1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

43 cowards who violated oath and voted in favor of the failed putsch

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by SamFisher, Feb 13, 2021.

  1. droxford

    droxford Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2001
    Messages:
    10,081
    Likes Received:
    1,522
    I agree with Nook that facts are facts; opinions aren't.

    So, show me the tweet where Trump directly called for physical violence, and did so in a way that would hold up in court.
     
  2. subtomic

    subtomic Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    Messages:
    4,027
    Likes Received:
    2,369
    This was not a legal proceeding - it was a political one and the question was “did the President’s conduct rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.” The clear answer is “of course they did - the President very clearly encouraged his followers to (1) reject a fair election and (2) disrupt the procedural conclusion of said election. Whether he said explicitly used a phrase calling for violence is irrelevant in the forum that is impeachment.

    Your entire series of posts is misdirection and not a particularly clever example of such. Furthermore, you’re being a douche. Go hang out on Breitbart or the conservative subreddits if you want to waste people’s time with bad faith arguments.
     
    jiggyfly, mdrowe00 and seemoreroyals like this.
  3. CometsWin

    CometsWin Breaker Breaker One Nine

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    28,028
    Likes Received:
    13,046

    If Trump talks for three months about going through that door he didn’t mean for them to go through that door if he told them once not to go through that door at the rally he planned and spoke at to urge an angry crowd of white supremacists and looneys to fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more . Just stupid and childish. You literally have to suspend all brain function to not undersrand was happening.
     
    mdrowe00 likes this.
  4. Buck Turgidson

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    84,927
    Likes Received:
    83,114
    43 cowards, you say?

    14 Dr Peppers should smoothe that out.
     
  5. AroundTheWorld

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2000
    Messages:
    66,649
    Likes Received:
    44,363
    Trump clearly incited that violence. Anyone who argues against this fact is delusional.

    He was egging them on with an anti-Pence tweet while they were already chanting "Hang Mike Pence". He was clearly watching the news and enjoying it. He was actively refusing to send help.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/us/politics/trump-capitol-riot.html

    Just because he said "peaceful" a few times throughout the day doesn't invalidate all his other actions.

    This speech is so crazy. The ramblings of a narcissist psychopath.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/9663...key-part-of-impeachment-trial?t=1613368891010
     
    Newlin, Nook, London'sBurning and 5 others like this.
  6. Buck Turgidson

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    84,927
    Likes Received:
    83,114
    Right? We can't all be German...



    I got too much to do before I die...
     
  7. Rileydog

    Rileydog Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    5,390
    I’m a lawyer, so let’s play.

    Where is it stated that Trump had to literally call for physical violence in order to be guilting of a high crime or misdemeanor? Oh wait, no such requirement exists.

    As many have pointed out, this is a political proceeding, not a court case.

    But let’s pretend it were a court case. Time and again, intent and state of mind are inferred from the totality of the evidence and circumstances.

    Did he intend the crowd to be there? Yes.

    Did he summon them there? Yes.

    did he know they were armed lunatics? he either knew or should have known. And yeah, as a president, you have a duty to know. Let’s not kid ourselves, he knew what types of scumbags are in his MAGA crowd.

    Did he send them to the capitol? Yes

    did He throw in the word peaceful? Yes. Is that dispositive? Hell no.

    Did every action and inaction that he took on insurrection day indicate he delighted in the insurrection accomplishing his single goal of delaying the certification? Hell yea. But you can’t bring yourself to confront those facts. Way too hard to deal with them.

    Did trump incite the insurrection? There’s no requirement that he utter the magic words, hey morons, go down to the capitol and tear the place up.
    He sure as **** incited those folks AND THE VERY LAST THING HE WANTED TO DO WAS TO STOP OR SLOW THE MOB, HENCE HE DIDNT CALL THE NATIONAL GUARD, DIDNT CONDEMN THE MOB, KEPT ATTACKING PENCE, SYMPATHIZED WITH THE MOB, AND ABDICATED HIS ROLE AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

    You pathetic moron. Be more like Mitch and hide behind the fig leaf of the “constitutional question” of whether you can try a president no longer in office. As disingenuous as that argument is, it is far better than the ridiculous attempt to defend the factual question of whether trump incited the insurrection.
     
    adoo, Nook, gifford1967 and 8 others like this.
  8. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,464
    Likes Received:
    110,410
    "How Democrats Could Have Made Republicans Squirm":

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/opinion/trump-impeachment-acquitted.html

    How Democrats Could Have Made Republicans Squirm
    G.O.P. lawmakers were unlikely to convict Trump. But a different approach to impeachment would have been more difficult for them to ignore.

    By Michael W. McConnell
    Mr. McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge appointed by President George W. Bush, is a professor and the director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. He is the author, most recently, of “The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution.”
    Feb. 13, 2021

    Probably nothing could have moved enough Republican senators to vote to convict former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial.

    But the way the House chose to frame the article of impeachment made the prospect less likely. If the purpose of the proceeding was to produce a conviction and disqualification from future office, as opposed to mere political theater, the House should have crafted a broader and less legalistic set of charges.

    The sole article of impeachment was for “incitement of insurrection.” It focused on the afternoon of Jan. 6, when then-President Trump addressed an initially peaceful crowd of supporters and egged them on to go to the Capitol and to “fight like hell” against the recognition of an Electoral College victory for his opponent Joe Biden.

    Presumably, the drafters of the House impeachment resolution chose to frame their charge as incitement because this is an actual crime. The first impeachment of Mr. Trump was criticized (wrongly, in my view) for failing to allege a crime. But it is not necessary for an impeachment to be based on criminal conduct. As Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist No. 65, impeachment proceedings “can never be tied down by such strict rules” as “in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors” in criminal trials. Rather, he wrote, the target of impeachment proceedings is “the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

    By charging Mr. Trump with incitement, the House unnecessarily shouldered the burden of proving the elements of that crime. This is not to say that senators may vote to convict only if those elements are proved, but that the terms of the impeachment article invited the defense to respond in the same legalistic terms presented by the House impeachment managers. They tried to broaden the focus during the trial, though not successfully.

    One element of the crime of incitement is the intent to induce imminent violence. The evidence shows that Mr. Trump was reckless and that violence was a foreseeable consequence of his incendiary speech, but a senator might reasonably conclude that it falls short of proving that he wanted his followers to assault members of Congress or to vandalize the Capitol.

    Moreover, the terms of the impeachment article opened the door for Mr. Trump’s defense team to play videos in which various Democrats said things that can be construed to encourage violence — a comparison that should be irrelevant but certainly muddied the waters.

    The House should have crafted its impeachment resolution to avoid a legalistic focus on the former president’s intent. This could have been done by broadening the impeachment article. The charges should have encompassed Mr. Trump’s use of the mob and other tactics to intimidate government officials to void the election results, and his dereliction of duty by failing to try to end the violence in the hours after he returned to the White House from the demonstration at the Ellipse.

    Whether or not Mr. Trump wanted his followers to commit acts of violence, he certainly wanted them to intimidate Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress. That was the whole point of their “walk,” as Mr. Trump put it, to the Capitol. The mob was not sent to persuade with reasoning or evidence.

    Moreover, Mr. Trump’s actions on Jan. 6 were of a piece with attempts — nonviolent but no less wrongful — to intimidate other officials, such as Georgia’s secretary of state, to use their powers to thwart the election results. The Trump campaign had every opportunity to substantiate its claims of massive fraud in court and failed miserably to do so.

    By focusing the impeachment resolution on the charge of incitement of insurrection, the House made it easier for Mr. Trump’s supporters in the Senate to dismiss these acts of intimidation as irrelevant to the accusation on which they were voting.

    It should not be necessary to point out that the use of the presidential office to keep power after losing an election is the gravest possible offense against our democratic constitutional order — one that the authors of the Constitution specifically contemplated and sought to prevent. The violence of Jan. 6 was bad, but even if no one at the Capitol had been hurt that day, Mr. Trump’s attempts to mobilize a mob to impede the democratic process was still a high crime or misdemeanor.

    To make matters worse, Mr. Trump did nothing to stop the violence even when he was aware it was occurring. He did not deploy forces to the Capitol to put down the riot and protect members of Congress. He sent two messages to the rioters, but his appeals for peaceable behavior were tepid, and intermixed with words of support and affection for the rioters.

    Perhaps most egregious was his tweet that “Mike Pence did not have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution,” at a time when rioters were threatening to hang the vice president. We now know that a senator informed Mr. Trump of the danger to Mr. Pence — but Mr. Trump did not retract his tweet or lift a finger to protect Mr. Pence.

    This dereliction of his constitutional duty was wholly apart from any incitement and was an impeachable offense in itself. But it was not charged in the article of impeachment.

    It would be foolish to think that the vote on impeachment would come out differently if the charge had been differently framed. But if the House was going to impeach, it should have framed the case to make it as difficult as possible for the Senate to acquit.

    It is far from clear that Mr. Trump incited the violence of Jan. 6 in a technical legal sense, but it is abundantly clear that he sought to intimidate members of Congress and other officials to block Mr. Biden’s election, and that he failed in his duty to do what he could to end the violence once it started. Those would be ample grounds for conviction, quite apart from whether Mr. Trump committed the crime of incitement.


     
    seemoreroyals likes this.
  9. dachuda86

    dachuda86 Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Messages:
    16,308
    Likes Received:
    3,580
    A neocon. Just what we want to listen to. A failure from the Bush era.
     
  10. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,658
    Likes Received:
    41,536
  11. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,658
    Likes Received:
    41,536
    Regarding the claim that Trump didn't incite because he said "peacefully" at the Jan. 6 rally still ignores the many many times that Trump did tell his supporters to use violence including as the impeachment managers showed as far back as 2016 when he told his supporters to attack hecklers and even offered to pay their legal bills.

    The argument of the defense ignores the chain of causality. Trump organized the rally, told his supporters before hand it was going to be wild, told them to fight like hell and they did. That he slipped in "peacefully" once has to be weighed against the mountain of his inflammatory rhetoric. It would be like a mob boss tried for the killing of an informant claiming "I told my boys to take him out, but treat him nicely.."

    Finally all of this still ignores what in my opinion is the most damning argument of the House Managers. The President isn't an ordinary citizen. The President swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. As such the President has already voluntarily agreed to restrict his free speech rights. Trump by already telling his supporters to march on the Capitol and to get them to overturn the election is already a violation of his oath as the election was lawfully adjudicated and as the 60+ court cases showed. While telling someone to overturn the election isn't illegal this isn't a criminal process. This is a political process as such Trump has clearly violated his oath and should be held to a political penalty. Conviction in the Senate and barred from serving in public office again.
     
  12. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    53,802
    Likes Received:
    53,591
    You and your fellow trump supporters can keep trying to persuade yourself that. You can misrepresent facts to support your support.

    History, however will report what happened. And not from a republican or Democratic view, since...

    minority leader mitch mcconnell:
    senator richard burr:
    senator lisa murkowski:
     
  13. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    23,888
    Likes Received:
    19,690
    The "he didn't really want violence" argument is a red herring and I immediately take you to be a non-serious individual the way that you are framing your arguments.

    You literally have the personal attorney to President on the phone ... recorded.... while the violent mob was attacking the capital tell a Republican Senator to just find a way to delay the certification.

    So you have motive right there. The motive to abandon your job as Commander and Chief, and conspire to overturn an election. You can argue whatever point you want in a vacuum, but the entire premise is around a president who lost the election, and took whatever means he could to become an unelected dictator, and stay in power without being democratically elected.

    Call it impeachment of whatever, or a special counsel, or just an FBI investigation. Whatever means necessary to make sure that it's typically frowned upon to overturn an election in the United States... SHOULD BE A PRETTY FREAKIN UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON CONCLUSION.

    But its not, and posts like this are dramatic evidence that a good amount of Americans are opposed to Democracy.
     
  14. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,147
    Likes Received:
    25,187
    He sat in his fat ass with eyes glued on news footage of a mob tearing down barriers and violently pushing back police. Ignored calls from outside pleas for help and twiddled his his thumbs as his aides stood by him aghast and horrified.

    How many hours did he do nothing all while knowing people were looking at him to end the chaos as President?

    You gotta be a bullshit artist working your craft and playing yourself if you're gonna pull out the "he didn't really want violence" line.

    More like, he didn't really want violence...to come back to him and cause his ass to get thrown in jail.

    All this **** at the capital just materialized out of fat orange air
     
  15. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    53,802
    Likes Received:
    53,591
    I guess the conservative lawyer and constitutional expert has never been to clutchfans D&D before...

     
    Nook, FrontRunner, Andre0087 and 6 others like this.
  16. VooDooPope

    VooDooPope Love > Hate
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 1999
    Messages:
    9,117
    Likes Received:
    4,513
    Lock him up. Lock him up. Lock him up.
     
    Invisible Fan and AroundTheWorld like this.
  17. London'sBurning

    London'sBurning Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    4,810
  18. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,464
    Likes Received:
    110,410
    Turley:

    https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/...ed-to-acquit-as-political-cowards-and-shills/

    excerpt:

    The media quickly reinforced the rejection of any possibility that senators could have voted their conscience. CNN Reporter Abby Phillip stated as a fact that there is no real argument that a former president cannot be tried for impeachment. Thus, any vote on that basis was dishonest and craven. As with past coverage, the hosts simply ignored professors, judges, and legendary figures like Justice Joseph Story who have argued against retroactive trials. Moreover, many academics who have studied this issue (including myself) have said that it is extremely close. While we all reach conclusions, most of us have stated that people of good faith can disagree on where the default should be on the question. That however is not what CNN viewers were told. Phillip and her colleagues insisted that there is no real debate — as did the House managers. Thus, anyone voting with the view of figures like Justice Story are liars or cowards or lying cowards. You choose.

    The rage expressed by such figures deflected attention from those most responsible for the loss of this trial: the House leadership. As I have previously discussed, there was no evidence of a strategy to convict as opposed to enrage in this trial. First, the House leadership used a “snap impeachment” without even a day for hearings. The House had from Jan. 6th to Jan. 20th (since there was little chance of a Senate trial before Trump left office). At a minimum, it could have held a couple days of hearings to create a record. Instead, it decided to send an article of impeachment for the first time in history without any record of a hearing, investigation, or even a chance for Trump to respond.

    Second, it drafted an article of impeachment for “incitement of insurrection” – a poorly conceived article that all but guaranteed a loss. It could have crafted the article in a myriad of ways to garner broader support but House leadership wanted to accuse Trump of trying to start a rebellion against the United States. Finally, it could have called witnesses for four weeks to offer testimony on Trump’s state of mind, a dozen witnesses who could establish what Trump said and did in these critical hours. It refused to do so.
    more at the link
     
    Nook likes this.
  19. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,669
    Likes Received:
    17,295
    In order to incite he doesn't have to call for direct physical violence. The evidence presented holds up very well.
    https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...jYG_vP_J7YFv1CnL3szQwnpVg_9G7hW54ZnZv9F2GWcPc

    Former President John Quincy Adams said - “I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by this House (The House of Representatives) for everything I did during the time I held public office.”
     
    #159 FranchiseBlade, Feb 15, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2021
    jiggyfly and Invisible Fan like this.
  20. jiggyfly

    jiggyfly Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Messages:
    21,011
    Likes Received:
    16,853
    So that one line means we should ignore everything else?

    Really?

    So his actions after saying that like not sending in the NG should be ignored?
     
    FranchiseBlade likes this.

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now