. 

He has to be held accountable. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
2.1  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 weeks ago
None of it would have happened had Trump not lied about the election results and egged these people on for two months,

[deleted] you have no idea whatsoever what people would have done.   

 
 
 
MrFrost
Masters Principal
3  MrFrost    4 weeks ago

Raskin's opening video was devastating to trumps defense.. It won't make any difference since trump supporters in congress will give him a pass no matter what he does. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @3    4 weeks ago
Raskin's opening video was devastating to trumps defense.. It won't make any difference since trump supporters in congress will give him a pass no matter what he does. 

So not really devastating, by your own words, following your declaration.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
PhD Guide
3.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1    4 weeks ago
So not really devastating, by your own words, following your declaration.

Castor was rambling and incoherent which should be devastating and would have been in any actual court setting, but because the fix is already in and Castor could drop his drawers and shit on the podium and the majority of spineless Republicans will vote to acquit, it doesn't really matter how bad Trumps lawyers do.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

Gee, that makes it look like Democrats are tilting at windmills again then.

How Quixotic of them.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
3.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

I was watching one of the representatives of the former occupant of the White House go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about fairness, and due process, and fairness and due process - which was pretty much all the moron said.

What would the former occupant of the White House or those who represent him know about fairness and due process?

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
3.1.4  dennis smith  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.2    4 weeks ago

The Dem are already making excuses for the 2nd impeachment trial defeat they will suffer. 

Repubs will take over the House next year due to the failed leadership in the House and the weak Dem followers in the Senate.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
3.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MrFrost @3    4 weeks ago

They presented facts with video and laid out an excellent case.  What did one of Trump's lawyers do, he read a poem.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Participates
4  Greg Jones    4 weeks ago

The Dems have a weak and lame case

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
4.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Greg Jones @4    4 weeks ago
The Dems have a weak and lame case

Care to say why?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Masters Principal
4.2  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @4    4 weeks ago

The Dems have a weak and lame case

Repube's have NO case. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
4.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @4.2    4 weeks ago

None needed.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
4.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @4.2    4 weeks ago

That's repukes

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
5  Tessylo    4 weeks ago

147380119_10224632392218724_1168402170074870709_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=oQoxsxasMOMAX9bzjGR&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=1c47f4becbeecd963bf4bcfb081ef142&oe=6046D8DC

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
5.1  dennis smith  replied to  Tessylo @5    4 weeks ago

They did try to prosecute Trump via their 1st impeachment. The second one will be an even more dismal failure 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
6  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    4 weeks ago

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

One of Trump's lawyers just said that if Trump is barred from ever running again , millions of people who want to vote for him again would lose their right to vote for who they wish.   Oh, thats interesting. jrSmiley_123_smiley_image.gif   Does that mean that we should be able to vote Barack Obama back into office,  because we want to,  and shouldn't be deprived of our choice ? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Guide
7.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 weeks ago

That's a bit obtuse JR as he served two terms which is the limit by law. Point taken though.................sort of

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
7.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 weeks ago
Does that mean that we should be able to vote Barack Obama back into office,  because we want to,  and shouldn't be deprived of our choice ? 

Tell you what, why don't you just write in Obama on your ballot for the next few elections. I don't believe anyone will prohibit you from doing so.

Wouldn't want you deprived of it!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2    4 weeks ago

Because you missed it, here is the point. Obama is not eligible to run again, so he cannot receive votes.  If Trump is convicted or otherwise LEGALLY barred from running again by Congress, his status will be exactly the same as Obama, ineligible to be elected president in 2024, so no voters will be "deprived" of anything. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
7.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.1    4 weeks ago
Obama is not eligible to run again, so he cannot receive votes. 

I could be wrong, but i could swear that someone JUST made that exact point to YOU. (Thanks and a hat tip to Just Jim NC).

And being disqualified for running again would require first a conviction of impeachment and then another vote. Are you saying the second vote is already a done deal--that it is rigged?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.2.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.2    4 weeks ago

My comment was very clear and easily understood. 

Do your runaround with someone else. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
7.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.3    4 weeks ago
My comment was very clear and easily understood. 

As was mine.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
7.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.3    4 weeks ago

Your comments are always very clear and easily understood by those with smarts, common sense, wit, and intelligence.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
7.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.4    4 weeks ago
"As was mine."

No.

You just did your usual sniveling, whining, complaining, moving the goal posts, and deflecting.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
7.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.6    4 weeks ago

If there was something in my post that you did not understand, I can try to explain it to you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
7.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 weeks ago
"One of Trump's lawyers just said that if Trump is barred from ever running again , millions of people who want to vote for him again would lose their right to vote for who they wish.   Oh, that's interesting.   Does that mean that we should be able to vote Barack Obama back into office,  because we want to,  and shouldn't be deprived of our choice ?"

It what alternate reality does that make one goddamned bit of sense?

Another poster said that pretty much exactly word for word so now I know where they got their talking points from.

Moronic.

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
Professor Guide
8  Larry Hampton    4 weeks ago

It looks, smells and feels like a turd; but most Republicans will call it cake and eat it right down. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
9  Dulay    4 weeks ago

The GOP Senators have already proven that they intend to participate in jury nullification, AGAIN.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
9.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9    4 weeks ago
The GOP Senators have already proven that they intend to participate in jury nullification, AGAIN.

In your mind.

Jury nullification is perfectly legal.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Sophomore Principal
9.1.1  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1    4 weeks ago
Jury nullification is perfectly legal.

That doesn't mean it's always right, or just.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
9.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @9.1.1    4 weeks ago
That doesn't mean it's always right, or just.

Perhaps that is why I claimed no such thing.

BTW, the opposite of what you stated is also true, right?

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
9.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1    4 weeks ago
Jury nullification is perfectly legal.

Not in an impeachment trial. The oath the Senate takes:

I solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of , now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.

Jury nullification is NOT impartial justice. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
9.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.1.3    4 weeks ago

So I suppose you will be suing on behalf of the Democrats when Trump is not convicted?

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
9.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.4    4 weeks ago

Why would you suppose that Tex? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
9.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @9.1.3    4 weeks ago
Jury nullification is NOT impartial justice. 

There is no such thing as "jury nullification" in an impeachment.  This, for the 1000th time, is not a criminal trial. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
9.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @9.1.5    4 weeks ago

I know you'll figure it out.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
9.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.6    4 weeks ago
There is no such thing as "jury nullification" in an impeachment. 

According to whom Sean? 

This, for the 1000th time, is not a criminal trial.

Relevance? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
9.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @9.1.8    4 weeks ago

According to whom Sean? 

Anyone familiar with the impeachment process.  Senators, who control the rules of the  trial, are not the same as jurors in a criminal trial. You get that, right? You understand the jury in a criminal trial doesn't vote on what witnesses to hear?

Relevance? 

You are taking a term a from a  criminal trial and applying it to a completely different situation where it's inapplicable. Senators are free to apply their own judgment to  ensure justice is served. Every Senator is free to decide what the appropriate  burden of proof is, for instance.  Jurors in criminal trials are not. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
9.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.9    4 weeks ago
Anyone familiar with the impeachment process.  Senators, who control the rules of the  trial, are not the same as jurors in a criminal trial. You get that, right? 

I never claimed that the Senators are the same as jurors in a criminal trial so your comment is moot. 

You understand the jury in a criminal trial doesn't vote on what witnesses to hear?

You understand that is irrelevant to the concept of jury nullification right? 

You are taking a term a from a  criminal trial and applying it to a completely different situation where it's inapplicable. 

Jury nullification has occurred in both civil AND criminal trials Sean, so I didn't take it FROM anything. 

Senators are free to apply their own judgment to  ensure justice is served. Every Senator is free to decide what the appropriate  burden of proof is, for instance.  Jurors in criminal trials are not. 

Yet the fact that jury nullification is a REAL documented thing proves that juries have indeed decided for themselves, doesn't it Sean? 

Oh and BTFW, jury nullification is about the jury finding the prosecution has MET the burden of proof but they acquit ANYWAY. Much like what Republican Senators did in Trump's first impeachment. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
9.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @9.1.10    4 weeks ago

ct that jury nullification is a REAL documented thing proves that juries have indeed decided for themselves, doesn't it Sean? 

Rather than engage in your silly game where you make declarations you can't support, I'll inform you how this works. .  Senators are not jurors. If someone from the House refers to them as jurors, they will be corrected. Do you know what that is? Because they have completely different roles.

The Senators control the trial and can overrule the presiding officer (who is not a "judge").   Jurors don't overrule the presiding Judge. 

. In a trial, the jury is instructed by a Judge what the law is and how it s applied and what burden's each party has to meet to prevail.  That doesn't happen in an impeachment trial. Each Senator is free to make up their own mind using whatever standards they believe to be relevant to render their decision. Senators are free to  decide what the applicable "law" is.   See the massive difference? 

Thus, a jury  engages in nullification by ignoring the the instructions regarding the law they receive from the Judge. That's what nullification is  Senators can't engage in nullification because they are not bound to follow any instructions and each Senator creates their own standard to decide the impeachment upon.   They are free to render a verdict however their own sense of justice instructs them. 

jury nullification is about the jury finding the prosecution has MET the burden of proof but they acquit ANYWAY. Much like what Republican Senators did in Trump's first impeachment.

There is no burden of proof in an impeachment trial. Each Senator decides for himself what the standard is for impeachment.  That's why it's so silly and ignorant to borrow terms from the legal system and think they apply in a completely different setting with completely different standards.   Senators are not bound the way jurors are, so they can't engage in nullification.  

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
9.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.11    4 weeks ago
Rather than engage in your silly game where you make declarations you can't support, I'll inform you how this works. .

Are you claiming that jury nullification isn't REAL Sean? I presume that you aren't since you go on to say:

Thus, a jury  engages in nullification by ignoring the the instructions regarding the law they receive from the Judge.

So exactly WHAT declaration did I make that YOU haven't already supported? 

BTFW Sean, early in our history, Judges regularly informed juries that they had the right NOT to follow the law [nullify].  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
9.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @9.1.12    4 weeks ago
ming that jury nullification isn't REAL Sean?

Of course not. Where on earth would you get that from?   Jury nullification can occur in legal proceedings. IT can't occur in a political process  like impeachment. 

xactly WHAT declaration did I make that YOU haven't already supported? 

Your entire argument that the  Senate can  engage in jury nullification.  The Senate is not a jury and a Senator doesn't "nullify" a law no matter how he or she votes on an impeachment charge.. 

Did you not read my post? Or not understand it?

W Sean, early in our history, Judges regularly informed juries that they had the right NOT to follow the law [nullify].  

And that has zero to do with impeachment. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
9.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.13    4 weeks ago
Of course not. Where on earth would you get that from? 

It's the part of my comment that you block quoted Sean. DUH. 

Your entire argument that the  Senate can  engage in jury nullification.  The Senate is not a jury and a Senator doesn't "nullify" a law no matter how he or she votes on an impeachment charge.. 

The Republican Senators have and will violate their oath: 

I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of , now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.

By doing so, they commit the act of 'jury nullification' whether they are rightly called a 'jury' or not.

And that has zero to do with impeachment. 

But everything to do with jury nullification which is what we are discussing. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
9.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @9.1.14    4 weeks ago
. DUH. 

There's no possible construction of the English language that would allow a sentient adult to claim in good faith that I suggested jury nullification isn't real.

The Republican Senators have and will violate their oath: 

While this is an obviois deflection from your claim that they are engaging in "jury nullification," Of course they haven't and won't.   Maybe if you stopped offering unsupported conclusions and actually did some research before offering your opinions, you'd realize how wrong you are.   

ing so, they commit the act of 'jury nullification' whether they are rightly called a 'jury' or not

Good lord. I've explained this to you.  A Senator's oath requires him to act justly, however he or she sees fit. That means a Senator can fulfill his oath, for instance, by acquitting Trump if doesn't think Private citizens should be impeached.   A Juror is required to follow a set of instructions about the law and how it's applied. The act of nullification occurs when a juror ignores the instructions about the law given by a Judge.  A Senator is free to apply whatever standard they see fit, because an IMPEACHMENT IS NOT A TRIAL AND SENATORS ARE NOT JURORS BOUND TO FOLLOW ANY INTERPERTATION OF A LAW OTHER THAN THEIR OWN. 

 DO you understand the difference between the legal system and a political process yet?

ut everything to do with jury nullification which is what we are discussing

That's what your reduced to? Making silly circular arguments since you can't make a substantive  argument? Sad. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
9.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.15    4 weeks ago

ahhh... sentient is the key word there

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
9.1.17  Thomas  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.9    4 weeks ago
I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.

There is absolutely no wiggle room in that statement 

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

There is absolutely no wiggle room in that statement, either. 

President Trump dishonored, disobeyed and abrogated his constitutionally defined duties to support and defend the Constitution of the United States by bearing true faith and allegiance to the words within. He bore bad faith and dis-allegiance to the words in the Constitution. 

He is guilty of incitement of the riot and much much more.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
9.1.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thomas @9.1.17    4 weeks ago
There is absolutely no wiggle room in that statement 

Each Senator defines justice for themselves. So it's very easy for two different people to come to different conclusions without violating their oath. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
9.1.19  dennis smith  replied to  Texan1211 @9.1.7    4 weeks ago

Don't be so sure of that Texan

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
9.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.15    4 weeks ago
There's no possible construction of the English language that would allow a sentient adult to claim in good faith that I suggested jury nullification isn't real.

Since I didn't make that claim, no worries Sean. 

Maybe if you stopped offering unsupported conclusions and actually did some research before offering your opinions, you'd realize how wrong you are.   

Oh the fucking irony. 

Of course they haven't and won't. 

Take your own advice about unsupported conclusions Sean.

A Senator's oath requires him to act justly, however he or she sees fit.

Bullshit Sean. I posted the Senator's oath in my prior comment. READ it. 

The irony of YOU whining about circular arguments is galactic. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
9.1.21  Thomas  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1.18    4 weeks ago

 Does each Senator get to decide on his own truth, also? 

The evidence is incontrovertible that Donald Trump violated his oath of office. Therefore, the Senators either have to convict him, or they can choose to wipe their behinds with the CotUS, because that is how much they respect the document. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @9.1.21    4 weeks ago
Does each Senator get to decide on his own truth, also? 

Actually, sadly, yes.  The founders made the assumption that the Senate consisted of senior statespersons.   That they would do what is constitutionally correct and proper for the nation.   I do not think they envisioned this sort of leadership-dominated partisan system that we have devolved into.

But in this case it is even worse.   I think a lot of the senators are afraid that convicting Trump would cause them to lose their reelection bids.

Objective jurists would convict Trump.   It is obvious that he committed an impeachable offense - violating the oath of office by using the power of the office to whip supporters into a frenzy while engaging in a multi-month con-job claiming he won the election and that our system is corrupt.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
9.1.23  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.22    3 weeks ago
Does each Senator get to decide on his own truth, also? 
Actually, sadly, yes. 

That became obvious after the 2020 impeachment acquittal. There were no consequences for Senators that voted to acquit Trump despite admitting that the House had proven that Trump was guilty as charged.  

Before that, we didn't know for a fact that Senators could proudly violate their impeachment oath with no repercussions.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
9.1.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thomas @9.1.21    3 weeks ago
Does each Senator get to decide on his own truth, also? 

Here's the thing. Whether a an act or act rises to the level of being "high crimes and misdemeanors" is an entirely subjective exercise. There is no precedent and if there was, it wouldn't be binding on Senators anyway because they are not mere jurors, bound to follow the law a judge dictates them, because they are each free to determine that standard for themselves. [deleted]

The evidence is incontrovertible that Donald Trump violated his oath of office.

Even if it was, it doesn't compel a Senator to violate his conscious if he believes the act doesn't rise to the level that justice demands his impeachment and removal from office.  What is a removable crime will vary from person to person, and two Senators  operating in good faith can come to different conclusions. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Participates
10  Hallux    4 weeks ago

Republicans are a broken toy, their fans need to find a new one to play with.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Masters Principal
11  MrFrost    4 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
11.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  MrFrost @11    4 weeks ago

Good old reliable MItch.  As I said prevously, he makes a pendulum look like an amateur.

giphy.gif

 
 
 
charger 383
PhD Quiet
11.2  charger 383  replied to  MrFrost @11    4 weeks ago

He played his cards wisely

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
12  Buzz of the Orient    4 weeks ago

In my opinion, now that the Republican Senators can no longer hide behind a technical defence ot Unconstitutionality they will expose themselves as being in favour of insurrection rather than good government as a message to the voters of their electorate, if they vote to support Turmp. Should the time come that they in fact be re-elected after supporting Trump, then the majority of their electorate will be as guilty of lacking integrity, principle and backbone as the Senators they support.  If that happens, it would not be saying much good about that segment of the American people. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
12.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @12    4 weeks ago
at the Republican Senators can no longer hide behind a technical defence ot Unconstitutionali

Where do you get that from? The Senators are always free to vote to acquit if they believe the charge is unconstitutional.  That's what happened in the Belknap case that is all the rage to cite as precedent.

T  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
12.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @12    4 weeks ago
Should the time come that they in fact be re-elected after supporting Trump, then the majority of their electorate will be as guilty of lacking integrity, principle and backbone as the Senators they support.  If that happens, it would not be saying much good about that segment of the American people. 

sounds a lot like the " deplorables argument" that was tried a few years back to me that led to a political defeat for one person..

 They likely will be re elected what others think not withstanding , and since the way senators are elected changed from how it was origionally done , candidates will now and forever be playing to the majority voting base where ever they are running 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @12    4 weeks ago
Should the time come that they in fact be re-elected after supporting Trump, then the majority of their electorate will be as guilty of lacking integrity, principle and backbone as the Senators they support. 

Donald Trump will be acquitted of these ridiculous charges and by the time 2022 or 2024 rolls around the American people are going to be so fed up with all these destructive progressive policies they will elect anyone who is not a democrat.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3    4 weeks ago

You call these charges ridiculous.   Not that the process is unconstitutional but rather that it is 'ridiculous' to accuse Trump (with the power of the presidency) of working his followers up into a frenzy based on months of demonstrable lies.    Trump engaged in a massive con and you deem holding him accountable for this to be 'ridiculous'.

Unbelievable Vic.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.3.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @12.3.1    4 weeks ago

You are going to hear something unbelievable T;G at some point in this "trial."  

You are going to hear the words of Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer and Kamala Harris. We shall see what you think they were doing and if you think they should be impeached?

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Participates
12.3.3  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.2    4 weeks ago

So the racoons came out to trash the system and the plan is to blame it on squirrels ... sheesh ... @!@

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.3.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @12.3.3    4 weeks ago

If we are going to impeach based upon our interpretation of political speech, nobody should be exempt.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.3.5  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.2    4 weeks ago

In a trial of Trump, the actions and/or words of others are not relevant.   If they did something wrong then they should be impeached and tried.

A defense of hypocrisy or 'two wrongs make a right' is no defense at all ... it is deflection.

I remain surprised that you apparently think it ridiculous to hold Trump accountable for working his supporters into a frenzy for months with unabashed and demonstrably false lies and then encouraging them to march to the Capitol and fight because their votes and their president have been stolen from them.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.3.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @12.3.5    4 weeks ago
In a trial of Trump, the actions and/or words of others are not relevant. 

You better tell the Trump team. The focus will be the hypocrisy of those making the accusation.


A defense of hypocrisy or ' two wrongs make a right ' is no defense at all ... it is deflection.

No it's not. It's completely relevant in this case.

Here:

  • Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) in 2018 told supporters   , "If you see anybody from that [Trump] Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out, and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."

  • Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) in 2018 urged supporters   , "Get up and please get up in the face of some congresspeople."
  • Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said on Fox News that Trump defense lawyers could shame Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for "celebrating the violence that happened to me when I had six ribs broken and part of my lung removed."      Omar retweeted a comment by actor Tom Arnold       saying, "Imagine being Rand Paul's next door neighbor and having to deal with @RandPaul lying cowardly circular whiney bullcrap about lawn clippings. No wonder he ripped his toupee off." 

  • Paul also said Republicans should look to impeach members of Congress such as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer for inciting violence in the past   . In front of a crowd of supporters outside the Supreme Court in March 2020, Schumer warned Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch: "You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

  • Eric Holder, former President Obama's Attorney General, said, "When they go low, we kick them       … That's what this new Democratic Party is about." Holder later tweeted: "Ok, stop the fake outrage. I'm obviously not advocating violence. (In fact, when I was AG violent crime in the US was historically low.) I'm saying Republicans are undermining our democracy and Democrats need to be tough, proud and stand up for the values we believe in - the end." 




    Starting with Waters, how can you even compare what she said to Trump's Jan 6th speech in which he said go peacefully?



    I remain surprised that you apparently think it  ridiculous  to hold Trump accountable 

    Accountable?  Don't you mean a chance to prevent him from being a candidate again?  If that's all you care about, I'm hoping it's someone else in 2024 as well. Trump is too great a unifier and motivator for the democratic party. As I say, the dems will have alienated so many with their radical transformation of America, it may not make much difference by then.



 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.3.7  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.6    4 weeks ago
You better tell the Trump team. The focus will be the hypocrisy of those making the accusation.

You apparently agree with what they are doing.  

No it's not. It's completely relevant in this case.

See?  ⇡   You agree with them.  My original sentiments are still applicable.

Accountable?  Don't you mean a chance to prevent him from being a candidate again?  If that's all you care about, I'm hoping it's someone else in 2024 as well.

Well given I wrote accountable I think you should take that as my position.    But since you mentioned it, I am in favor of a vote to prevent him from running for any public office again.   So holding him accountable for his actions and preventing him from the opportunity to repeat same are both actions that I support.

Starting with Waters, how can you even compare what she said to Trump's Jan 6th speech in which he said go peacefully?

I despise Waters.   But put that aside because she is not on trial, Trump is.   So face the facts.   You just cherry-picked from his statement to make it seem as though he did not incite this mob.   Consider the entirety of what he said:

“These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long,” he wrote. “Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!

To not read the parts in blue is to engage in major league confirmation bias.   Trump, while ostensibly telling his supporters to go home, justified their anger by telling them they are right to be angry because they have been wronged.   He did not tell them to cease and desist, he told them that they were justified but now they must go home.

How can you possibly defend this guy?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.3.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @12.3.7    4 weeks ago
How can you possibly defend this guy?

I don't defend him for not accepting defeat.

I do defend him for his right to hold a rally.

I do defend him from being held responsible for what extremist groups planned in advance for what was supposed to be a peaceful protest. Sound familiar?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.3.9  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.8    4 weeks ago
I don't defend him for not accepting defeat.

Good.  

I do defend him for his right to hold a rally.

Well, of course he has the right to hold a rally/

I do defend him from being held responsible for what extremist groups planned in advance for what was supposed to be a peaceful protest. Sound familiar?

You ignore the fact that Trump spent months using the influence of the presidency working his supporters up into a frenzy over the fiction that he won in an landslide and that their votes and their president has been stolen from them through fraud.

How do you ignore this Vic?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.3.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @12.3.9    4 weeks ago
How do you ignore this Vic?

I'm not. Those are two separate issues. He never gave up on his belief that he was cheated. Perhaps it might have been better if we didn't have all those rule changes before the election.

On the other hand, he created a movement, which he gets to speak to. He can hold rallies and peaceful demonstrations. The old fashioned liberals used to regard that as our most basic right.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
12.3.11  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.2    4 weeks ago
You are going to hear the words of Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer and Kamala Harris. We shall see what you think they were doing and if you think they should be impeached?

We already did Vic. It was ridiculous. 

I presume that when you ask about Waters, Schumer and Harris being impeached, you are trying to imply that they are somehow guilty of incitement. Pray tell WHO did they incite and what crime did they commit? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.3.12  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.10    4 weeks ago
I'm not.

If that were the case then you would be arguing that Trump is clearly guilty of encouraging / justifying an attack on the Capitol and not taking action to stop it until much later.

Is Trump guilty —while holding the highest office in the land with all of its rights, privileges and powers of influence— of telling his supporters that the election was stolen and that they should fight like hell for their rights and never give up and that they should go to the Capitol where the steal was being confirmed?

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
12.3.13  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.6    4 weeks ago

Again, please cite WHO they incited and what crime was committed. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
12.3.14  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.6    4 weeks ago
Starting with Waters, how can you even compare what she said to Trump's Jan 6th speech in which he said go peacefully?

Didn't he speak for over an hour? He did mention the word "peaceful" ...once.

  • He started before the election claiming that the was rigged and was going to be stolen.
  • He lied to America daily and with increasing fervor, telling his suporters that the election had been ripped away from them and that he was the rightful winner. .
  • He called on his supporters to come to DC. "It'll Be Wild"
  • He told them to march down to the Capitol building.
  • He told them to fight like hell.
  • He told them that their country was being stolen from them.
  • Even the name of the final rally was "Save America March". Not Rally, March.

Any person who had the misfortune of believing this man would have been outraged and ready to march to the Capitol. Unfortunately, several thousand people headed his call and did march, did overrun the perimeter that had been set up and besieged the Capitol with hundreds of invaders who actually went inside the Capitol building with the expressed intent of disrupting the congress. 

There is no defending his actions or those of the mob that he engendered and set in motion. None what-so-ever.  Anyone who attempts to defend against these actions is complicit with the lies and complicit with these seditious acts. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.3.15  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @12.3.12    4 weeks ago

The only people I hold responsible were the groups who planned the attack - long before the speech you keep quoting from & interpreting:

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.3.16  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.15    4 weeks ago

Trump was setting the stage for the attack on the Capitol from Nov 4th on.  At least. You could argue he was setting the stage even before the election when he repeatedly was saying the only way he could lose is if it was stolen from him. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.3.17  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.15    4 weeks ago

By the same token, we can go back and look at all the claims by Trump that the only way he could lose is if the election was rigged.   And he was claiming that the election was fraudulent during the year of 2020.

Do you not remember this?   Do you (somehow) not see how Trump as PotUS is the instigator behind his supporters believing the election was stolen?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.3.18  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @12.3.16    4 weeks ago

Too late John, everyone made it about the speech - it's in the charges.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.3.19  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.18    4 weeks ago

Nope, it's not too late. Its all part of the same process. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
PhD Guide
12.3.20  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.8    4 weeks ago
I do defend him from being held responsible for what extremist groups planned in advance for what was supposed to be a peaceful protest

So you believe that everyone involved in the insurrection who attacked the capital and attempted to stop the certification and transfer of power had "planned in advance" to do so? That position simply is not supported by the facts. Were there extremist groups who had pre-planned their attack and led the crowd of thousands in the insurrection? Yes, of course, but they would not have been able to do what they did without the large crowd that showed up after marching down to the Capital at Trumps behest, and the crowd would not have followed the insurrection leaders had they not been worked into a frenzy by Donald Trump saying over and over again that the election was rigged, his Presidency was being stolen and they needed to "fight like hell" if they wanted to save their country.

Many in the crowd who have now been arrested have attested to the fact that they felt they were under direct orders from the President, that they had his blessing to go to the capital and "stop the steal" which they believed meant to stop the certification. Trump even threw Mike Pence under the bus and the crowd listened and declared him a traitor and chanted "Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!" simply because he was attempting to do his constitutional duty and certify legitimate election results.

The time to contest the election results had passed, the dozens and dozens of legal court challenges had been tossed out for having ZERO evidence of any election fraud or "rigging" or "stealing", yet dishonest Donald continued the lie, continued to rile up his base his false claims, with dangerous rhetoric, right up to within minutes of the attack on the Capital. And then it was 3 hours into the attack before Trump came out and made a statement half condemning the attack while also telling the attackers "we love you" and "you're very special".

The fact is, if this had been a Democrat President who had done such things every single conservative here would be outraged and supporting his immediate impeachment to ensure that such a vile seditionist could never again hold public office. But sadly we live in such divided partisan times, the conservatives here consistently defend, deflect and twist the facts in an effort to protect their wannabe Dictator so that he has a chance in the future to rise back into power, and I have no doubt those who are so loyal to this scum bag as to refuse to accept the facts will not hesitate in the future to come to his call and commit such heinous acts once again.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.3.21  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @12.3.17    4 weeks ago
Do you not remember this?  

I also remember long before that when Trump was warning the state legislatures in battle ground states about democrat lawyers filing hundreds of lawsuits to change election rules. The rule changes allowed things like PA allowing ballots to be counted up to the Friday after the election even if there’s wasn't a postmark. Nevada passed a bill requiring mail-in ballots to be sent to active, registered voters as a way to keep voters safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pennsylvania’s highest court gave the Democratic Party a series of victories, relaxing deadlines in its fledgling mail-in voting law, approving more ballot collection sites, and kicking the Green Party’s presidential candidate off the November ballot.

Did anyone heed the warning? Nope, the they sat back and the dems beat them.


Do you (somehow) not see how Trump as PotUS is the instigator behind his supporters believing the election was stolen?

He couldn't do it without the rule changes. Whether or not there was fraud, those rule changes favored democrats. Beyond that Time Magazine published a breathtaking story of what went on behind the scenes:

https://time.com/magazine/us/?fbclid=IwAR02kTXwD7PnzUdGPlzf8KOF_LUCextXSsYkK9k-N-iLyMs3T3z6LX6hBVEpage%2F2page%2F6page%2F7page%2F3page%2F3page%2F2page%2F2page%2F2page%2F3page%2F5page%2F4page/485

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
12.3.22  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.10    4 weeks ago

What rule changes?

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
12.3.23  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.21    4 weeks ago

You just can't stand that the former occupant of the White House essentially lost by a LANDSLIDE despite all their efforts to keep us from voting.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.3.24  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.21    4 weeks ago

Biden won this election legitimately, right?    Do you agree or not?    Trump lied to the world claiming he had legitimately won when in fact, the opposite is true.   Right?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
PhD Guide
12.3.25  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.21    4 weeks ago
He couldn't do it without the rule changes. Whether or not there was fraud, those rule changes favored democrats.

Were they illegal? How exactly did they favor Democrats? Were not Republicans allowed to vote by mail or any of the ways that the new rules allowed? The rules were amended because of the Corona virus, not because anyone was trying to make sure Trump lost. Anyone who believes it was specifically to help Democrats should show their evidence, not just stating their blatantly partisan opinion. And when you say "Whether or not there was fraud" you're just ignoring the fact that there WAS NO FRAUD as found over and over again in every case. To make your statement factual it should have read "There was no fraud and those rules could be used by any eligible voter in any political party."

The only evidence courts have found in recent years of rule changes specifically intended to help one party were those that found Republican legislators had requested data on voting patterns by race and, with that data in hand, drafted a law that would "target African-Americans" who Republicans know largely vote for Democrats "with almost surgical precision," according to the court. Now that's some racist disgusting election rule changes to favor one party over another. The rule changes made this year were made in an effort to help those who wanted to avoid crowds and possible exposure to a deadly virus to still be able to vote. And after dozens and dozens of court challenges they were found lawful and legitimate. Anyone still whining about the Corona virus election rule accommodations is just a sad sore loser.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
12.3.26  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.18    4 weeks ago

False Vic. The Article of Impeachment cites Trump's 'prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election.'

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
12.3.27  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.21    4 weeks ago
He couldn't do it without the rule changes.

Bullshit Vic. He said the same about the 2016 election, until he won... 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
12.3.28  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.3.27    4 weeks ago

Your gal Hillary Clinton claimed publicly that Trump was an illegitimate President and that he stole the election from her.

No huge outcry about her saying all that, was there?

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
12.3.29  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.28    4 weeks ago
Your gal Hillary Clinton claimed publicly that Trump was an illegitimate President and that he stole the election from her.

Link? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
12.3.30  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.3.29    4 weeks ago

look it up, it was an interview. surely you can find IF you look just a little!

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
12.3.31  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.3.29    4 weeks ago

if you are truly interested. look on abc the view and on CNN

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
12.3.32  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.30    4 weeks ago

YOU go look up 'burden of proof' and get back to me Tex. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
12.3.33  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.31    4 weeks ago

I have no interest in following your assertion down a rabbit hole Tex. 

Post a link. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Guide
12.3.34  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @12.3.33    4 weeks ago

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
12.3.35  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.3.33    4 weeks ago

and I have no interest in doing the research FOR you.

it doesn't matter in the least to me if you refuse to see what is readily available with a ten second Google search.

I have already looked it up before posting so at least one of us knows the truth.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
12.3.36  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @12.3.34    4 weeks ago

thanks, Jim!

Hard for me to post links from my phone. 

what did that take you--10 seconds to look up?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.3.37  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @12.3.24    4 weeks ago
Biden won this election legitimately, right?

As far as I know or anyone would know at this point.


Do you agree or not? 

Trump lied to the world claiming he had legitimately won when in fact, the opposite is true.   Right?


I wasn't thrilled with Trump’s speech at the time. I was against the challenge to the electoral votes and I thought the President’s false statements about the authority of Vice President Mike Pence to “send back” those votes did his cause a great disservice and misled people. However, I have to add that, without evidence of intent, this case of incitement should fail in the Senate. I've yet to see any evidence.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.3.38  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @12.3.34    4 weeks ago

Whatever she said, did she say it 10 times a day for 60 days straight? 

Trump is completely responsible for what happened on Jan 6th. Completely. Those people would not have even been there if Trump didnt ask them to come and "fight" to "save America" (aka him) . 

They should convict him tonight. We dont need any more evidence. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
12.3.39  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @12.3.38    4 weeks ago
We dont need any more evidence. 

You don't have any!

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
12.3.40  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @12.3.38    4 weeks ago

hell, you never needed ANY evidence!

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
12.3.41  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @12.3.34    4 weeks ago

Wow Jim, you are so right! Hillary Clinton sayin that almost 3 YEARS AFTER the election is EXACTLY like Trump saying it from the day of the election until the day he left office. /s

Oh and BTFW, where's the part about Trump stealing the election from her? Did I miss it? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
12.3.42  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.3.41    4 weeks ago

did you miss it?

did you bother to  look it up for your own self?

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
12.3.43  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.36    4 weeks ago

Thank him all you want but Jim didn't help you Tex. 

His and your claim is a false equivalency. 

But hey, cheer away...

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
12.3.44  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.3.43    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
12.3.45  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.42    4 weeks ago
did you miss it?

No Tex, I saw Jim's post supporting your false equivalency. 

did you bother to  look it up for your own self?

Why would I do that? You have the burden of proof. 

Oh and BTFW, still waiting for a link to Hillary Clinton saying that Trump stole the election from her. Tick tick tick.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
12.3.46  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.3.45    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.3.47  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.37    4 weeks ago
However, I have to add that, without evidence of intent, this case of incitement should fail in the Senate. I've yet to see any evidence.

Given the evidence (the lack of fraud evidence) and the actions Trump took (recorded, delivered) it is clear that Trump was lying to the world for months (and has never come clean).   His rhetoric clearly was designed to motivate his supporters into believing his lie and to act on that belief.   Not sure it is possible to offer better evidence than what has been presented thus far.

It is excuses like 'no evidence of intent' (as if it is ever possible to prove intent by going into another's mind) that will end up with Trump being acquitted due to partisan desires over-weighing objective reality.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
12.3.48  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.46    4 weeks ago

Well gee Tex, since your cheered Jim, I'll presume that's all you've got. 

Total fail.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
12.3.49  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.3.48    4 weeks ago

what you presume doesn't hold any interest for me.

I dont care if you believe the truth or not, doesn't hurt me any.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
12.3.50  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @12.3.41    4 weeks ago
Hillary Clinton sayin that almost 3 YEARS AFTER the election is EXACTLY like Trump saying it from the day of the election until the day he left office.

What Hillary did is much worse, of course.  She had known for THREE YEARS that Trump was legitimately elected, and still lied about it.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
12.3.51  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @12.3.37    4 weeks ago
However, I have to add that, without evidence of intent, his case of incitement should fail in the Senate.

the signs are all around you...

I've yet to see any evidence.

Sad.

Have you seen any evidence that, with a different outcome on 01/06/21, Donal Trump would have

refused a second term?

The evidence is all around you if you will look at it.

During the assault on the Capital, Trump & Giuliani both called Tommy Tubberville too ask him to

obstruct the certification process, not to ask about the security situation or the safety of Tubberville or Pence

or any other Congress person.

He only cared about winning at any cost, even if it cost the soul of our democracy.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
12.3.52  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @12.3.43    4 weeks ago

So cute!  Jim has his own cheerleader!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.3.53  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.40    4 weeks ago

Texan, tell me what about all this you want to debate me on. Just you and me, in our own words, no trolling. 

Donald Trump lied about the election every day, for more than 3 months. Every day, multiple times every day. It is ridiculously easy to prove that. 

Is it your opinion that his doing that for three months didnt "incite" anyone? 

People who were there that day SAID they were there because Trump asked them to be. He had been asking them for months to DO something to help him. 

Is he guilty in a criminal sense? That will be up to prosecutors and juries. 

Is he guilty of violating his oath of office, grievously ? Absolutely.  The Senate is well within its rights to convict him. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
12.3.54  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @12.3.53    4 weeks ago

. when you learn the difference between someone lying and inciting we can do that.

not any point until then.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
12.3.55  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.54    4 weeks ago

What a lame excuse to run from a challenge.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
12.3.56  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @12.3.55    4 weeks ago

sorry, I won't fall for childish taunts

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12.3.57  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.56    4 weeks ago
sorry, I won't fall for childish taunts

no you prefer to make them 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
12.3.58  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @12.3.57    4 weeks ago

ha ha ha you very funny!

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
12.3.59  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.3.50    4 weeks ago
What Hillary did is much worse, of course.  She had known for THREE YEARS that Trump was legitimately elected, and still lied about it.  

Sean, Hillary incited the sum total of ZERO people to commit crimes. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
12.3.60  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @12.3.51    4 weeks ago
However, I have to add that, without evidence of intent, his case of incitement should fail in the Senate.

Well since the permit for the 'rally' SPECIFICALLY states that there would be NO MARCH, and the first fucking thing that Trump said in his speech is that they were going to MARCH to the Capitol, that sure as hell looks like intent to me. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
12.3.61  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.3.54    4 weeks ago
when you learn the difference between someone lying and inciting we can do that.

Perhaps it would be more constructive if YOU learned that someone lying can incite people to commit crimes. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
12.3.62  Split Personality  replied to  Dulay @12.3.60    4 weeks ago
Well since the permit for the 'rally' SPECIFICALLY states that there would be NO MARCH

I believe  Congresswomen Diane Degette addressed that yesterday.

When Trump got involved by picking the orators and the order and the music, he,

Trump sent the Women for America First  back to modify the original permits to include the march to the Capital.

Even more intent by his own hand.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
12.3.63  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @12.3.62    3 weeks ago

The 'superseding' permit issued on Jan. 5th states that: 

Women for America will not conduct and organized march from the Ellipse at the conclusion of the rally. Some participants may leave to attend rallies at the United States Capitol to hear the results of Congressional certification of the Electoral College count. 

The permit states that the 'rally' was supposed to last until 3:30. 

NO ONE applied for or received a permit for a 'Rally' @ the United States Capitol. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
12.3.64  Thomas  replied to  Dulay @12.3.63    3 weeks ago

original

It was called a March, not a rally.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
12.3.65  Dulay  replied to  Thomas @12.3.64    3 weeks ago
It was called a March, not a rally.

What it was 'called' and what they were permitted to do are obviously 2 different things. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
12.4  dennis smith  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @12    4 weeks ago

Making excuses already?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
12.4.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  dennis smith @12.4    4 weeks ago

Excuses?  PREDICTIONS.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
12.4.2  dennis smith  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @12.4.1    4 weeks ago

You can call excuses whatever you want.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
12.4.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  dennis smith @12.4.2    4 weeks ago

Sure I can.  I'm not locked into having to support a bunch of selfish assholes who have no integrity, but you can call black white and hot cold, if that's what you want.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
12.4.4  dennis smith  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @12.4.3    3 weeks ago

Your comments show you are locked into having to support a bunch of selfish assholes who have no integrity. They are called Dem politicians.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
12.4.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  dennis smith @12.4.4    3 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
12.4.6  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  dennis smith @12.4.4    3 weeks ago

LOL.  I'm not "locked into" having to support anyone. At one time I supported Trump, but as proof that I'm NOT locked into supporting him or anyone else, I now despise him and consider anyone who would support him to be a fool.  As it happens YOUR consistent support of Trump indicates that YOU'RE the one who's "locked".  It's never too late to show that you have the ability to not be "locked", Dennis.  You need not stay on the "Dark Side".  There's still time to see the light, and do the right thing.  If Darth Vader could do it, so could you. 

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Principal
13  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu     4 weeks ago

trump always knew he would push the "Stop the steal" button when it was needed.

trump started o rchestrating his "Stop the Steel" Power grab gambit before he was even elected in 2016.

Never Underestimate trump ... EVER !

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
13.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @13    4 weeks ago

Trump planned on rolling out the ‘rigged election’ playbook when he got beat by Hillary Clinton.  Even he was shocked to learn that Americans were stupid enough to avoid that scenario by voting for the least qualified candidate to ever hold the office in that election.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Principal
13.1.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Hal A. Lujah @13.1    4 weeks ago

So True ... 

Then he had plenty of time to grow it and then use his plan on 01-06-21. 

This man is and has been a true danger to our democracy since BEFORE he even announced he was running. "Stop the Steel" was trump's trump card. 

AND was ignored by the masses.. Scarry !

IT backfired, trump trumped himself, the only way this could end !   

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
13.1.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @13.1.1    3 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Principal
13.1.3  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Thrawn 31 @13.1.2    3 weeks ago

I would have liked to have seen and possibly addressed this.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
13.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @13    4 weeks ago

Trump is a moron.

What you really mean is never underestimate how brainwashed many of his followers are. 

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Principal
13.2.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  JohnRussell @13.2    3 weeks ago

No John, I meant what I said. If I wanted to say what you say I did, I would have. 

I believe America needs liberals,conservatives,moderates and independents. 

IMO: America is stronger when we really do work together. And John, 

I think WE both can agree ... trumpetts we don't need.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
13.3  dennis smith  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @13    4 weeks ago

Please explain how you know what Trump knew.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Principal
13.3.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  dennis smith @13.3    3 weeks ago

Because it was a tool he used from the beginning.

If you look to see where a person was, and is ya can kinda see where they're headed. I walk with my eyes open cause I walk a political fence.                                          (And don't like to fall) ...lol 

Here is the web address that I used as my reference, I removed the https://  so it shows. This is a link to many articles about how trump started claiming if he doesn't win an election.. it's because it was stolen.

.bing.com/search?q=trump+2017+claims+voter+fraud+&form=CHRDEF&sp=-1&pq=trump+2017+claims+voter+fraud+&sc=0-30&qs=n&sk=&cvid=D63092F1F2384B14A4A49B46B735A07E

I'll also say that I think Biden is blowing it as well by some of his actions. 

Reality is Reality.  Words and Reality do matter. More than any party !!

 
 
 
dennis smith
Senior Silent
13.3.2  dennis smith  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @13.3.1    3 weeks ago

The article is from 2017 after he was already elected. Politicians have devolved into lies to keep their jobs.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Principal
13.3.3  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  dennis smith @13.3.2    3 weeks ago

Dennis, I know that's how far back trump was grooming his "Stop the steel" crap though. 

I have little doubt this tactic was originally Not trump's idea though. 

Great children's gambit,  "Mommy, I lost, the win was stolen."

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Principal
14  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu     4 weeks ago

trump ruled by intimidation and fear he still tries to, plans to and will.

Rightfully so, many republican politicians still fear what trump can, could and may still do to their careers.

Not to mention, trump always leaves a trail of tears in his wake. 

Ask the inserectioners sitting in jail tonight. 

trump trumped trump ... let it end here !!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
14.1  Raven Wing  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @14    4 weeks ago

Hey steve! It's good to see you here again. You have been sorely missed. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

many republican politicians still fear what trump can, could and may still do to their careers

Given that kind of fear, I wonder how many more years those Republicans will be afraid of Trump and what they perceive what he can do to their careers. 5? 10? 20 years? IMHO, if they are that afraid of Trump they should just retire from their seats, or just not run for re-election again. 

What those Republicans should fear far more than Trump are those who will be casting their votes in the future elections, because the voters carry a lot more power than a disgraced ex-President. So their caving to Trump out of fear for their careers can be a real turn off for the voters.

JMOO

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Principal
14.1.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Raven Wing @14.1    4 weeks ago

Hello back to you Raven and Good to see you as well. I've missed being here. Thanks for the Welcome back.  

"What those Republicans should fear far more than Trump are those who will be casting their votes in the future elections."

True True true... and at this time trump still has a great deal of influence on what those future voters do and who they will vote for.

 To revise my post I may have should have said "afraid of trumpism"

Thanks Raven, Good point.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
14.1.2  Raven Wing  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @14.1.1    4 weeks ago
 To revise my post I may have should have said "afraid of trumpism"

I totally agree, steve. That seems to be another divisive cult here in America, much like the Peoples Temple, Heavens Gate, Branch Dividian and other such radically extremist cults that seems to make the rounds ever so many years. 

The biggest difference in my opinion, is these cults, such as White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, Proud Boys, etc, are out to hurt and/or kill those who disagree with their extremist beliefs, unlike the religious cults that wind up hurting or killing their own. 

In a similar way, Trump has become a cult leader whose supporters have also become as killers of those who refuse to accept him as their god. And they will only grow larger if the American people themselves do not stand up and refuse to accept it. The government can only do so much, and they will need the support of the true American people to bring these cults to a halt. 

Again, just my own opinion.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Principal
14.1.3  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Raven Wing @14.1.2    3 weeks ago
The government can only do so much, and they will need the support of the true American people to bring these cults to a halt. 

True, however as a civilized society we can only do so much to influence others thoughts. 

IMO: IF we can legally bar trump from ever taking power in America again at this time I think that would be a reasonable move.

Cults need a leader or they fracture and hold little power over the rest.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
14.2  Tessylo  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @14    4 weeks ago

It is nice to see you Steve.  It's been a long time.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Principal
14.2.1  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Tessylo @14.2    4 weeks ago
HI Tessylo, and Thank you. 
Good to see you here. I looked when I first signed back in but didn't see you or some of the other familiar really open-minded people that I remembered their screen names. lol But I never have been good with any names. So...
I did check in on and off during the time I was gone and was glad too see the site still up and people enjoying it.
Good to see you are still here. I missed coming here, but I was involved in other endeavors and I took a much needed long break from all social media.
I had put much time, effort, thought and myself online trying to be real and point out what I saw as reality during the 2016 election and aftermath on chatrooms I was burnt out.
I hate dealing with lies, dishonesty, cheetiers and cheating, manipulating and manipulators and hard nosed close minded individuals.
I also had much to do to secure my retirement at a better level.
Recently, I was on the Fox News website and "accidently" found myself on the news comment section chat-room and SOON I knew it was time to come see you all here again. 
End of story.
PS: Good ta be back and I hope we never go thru another trumpism terroristic 4 years ever again !  
WORDS DO MATTER, Truth does MATTER !!                                             Reality eventually demands so ! 
jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif
PS: Tessylo Thanks again for the welcome back. Glad to be back. Steve 

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
14.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @14.2.1    4 weeks ago

I understand about the social media burnout.  I sometimes spend way too much time here.  

Good to see ya!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online






Gazoo
Gordy327


28 visitors