Fair is Foul and Foul is Fair
After 8 hours of watching films of rioters breaking into the Capitol building and reading statements to the media from witnesses that should have been interviewed by House investigators one can only hope that this farce ends soon. House impeachment managers played Trump's Jan 6th speech focusing in on certain words and interpreting what they meant. Ironically, Rep. Jamie Raskin, the leading impeachment manager, was once criticized for using “fight like hell” in a 2019 interview with The Atlantic — the very words he & others replayed repeatedly from Trump. It was a phrase Raskin used frequently in his political career.
The high point of all this blatant hypocrisy was Pelosi's choice of Eric Swalwell as impeachment manager. Swalwell is infamous for incendiary rhetoric, false claims about Donald Trump, disturbing legal claims and even downplaying Senator Susan Collins revelations about death threats. Swalwell has also been involved with a Chinese spy. Something that Nancy Pelosi has basically ignored.
As Americans, many of whom have suffered during the pandemic, watch this political side show, I can't help wonder if they are able to distinguish between who are the accused and those making the accusations. As it has become well known that the attack was planned before the President's speech, democrats began moving goal posts. It is no longer important if the President intentionally incited the mob. Now they seem to be saying that if his words were reckless, he is still responsible for a riot that was planned by extremist groups before January 6th. The problem is that the impeachment article does not charge him with recklessly causing a riot or threatening Congress; it claims there was an effort to overthrow our government.
The moral of all this is don't impeach with a knee jerk snap impeachment aimed at nailing a President on his way out the door. Take impeachment seriously. It is not a weapon to be used against our political opponents. In all likelihood Republicans will retake the House of Representatives in 2022. Under the current precedents established by Nancy Pelosi, there will be enormous pressure on them to start removing certain democrats from committees and with ongoing investigations by John Durham and another looking at Hunter Biden, there may even be pressure to impeach Joe Biden.
Another day of hypocrisy and gaslighting.
Seems like some can't handle the truth, Vic
yeah, they're still trying to overturn the results of the last election for the king of the birthers.
Progressives?
The comments speak for themselves.
It kind of proves what I said in the article.
Sounds like someone has been hovering through the fog and filthy air of Hannity ...
Sounds like somebody can't contest the conclusions.
Consider it a not so subtle grammatical dig ... you'll figure it out eventually.
You don't mean Hannity, do you?
I think you are referring to a warning from a House member.
Today the democrats will present another 8 hours of what they define as "evidence." Mercifully it is the final day for presenting their case.
They are expected to present (get this) what they described as "his lack of remorse."
Indeed, then 2 days of Donnie's lawyers and their non-lack of nonsense.
How would you like to have them for lawyers? I think Trump's hair must be standing straight up.
No self respecting lawyer would take his case. He's a lying, cheating, deadbeat con man.
When I first saw them the other day, it reminded me of an old comedy where the accused looks at his lawyer incredulously asking "that's my lawyer?"
The lawyers defense was "look at this poor harmless soul, who clearly didn't know any better!"
Trump should sue his barber for that idiotic comb-over.
I love to watch you spin, Vic. It really is Quite Amusing.
The overwhelming volume of evidence from before the election until January 6th points towards one thing: Donald Trump lied to his followers telling them that the election was stolen from he and they, and on the last supposedly possible day to "Stop the Steal" he told all of them to show up for a "Save America March." because it was going to be "Wild." Then, after three hours of speeches designed to fire up his supporters by retelling the same lies, telling them to never give up, and that the only way to save democracy was to fight like hell, he told them to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol. All throughout his presidency, demonstrations of support for him were usually tinged with violence. These are the facts. To NOT think that something was going to happen along just these lines was not normal. To dissemble and not admit that the people were all there at Trumps behest would be disingenuous at best.
The question is what Trump said not how the crowd perceived it. Beyond that we now know that the attack was planned before Trump made his speech.
These are the facts.
They are the facts. You can argue that what Trump did was wrong, but does it rise to an impeachable offense? I say NO.
Vic, Trump has shown, beyond any shadow of a doubt that he is not fit to hold public office. THAT is the main reason he should be convicted at this point.
The right is in utter denial of this truth.
John, that is an opinion. The past election showed how divided we are as to that opinion.
THAT is the main reason he should be convicted at this point.
That is ridiculous. Don't be surprised if the results of the Hunter Biden investigation causes Biden to be impeached in a few years. You have that bar now set so low, it's become nothing more that a vote of confidence for future majorities.
You have no credibility and your comments are wildly inaccurate.
Enough with the personal attacks. Take it somewhere else.
Your wildly inaccurate comments lack credibility!
Opinions held in the face of overwhelming facts are not credible opinions. The fact that many Trump supporters to continue to hold them just means they placed false hope in Trump.
Sadly, I doubt that it will happen.
How can anyone possibly say that violating his oath of office, as he clearly did, is not impeachable?
Anyone with half a brain feared that there was going to be violence, and they were proven right.
It does not matter if groups were preplanning violence, at all. From what I have seen, small, disparate groups were planning violence independently of each other. This was not a small group that overran the Capitol. They were thousands of Trump supporters who came at the behest of Trump to stall and hopefully overturn the constitutional process. Period. He abrogated his responsibility to the Congress, to the People of the United States, to his followers and, most importantly, to the CotUS which he was oathbound to uphold and defend.
The only way that anyone could not see that Donald Trump is guilty of betraying his oath and should be impeached is if they are delusional or just plain lying.
Incredible, is it not, that someone can observe what took place and not recognize that Trump abused his office to work his supporters into a frenzy based on lies that their votes were violated and that their president was robbed of his second term and that they must fight and never back down for what is right.
How is that not a violation of the oath of office for a PotUS to use his power of influence (which comes from the office) to go against the government of the USA?
Partisanship rots the brain.
Agreed. Some of the vid they showed was really disturbing.
Even after all that has happened, whether someone wants to believe donald or not, even now they are just planning on what they can do as revenge.
Really sick and scary.
donald has lied to them over and over yet they continue to be so programmed they know no other way to be.
Everyone be damned but them.
Got a clue for you. Trump does not currently hold any public office.
The left is a prime example of that.
Do you understand the difference between ideology and partisanship? 'The left' is not a party.
Ok then the Democrats area prime example.
Not all Ds are partisans (and not all Rs are partisans). Being a member of a party does not ipso facto make one partisan.
Time for Act 3, Scene 3
Oh god Lord, is it time to exhume Thomas Becket again ...? "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" has become 'Will no patriot rid me of these vote stealers'?
Now they are down to trying to convict Trump for being a lousy person.
Trump supporters would be well-advised to cease trying to defend the indefensible and work to distance the R party from Trump. The evidence is overwhelming that Trump violated his oath of office. To not see this is ... remarkable ... IMO.
Supporters keep making the lamest excuses while ignoring the key point. Trump violated his oath of office by encouraging supporters with a campaign of lies starting early in 2020 —and reaching absurd levels after he lost— to fight because they were wronged (their votes violated) and their duly elected president has had the presidency stolen from him. Blatantly. Demonstrably. The evidence is contained in videos and tweets from him directly. His own words and actions.
Watching the trial, it is difficult to imagine how anyone could look past the facts and defend Trump.
The vocal Trump supporters think they can just talk their way out of this.
Seems stupid, as a strategy. There is no defense of Trump in this case. The smart move would be to admit to the facts rather than deny and to distance oneself from Trump. Take the high road and go with the undeniable truth rather than take a cue from Trump and try to prop up a ridiculous false scenario as truth.
If one does not have a real defense one engages in deflection, lying, etc. Asking for evidence is simply the tactic of faux obtuseness — not recognizing anything as evidence in the (bizarre) hope that nobody will notice that the evidence is overwhelming.
Pretending there is no evidence is a stupid tactic. It is a loser.
That is foolish. It will further weaken the R party.
Trump was already convicted for being a lousy person a long time ago.
That's how the majority of Americans felt for the last four years.
Just as Trumps base did when they listened to it apparently focusing on the "fight like hell" words as they then marched down to the Capital building and participated in an insurrection.
It's all about context. Here are Raskin's statements in regards to Trumps Presidency “Let’s hope for the best, be prepared for the worst, and go fight like hell for the Constitution,” and “We’ve got to wake up every day and fight like hell for liberal democracy, not just in Maryland, not just in the United States, but all over the world.”
In neither of those statements is he addressing a crowd of supporters asking them to go to a specific place at a specific time but obviously meant "fight like hell" in a political sense. With Trumps speech it was an obvious call to action that day:
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
“We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal.”
“We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Obviously few of his supporters focused on the "peacefully" part but many focused on the "fight like hell" part.
If you're confused about who the accused is then there really isn't anything anyone can do to help you.
If that's what you're reading into this I can only feel sad for you as that is blatantly false.
Yes, as any competent prosecutor would do they are showing his pattern of violent rhetoric that led these groups to believe they had been effectively sanctioned by the President to lead an insurrection.
The fact is that President Trump has been trying to overthrow our government by every means possible since he realized he lost the election, bigly. He has threatened State officials, demanded they find just enough votes to overturn the free and fair election results, continued to lie to his supporters about there being massive election fraud which has never been found, asked his supporters to show up on January 6th to "stop the steal" and then incited them with violent rhetoric to march to the capital building and stop the certification of a free and fair election that he lost.
Trump and those who defend him obviously have forgotten what morals are and to wait to impeach would have been a dereliction of duty. For patriotic democracy loving Americans there was no other choice in response to Trumps vile violent words and the actions of those who took his words at face value and attempted an insurrection on his behalf. Who exactly would have supposedly been the President if their insurrection was successful? Would it have been Viking dude? Of course not, they were trying to overthrow the government on Trumps behalf. Holding Trump accountable for both inciting the violence and then waiting hours while it happened to make any statement let alone one that would condemn the violence, no he waited for the outcome and then came out and told them he loved them and told them they were "very special people", not one word of condemnation, not one word during the insurrection demanding they stop the violence and "stand down", his supporters even read aloud one of his tweets sent during the insurrection that condemned Mike Pence for not stopping the certification so they were listening, he could have easily at any point tweeted a command for them to stop their violent actions. Instead, there are reports he was rather happy with the results and was wondering why more in his cabinet weren't as excited about it as he was. The obvious moral thing to do by real Patriots was to immediately start impeachment proceedings.
That's simply Republican fever dream opinion. It's far more likely that the Republican party will look nothing like it does today as more and more sane Americans leave the party to flounder and fail under the ignorant handling of half witted moronic Trump loyalists.
"John Durham and another looking at Hunter Biden, there may even be pressure to impeach Joe Biden."
More hilariously flawed pointless opinion. Durham has been investigating Democrats and the FBI since April of 2019 and you've been claiming we'll be seeing Democrats falling due to the investigation for nearly two years now. How many have been prosecuted? How many have been removed from office again? How many were proven to have done anything illegal? Oh yeah, zero, zip, nil, zilch, nada. Two years and you're still hanging your hat on some comeuppance occurring to prove you right yet all you've got is a whole truck load of bupkis. The Republican led Senate investigation did in fact find numerous ties between the Trump campaign and the Russians which clearly justified the investigation, but Trump supporters don't want to hear about that, they want to stick their fingers in their ears and close their eyes and chant "John Durham, John Durham, John Durham..." over and over again as if that will magically make all the uninformed bullshit they've been spouting for years come true and exonerate their dear Leader. I hate to tell you this, but it's just not going to happen, John Durham hasn't found shit because there's no more rocks to turn over, there is no deep state, there are no nefarious Democrats controlling things behind the scenes making shit up to accuse Trump with, the accusations were well founded and investigation warranted no matter how much his little spineless supporters whine and snivel about it. Just accept the facts, Trump has been a scum bag loser from the very start and there is nothing that will ever change that glaringly obvious fact.
Facts say otherwise. Extremists planned the attack in advance of Jan 6th.
but obviously meant "fight like hell" in a political sense.
So did Donald Trump. See how that works?
Yes, as any competent prosecutor would do they are showing his pattern of violent rhetoric that led these groups to believe they had been effectively sanctioned by the President to lead an insurrection.
Let's see how good they prosecute
The fact is that President Trump has been trying to overthrow our government
Not the government. He is disputing election results.
For patriotic democracy loving Americans there was no other choice in response to Trumps vile violent words and the actions of those who took his words at face value and attempted an insurrection on his behalf.
Who are the democracy loving Americans? Those who never got over the 2016 election? Those who spied on Donald Trump and his associates for the better part of 3 years? Those who rioted all summer and burned, looted & murdered in big blue American cities, those who are trying to censor & cancel half the country?
That's simply Republican fever dream opinion.
I'll go out on a limb on that one. After 2 years of radical, lefty, big brother, they'll put on their sneakers and run to the polls!
He accused, hundreds of times, various election officials in various states of stealing the election from him.
If I had a million dollars to give away, I would give it to Trump if he came forward and in his own words , today, gave us a concrete account of any votes being stolen from him. Where and how and by who. He mentioned it hundreds of times so I am sure he has all sorts of factual information about the vote theft on the tip of his tongue. Let's hear it.
What do you think Vic, is Trump capable of that today? Not will he do it, is he capable of it? Of course not.
Trump followers can stick that "he is just disputing the election" shit where the sun don't shine.
And progressives can stick their unproven incitement charge right up Eric Swalwell's treasonous ass.
And they accused him hundreds of times of working with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton. Adam Schiff went on TV multiple times claiming he had irrefutable evidence that he never produced. What's the difference?
Several of them - to this day - go around saying that the governor's race in Georgia was stolen from Stacey Abrams. What's the difference?
If they're all full of shit, where is the justice in punishing just one person?
I'm still waiting for that bombshell Hawaii report on Obama.
There are actually many examples of politicians using language like this and worse. If the prosecution really hangs on this kind of thing, I hope the defense plays lots of video of sitting members of Congress using the same language. Because it's out there.
One of these days hypocrisy will matter to somebody in power.
Like Otero County, NM. Commissioner Republican Couy Griffin who was arrested for illegally entering the capital on January 6th who back in May had proclaimed in front of cameras "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat" which was retweeted by Trump who thanked him for his support and sentiment. Perhaps we should take their violent rhetoric more seriously before something like the insurrection happens, but many on the right scream and whine about their 1st amendment right to free speech as an excuse to make violent statements. Thankfully, few of those violent statements incite an insurrection, but it's clear that on that day Trump had gathered up the timbers, poured on the lighter fluid and lit the match that led to the violent insurrection, our capital building vandalized, our legislators fleeing for their lives and at least 5 dead. Not holding Trump accountable would be a complete abdication and dereliction of our representatives duty to the constitution and the law.
If it were up to me, I would prefer no politician used language like that. But many of them do, and it goes back to the beginning of the country. It's also the kind of thing protected by the First Amendment, unless it passes the test for incitement.
Wouldn't the context, the time and place and the outcome be determinate of whether it passes the test for incitement? If the comments are made on a specific day when the person called for supporters to gather, then gave them the command to march down to a specific place and told them to "fight like hell" to stop something and then the supporters doing as directed, "fighting like hell" in an attempted insurrection, directly trying to carry out the will of the speaker on their behalf be enough to meet that test?
Yeah, I think that's definitely an argument you can make. One of the elements of the test is that the crowd be incited to imminent criminal behavior. So, time is definitely a factor. However, if you're going to stress the words, "fight like hell," it's also fair to highlight the fact that he told the crowd to be peaceful and orderly.
He said that hours after they had violently stormed the Capitol.
Trump had engaged in a campaign all year to deem the election a fraud. Once he lost, he went into overdrive arguing that the election was stolen and whipping his supporters into a frenzy. The president of the USA told them that their votes were violated and that their president was illegitimately denied a second term. The full power and influence of the presidency went towards a 61 lawsuit con job on the American people.
A few statements on being peaceful does not counteract the balance of facts. Note also that his peaceful comments and typically intermixed with 'you have been wronged, but ...'.
It does not take a lot of hard-thinking to see how easy it would be for a PotUS to influence a small army of his not-particularly-brilliant emotional supporters who would then predictably act violently since they were wronged and the PotUS had told them so.
No, he actually said it during the speech. Actually, he said patriotically, not orderly. Whatever. The point is he told people to be peaceful when they marched to the capitol. He also told them to make their voices heard. He didn't say anything about breaking in, breaking windows or doors, attacking someone, or being physically violent in any way.
It casts reasonable doubt on the assertion that he wanted people to be violent. But more than that, that he wanted people to violently overthrow the government.
I think Trump wanted whatever it took to get Pence and Congress to overturn the electoral college vote and make him president again. It didnt need to be peaceful it just needed to be successful.
A lot of people don't realize what Trump really wanted from all this "voter fraud" bs. He didnt want a re-vote, he wanted state legislatures to order that an alternative slate of electors be sent for Congress approval and because Republicans held the senate he was hoping he would get re-appointed in a standoff.
Trump actually and literally wanted to invalidate the votes of tens of millions of people and replace their votes with his electors.
He is a despicable human being and those who support him will get their karma someday.
Of course. That's basically what Democrats wanted in 2016 when they pleaded with electors to be unfaithful. Politicians want to be able to control their fate. They say they want every vote counted, but they don't mean it.
If it's despicable for him, it should be despicable for anyone.
Okay, you are correct. He used the word peacefully once in a speech where the rhetoric was all about the election being stolen and the need to fight for the nation.
Spending months working supporters into a frenzy with 61 lawsuits and constant lies crying election fraud is not mitigated by a single use of 'peacefully'. The overriding message by Trump is: the president of the United States is telling his supporters that their votes have been violated, the election has been stolen and that they must fight (never give up) for the nation.
Illustrating this graphically:
FIGHT: STOP THE STEAL!
peacefully
Uh, no.
So you ignore the hundreds of tweets from Trump that called for just that.
You don't invite every violent right wing group in the US and expect peace.
He had also spent the last couple of months using every legal means at his disposal. And the march on the Capitol was - in that same spirit - explicitly intended to persuade Congress and the VP to do something legal on his behalf, not to put guns to their heads.
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm not suggesting anything be ignored. I am looking at the totality of evidence - good and bad - and not just the stuff that fits the narrative of one side.
To the extent he has invited anyone to anything, I'm pretty sure he has invited those people to dozens (hundreds?) of events where he has spoken. This is the first time anybody stormed a government building afterward.
He filed 61 lawsuits (all but one frivolous) as part of his con job. That is not a feather in his cap, it is simply one dimension of Trump's irrational attempts to (at least pretend to) change the results of the election. It is all part of the big con job. And another critical part of the con job was Trump continually telling his supporters through words and through optics such as these lawsuits that they have been wronged and inspiring them to help him right these wrongs.
The fact that he tried to stay within the law means that he is not a fool. Of course he will try to avoid doing illegal actions. Getting caught in illegal acts comes with a big penalty. So trying every legal avenue is a no-brainer; he does not get credit for not breaking the law.
Ultimately, Trump pushed his con to the point where he, as PotUS, using the power of his office, encouraged his supporters to fight like hell for their rights and never give up because the USA election system is rigged, flawed, fraudulent and that they will not see his second term because of this. He convinced these people that they were wronged and named those who were engaging in this wrong.
This seems like a solid example of what would cause a PotUS to be impeached.
If you cant see the difference between a few pro forma objections in 2016, including none by the candidate herself, and the ghastly spectacle created by President Trump over the course of the two months between Nov 4 and jan 6 , god help ya.
What person, let alone Hillary Clinton the candidate, tweeted or spoke at rallies hundreds of times saying the election had been stolen from Clinton? What person let alone the candidate initiated 61 lawsuits about the election in 2016? What person let alone the candidate clinton called up a state election official with veiled threats about criminal investigations of that election official unless he "found" enough votes in that state to turn it in Clinton's favor ? What person alleged that voting machine manufacturers had corrupted the COUNT to the extent that the voting machine companies retaliated to the tune of billion dollar lawsuits?
Your m.o. is often to either say that something Trump does is commonplace by everyone, or else is a minor thing of little significance. You have done this over and over on this site. For gods sakes, enough is enough.
Oh, one more thing. Hillary Clinton conceded the election in 2016 the next day with a phone call to president-elect Trump. Trump still hasnt conceded the 2020 election to Biden. Tell us again about how similar they are Tacos.
Right. As opposed to say . . . starting 61 riots.
I'm not suggesting his campaign was right or good. But it is a strong pattern of peaceful, lawful action.
It's not "of course" - not if he is of a mind to overthrow the government, as has been alleged. We can't have it both ways. We can't accuse him of being the biggest criminal against the country since Benedict Arnold and simultaneously acknowledge that he is trying as hard as he can to obey the law. He might pushing the fringes of what is legal, but we don't prosecute people for that, typically.
He does if prosecutors are trying him on his character and trying to establish a pattern.
Pretty much every politician does that.
It's enough for me to want him to never hold office again. Listen, if you want to convince me he's bad person and a bad president, save your preaching. I was convinced of that in 2017. But all of this is not enough for me to say he committed insurrection, incitement to insurrection, or any other crime he's currently accused of.
She did better than that.
From her concession speech:
“I’m sorry that we did not win this election for the values we share and the visions we hold for our country,” she said. “But I feel pride and gratitude for this wonderful campaign that we built...You represent the best of America and being your candidate has been one of the greatest honors of my life.”
Addressing the disappointment faced by her supporters, Clinton said, “This is painful and it will be for a long time.”
But the Democratic nominee urged Americans to “accept this result” and the peaceful transfer of power.
“Donald Trump is going to be our president,” she said. “We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.”
I'm sure she had to dig deep to get the words out, but it's still a fine example of how to lose graciously. The inference of 'country over party' should also be noted.
Source
You're joking. In addition to much of the Left pleading with the electors to go against the requirements of their states, then plotting impeachment before he was even sworn in, and screaming at the sky for a few months, the candidate herself went on a one-woman show world tour to tell her story of how the election was stolen from her by an endless list of wrongdoers.
Remember that one-woman tour I referenced? That shit was still going on four years later in 2020.
Hillary Clinton: Trump is an ‘illegitimate president’
Hillary Clinton Maintains 2016 Election ‘Was Not On the Level’: ‘We Still Don’t Know What Really Happened’
'You can have the election stolen from you,' Hillary Clinton warns 2020 Democrats
Clinton urges Americans to vote so 'Trump can't steal' the election – video
Hillary Clinton just floated the possibility of contesting the 2016 election
And that talk infected her followers.
Computer scientists say they have strong evidence election was rigged against Clinton in three key states
Many Democrats think that the 2016 election result was rigged
I mean you can go on and on and on. Democrats - and especially Hillary Clinton herself - have spent four years trying to convince the world that the 2016 election was wrongfully stolen from them.
What good does that do? It doesn't mean anything when she then spent the next four years telling everyone Trump cheated.
You seem to be arguing that because Trump used legal means to challenge the election that this means he did not abuse the powers of his office by working his supporters into a frenzy for most of 2020 but at a furious pace after he had lost. This impeachment is not about Trump engaging in illegal actions, it is about the violation of his oath of office. He used the power of influence of the presidency to perpetrate a national con job that claimed the USA election was rigged, that his supporter's votes were violated and that their president's second term was robbed from them. He, as president of the USA, with all the power and authority that office provides, told his supporters to never stop fighting to save the country.
This is not about Trump acting overtly in an illegal fashion. It is about abuse of office, using his powers and authority against the very government that he was supposed to lead.
Yes, Trump was not stupid enough to tell his supporters in specific overt language to engage in a riot, break windows, etc. That is not what the article of impeachment states. See above.
The character and the pattern established were not that he acted illegally but violated the oath of office. Acting within the law does not count; we expect him to act within the law. The fact that he is not being charged with a crime does not in any way make his impeachable offense any less.
Degree Tacos. Trump was the PotUS. That is a major league position of power, authority and influence. When the PotUS says something, his supporters often will take it as the truth. The PotUS is the uber authority figure in our nation. Thus what the PotUS says and how s/he says it is critical. Not every politician has the power to work up so many people into a frenzy and get them to believe that their government is corrupt, their election was a fraud, their votes were violated and their president's second term was stolen.
That would work for me too.
Preaching? You are making an argument and I am rebutting. You are reframing this situation into softer terms and I am challenging that. You see this as not a big deal; that this insurrection was not a product of Trump's words and actions. I see this as a perfect example of why impeachment is in the CotUS.
Then the bar for conviction is almost unreachable.
How? What presidential powers did he exercise, what power and authority did he flex to get something that no other candidate could have used?
Critics and impeachment managers have made much of Trump's call to "fight," citing it as evidence of incitement.
You acknowledge that he has operated within the law, but he simultaneously somehow violated his oath of office? That doesn't make sense.
Yes. It's supposed to be hard.
I have explained this repeatedly in my comments.
Yes, evidence is added together into a whole. So merely using the word 'fight' is not in itself evidence of incitement. If one looks at one dimension of a situation and ignores the balance, one will not get a true picture.
You do not understand that one can violate an oath of office without breaking the law? Again, I have already explained this in my comments, but read the oath of office for the PotUS. I am sure you can see how this can be violated without breaking the law ( Article II, Section 1 ):
Trump provided an example of breaking his oath of office without breaking the law. He used his authority to convince (and raise the emotions of) millions of people that their government had corruptly allowed the election to be stolen. His actions were in opposition to the CotUS because there was no fraud that would change the election. He caused a lot of emotion based on complete bullshit and did so throughout 2020 and with a fury once he lost the election.
But not unreachable — the word I used.
It’s worse than that. It’s not evidence of incitement at all. It is political rhetoric that is so common, Trump’s defense team was able to run video of the current president, VP, and several members of Congress using that word or the phrase “fight like hell” dozens of times, and they were all fairly recent examples.
Even a cursory examination of the context around those words in Trump’s speech reveal them to be mere rhetoric and not a call to violence or unlawful behavior in any way. To claim otherwise is - to use one of your favorite phrases - intellectually dishonest.
No, he didn’t. His authority was not used at all. He used his popularity. He used his notoriety. His authority was not a factor.
Plenty of Democrats have done the same thing over the years. None of them ever get punished for it, much less accused of violating an oath.
Having an opinion about politics (no matter how wacky) - specifically that there was election fraud - is in no way a violation of the Constitution.
I’m not impressed. See: “Trump Russia scandal” for another example of politicians causing a lot of emotion over complete bullshit. In fact, there are many examples in our history of politics, and I think you know that.
You also used the word “almost” in front of it, which is what I responded to. “Almost unreachable.” Kinda weird that you selected to forget that just now.
Evidence is gathered and used in context. A single piece of evidence is not necessarily meaningful. Placed in context of other evidence it may indeed be meaningful. Repeating myself, isolating a single item of evidence and then dismissing it is faulty analysis.
Wow, Tacos! you really are bending over backwards to defend Trump. Repeating myself again, the office of the presidency carries with it great authority. When the PotUS says something it is taken by many millions to be truth. That is the result of authority. Anyone who holds the office of PotUS has that authority and they should thus be careful with what they say.
Plenty of people have done things far worse than Trump. Irrelevant. We are talking about the article of impeachment. We are talking about a PotUS. It does not matter what other people have done.
Of course not. But that is not what I argued.
I am aware that you are dismissing much of what has taken place.
You have got to be kidding.
Not at all. I very much disapprove of what he has done regarding the election. But my disapproval does not mean I think he should be legally banned from office for it. And that opinion is not a defense of Trump. It is an opinion of appropriate justice.
For example, I also don't think every crime deserves the death penalty. But that doesn't mean I defend criminal behavior.
It's irrelevant unless you believe in fair and equal justice, like I do.
It absolutely matters. The president has the same rights to free speech as anyone else. In fact, there is some case law to support the idea that he actually has a little freedom than other people because he is an elected official speaking on politics. It is the kind of speech most central to what the 1st Amendment is intended to protect.
It also matters what members of Congress do. They take a nearly identical oath to that of the president. So if Trump has violated his oath, then so have they. Even if they can't be impeached, you won't even say you disapprove of the same behavior in them. You excuse it. It's hypocrisy. It's a double standard.
It is precisely what you argued when you said:
Because that means you're saying there would be no violation if he was right about the fraud. That can't be the standard.
I think he's wrong about the fraud. I also think he's so narcissistic that he can't envision a world where he would lose an election absent fraud. So maybe he's mentally unstable in that way? Possibly. I'm not a psychiatrist. But I do think it's not a violation of his oath, nor is it incitement to insurrection.
We have to say what things really are and treat them in the way our laws demand. We can't just go for the most severe penalty because we're feeling really pissed off. That's not justice. That's how lynch mobs work.
Not at all. I just don't think it's criminal on the part of Trump or warrants permanent banishment.
I thought you were in favor of him being banned from office.
Then one should be comparing Trump to other PotUS' because nobody but a PotUS has anything close to that level of political authority and trust. And the comparison would be in terms of the oath of office for a PotUS and the actions taken. Even then, it is difficult to find a comparison because what Trump did was historically unique. I know of no PotUS who engaged in a multi-month incessant con job after losing an election filing frivolous lawsuits, badgering officials, and, importantly, working up his considerable supporters into a frenzy with the lie that their votes were violated, their president's reelection was stolen and their nation's system was broken and being abused.
That does not match what you wrote:
Here ⇡ you claim that I suggested that merely having an opinion about politics (election fraud in particular) is a violation of the CotUS. And I replied by stating that of course that is not a violation and that I suggested nothing of the sort. My statement "His actions were in opposition to the CotUS because there was no fraud that would change the election." is that Trump engaged in a con. I was saying that if there was clear evidence of fraud that filing lawsuits and engaging officials would be proper. But without the evidence and, indeed, evidence to the contrary, Trump was engaging in a fraud of his own — a national con job. He was using his powers and influence as PotUS to try to undermine an election (or to simply ease his bruised ego). Either way, that is a direct violation of his oath of office.
Remember, Tacos!, we are talking about a PotUS who clearly lost an election and who engaged in months of absolute bullshit with no evidence that came even remotely close to changing the election. This is not a PotUS investigating evidenced problems to ensure our system is sound; this is a PotUS abusing his power and position for personal reasons.
He used the power of the presidency. How many times do you think he spoke to the people of America as just a private citizen? Oh! None!
Which power was that, now? His powers are listed in Article II of the Constitution, if you need a reference.
As I have explained to others, the president has the same rights of free speech as anyone else. But more than that, courts have held that the speech of an elected official on political matters is particularly well protected.
No, I am in favor of him never holding office again. That is different from being banned from trying.
The level of trust people have in Donald Trump is well documented and the number is pretty low. Other than that, you are trying to create a standard that doesn't exist.
His actions that are under scrutiny are 1) his many requests for recounts, audits, and filing of court cases, and 2) Talking about it publicly. All of those are within his rights. You call it a con or a fraud with no concern for what those words mean or whether or not his actions qualify. The fact remains that he has acted according to the law and within his rights.
I have asked for specificity on this before and I'm not getting an answer. His powers are listed in Article II of the Constitution. If you can cite to a specific power he has used improperly, we have something to talk about. Otherwise, this repeated claim has no merit.
That sounds super vague, and will remain so, I suspect.
So we know what you are referring to, here is the presidential oath of office:
There is nothing in there about using his influence and I still haven't heard the power he used improperly.
And if you want to say that's grounds for banishment from public office, then there are a shitload of Congress members (not to mention the current Vice President) who should be banned, too. Let's make it fair.
Additionally,
OK, "clear evidence" is obviously a matter of opinion. Whose opinion matters in court? The judge. And if Trump is filing actions and making claims that are genuinely frivolous , fraudulent, whatever, there is a remedy for that in court under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11 . If they are making claims in court that are clearly bullshit, they can be sanctioned by the court.
I see nothing in that oath that refers to "power", it refers to an obligation to defend the country.
Someone else said he had used his power. I didn't bring it up. The president's powers are listed in Article II of the Constitution or in legislation where Congress has delegated authority.
It actually says defend the Constitution.
Comparing Trump to other PotUS' is far superior for fairness than comparing him to other politicians. Even with low approval ratings, a PotUS has substantial influence over people. In a nation of 328+ million people a PotUS trusted by even 1% amounts to over three million people. And Trump's approval is (last seen) to be 29%. You are dramatically underestimating the influence of a PotUS.
Repeating myself again: this impeachment is not about Trump breaking the law. It is not against the law to engage in a national con or to work one's supporters up into a frenzy or to fail to step in when his supporters storm the Capitol.
In short: the question is not whether or not Trump's actions were legal.
I have to spell this out?? The power of his office enables him to launch myriad lawsuits, gain audience to officials to try to persuade them to 'find votes', secure a national audience and make unsubstantiated claims, use government employees to act on his behalf, etc. A PotUS has powers of access, influence, outreach and visibility that surpass every other political person.
Stay focused Tacos! We are talking about a PotUS and presidential impeachment. Nobody other than a PotUS can be compared because only a PotUS holds the power and authority of president and only a PotUS has taken the oath for a president. Fair = apples to apples
Correct. And in my opinion the evidence is blatantly obvious. So obvious that I am amazed that anyone tries to defend Trump.
It's not about comparing them. It's about a standard that applies equally to all people. Unless you intend to argue that the 1st Amendment should apply differently to the president than it does to other people.
I have neither over nor under-estimated the influence of president. Assessing the strength of his influence hasn't even been the conversation.
Then you have no grounds to say he violated his oath or misused his powers.
No, it doesn't. He can't file any lawsuits that any other person couldn't file.
This isn't the Byzantine Empire where you need special connections to talk to someone in government. Any candidate can appeal to government officials to examine the results of an election. Redress of grievances to the government is guaranteed to all people by the 1st Amendment - even the President of the United States.
If you want a national audience, say something outrageous on Twitter. We have been talking about Gina Carano around here for three days. She is only president of my lust for thicc women.
No, he simply does not. We have seen that he can't make news networks cover him. He can't force people to attend his speeches (not even the State of the Union). He can't make social media give him a platform. And he has not taken a single action that some other candidate for office could not have taken. Granted, probably no reasonable candidate would take all those actions. But they could if they wanted to.
Oh yes! God forbid I should shine a light on hypocrisy and unequal justice!
You can exclude me from that generalization. I have repeatedly said that I don't defend him. I can disapprove of what he has done without reaching the same conclusions about punishment as someone else.
No, all people are not the PotUS.
I made no mention of the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment, however, is about the government not inhibiting free speech. Trump was operating as the head of the government. So not only is he safe to say anything whatever he wishes, the notion of 1st amendment rights do not even make sense when he is operating in his official capacity as head of the government.
I disagree.
Then you do not understand the concept of an oath of office or the misuse of power. Neither of those are based on the necessary breaking of the law.
You do not see how a sitting PotUS has a substantial advantage in filing lawsuits and have them be addressed in short order??
You do not see how a sitting PotUS can gain an audience with officials that are unavailable to others??
You do not see how a sitting PotUS can be heard and/or seen on national media at his/her whim?? Or hold a rally that is naturally covered??
Tacos! you are denying the obvious. All I can do is repeat the obvious. And I did not say anything about forcing.
Now you are spinning.
Yes, you have said that. Yet your arguments are largely excuses for Trump.
McConnell's speech today is largely the same argument I have been making about the influence a PotUS has on the people and the impact of months of lying to the American people as the sitting PotUS.
I disagree with his voting to acquit due to the trial being unconstitutional, but his speech mostly matched my arguments.
I think the 1st Amendment applies to all people - including elected officials.
Any time you talk about punishing someone for speech, the 1st Amendment is implicated.
That's right. And disqualifying someone from holding office because of their speech would be an example of government inhibiting free speech - by punishing it.
No, he really wasn't. He was head of the government, but in all of his speech related to the election, he was operating as a private citizen who was a candidate for office.
You are free to support your position with evidence and examples. It's not up to me to make your argument for you. What lawsuit filing power does a president have that no one else has?
They are addressed quickly because they are urgent matters, not because the guy filing the suit is the president. Any election related suit is addressed quickly so the right person can be installed in a timely manner.
If you have examples of other candidates being denied access to election officials in a way that Trump is not, then by all means, let's see it.
I just pointed out to you how that is actually not true. Do you deny the examples I gave?
Then you can't support your claim. Calling it "obvious" and repeating the claim is not persuasive.
That's not rational. I have said multiple times that I don't approve of his actions and you willfully disregard those statements. I have also said multiple times that we just disagree on the appropriate response and punishment, if any, and you disregard that, too. Seems dishonest. It's like talking to JR. I'm either with you or against you.
Of course it does. My answer does not suggest otherwise.
The 1st amendment is not a wildcard that allows anyone to say anything. As I explained, it is there to protect the citizens from the government.
He was the current PotUS who was running for reelection. You don't get to simply ignore the fact that he was the PotUS.
And I am also free to not spend my time trying to convince you of something that you should already know. Compare a private citizen to the PotUS. You are effectively claiming that PotUS and the people at his disposal have no advantages over you in filing suits and having them be heard.
They were addressed because they were submitted by the Trump forces and Trump was the sitting PotUS. You need to do more than simply state nuh'uh if you are going to argue that the PotUS has no advantage over the average private citizen here.
My comment @11.1.34 was:
I did not limit this to other candidates for the office of PotUS. My comment observes that the PotUS has a major advantage in gaining access to government officials. Trump was the head of the federal government. To pretend that this offers Trump no advantage is absurd.
There is a major difference between someone making a crazy tweet, posting a crazy video, etc. and the PotUS office calling the national media to inform them that he will be addressing the people of the United States. This should not need to be explained.
(see above)
Claiming that you do not want Trump to hold office again does not magically change the balance of your comments. Your arguments have been excuses for Trump. You have taken this to the point of denying that the PotUS has advantages legally, politically, officially and has visibility and outreach advantages beyond every other political officeholder and certainly well beyond that of the average citizen.
Here is a hypothetical to test the point that you are (maybe) trying to make by proxy (using the thoughts of other minds).
The PotUS falsely informs the public that the food supply will run out in a week. The resultant runs on supermarkets, etc. turn into violent uprisings by people desperate to secure food for their families. People are killed and injured.
Should the PotUS be excused from this lie because of his 1st amendment rights?
Try to formulate a response yourself instead of quoting others.
I'm not ignoring it. Being the president is not the same as acting as president. You keep claiming the latter, but now you're trying to submit the former as a sufficient distinction. It's not.
You have no proof of that. Election results were contested all over the country by many people. That happens every election, and the disputes are always resolved as quickly as possible.
No, you need to prove your claim. The problem is that you can't - for the reason I have stated. I'll give you some specific examples, though, since you won't listen to what should be well known: This is a list of cases tracked on SCOTUSBlog . There are 21 cases. Only 4 name Trump or his campaign as a party. All received quick, yet extensive consideration in the courts.
Lawsuits are filed every cycle both before and after the election. Because time is always a factor, these cases are dealt with quickly.
You have yet to reveal one single concrete example of his gaining an advantage because he was president.
Claiming it does not need to be explained is not any more of an argument than declaring it to be obvious. And anyway, there is actual evidence that the news media is in no way obligated to give Trump air time just because he wants it.
Three top cable news networks cut away from Trump speech
Networks cut away from Trump’s White House address
CNN Explains Why They Won't Air Trump's 46-Minute 'Propaganda Video'
And that's not even all of them.
You have been invited multiple times to demonstrate with evidence how he exercised those alleged advantages improperly in his attempts to contest the election. You have declined every time, insisting only that it's obvious. You should not be surprised at not having persuaded me.
Trump was the PotUS. When he spoke there was no distinction between being and acting. Anything Trump said while PotUS was taken as words by the current PotUS. When a PotUS speaks or writes (or tweets) something, people don't scratch their heads to figure out if this is the PotUS speaking as a person or speaking as the PotUS. Every word is taken as the word of the PotUS.
One should not have to deliver proof for a citizen of this nation to understand that requests from the president of the United States are not placed in a queue and addressed when it is his turn.
My claim is that Trump, as PotUS, has the resources and the recognition to file countless lawsuits and to have each lawsuit be addressed without delay. As they were. For you to not recognize that Trump could use the power of his office to pressure the human beings who run the system to ensure his cases are filed and processed without delay seems naive. This is a system of human beings. The big guns have special privileges in all walks of life. But you do not think so.
Your list of SCotUS cases is supposed to be evidence of what .... that there exist remaining Trump cases? What does that evidence?
Trump, as PotUS, was able to file 61 bogus cases and have them be heard. Your claim is that Trump, as sitting PotUS, had no more influence over getting his complaints heard than you do. I say the government and legal operatives will not tell the PotUS to simply wait his turn. Neither can prove this but I think common sense favors my claim.
SUMMARY : The office of president of the US carries with it power and privilege.
Then you are ignoring what I am writing. Odd too, because I am repeating myself. Again, establishing the context:
You somehow think that Trump has no advantage in filing and ensuring his lawsuits expeditiously pass through the system (above). You deny that the PotUS has probably the best chance of anyone in politics to ask for and gain audience of those working in the government. You just deny it, no reasons. You deny that the PotUS has unique ability to secure a national audience. You claim that anyone can make noise and gain such attention as if that compares to the PotUS calling a press conference, holding a rally, making a speech, etc. You deny the the PotUS (the leader of the government) has unique powers to cause the system of government (the human beings who effect the government) to give him privileged V.I.P. treatment.
Hard to imagine how anyone can deny this. I am not going to spend my time looking for links to evidence what should be (and is) obvious.
SUMMARY : A PotUS has privilege ( one obvious example of this ). The office carries with it the powers of access, influence, outreach and visibility that surpasses every other political person.
Of course they are not obligated. Where do you see me suggesting the are obligated or the Trump can force them? I spoke of influence. Surely you understand that when the PotUS wants an audience the office carries considerable clout. It is actually a testament at how miserable a PotUS that Trump was to see media outlets actually deny him access. In the end, he managed to hobble, to a large degree, the powers of his office. But my comments on the powers and privilege of the office remain accurate and they were accurate for 9x% of his term.
Then you are not paying attention. Let's take just one of my points. Trump used his influence as PotUS to work his supporters into a frenzy ... lying to them that their votes were violated and that their president's reelection was a landslide that was stolen. That their government is corrupt and that they need to keep fighting and never give up.
The evidence of this has been formally shown as part of the trial. If I linked in excerpts would that make a difference? I think not. I predict you will keep asking for more and more while dismissing everything presented (as you have done thus far).
SUMMARY : McConnell's speech (surprising to me) pretty much made the same points I have been making in this thread. I made them before he did. I find it interesting that the R minority leader of the Senate can make basically the same arguments as I have (against his own party's president). Apparently we have seen something that you have not.
Today democrats admitted, at long last, that they are not impeaching Donald Trump for his words.
Trump has already been impeached...twice, just 18 months apart no less.
Yet, that attitude cost the gop all their power!
You've lost the House, Senate and Presidency.
Laugh yourself silly. Winning elections counts...
Two years is not that far away. It is altogether possible the the political pendulum will swing the other direction as it always does eventually.
I agree Ed, but the R party is shooting itself in the foot by not distancing themselves from Trump. He is a parasite on the party and is no doubt going to weaken the R party for mid-terms. And worse, the last thing I would want to see is a Trump supporter (one who remains a supporter even now) getting elected to a political office.
Maybe. But if the Dems are smart, they'll replay the impeachment and every bungling of the Covid crisis in the lead-up to the midterms, emphasizing the support Trump had from the GOP and especially going after those candidates who were seen as complicit.
All the republicans that won in 2020 won't want to see that pendulum swing and there were quite a few.
Indeed. And current supporters will blindly support Trump or another supporter without question.
While I agree with you, my question is if a non Trump supporting member of the GOP does run, will that person get tarred with the same wide brush that many Democrats are currently doing to the GOP as a whole? I see it as a very likely possibility.
Possibly. That's why the GOP should be distancing themselves from Trump. They should have already been doing so. The Dems have noticed the Ben Sasses and Mitt Romneys, who have been trying to do so, as have independents.
I think so. That is why the GOP needs to distance itself from Trump. His stain will stick with them for decades (as with Nixon) but they need to not be the party of Trump.
Old Vulcan proverb. Only Nixon could go to China...
I'm sorry, I could not resist!