Going one better: impeachment of a VP and president

It is that speech which is supposedly what tripped off the riot. So trying to use anything else is to show that you know that that speech is not enough to even slightly support your claim. That you need to add more to the narrative.

Having a "wild time" can mean anything. In fact I most often hear it in relation to having fun at parties. Using that as an example that Trump wanted violence is not going to help you.

Also I seem to remember plenty of people calling for the same to happen to Trump after Trump was elected (in fact many electors were physically threatened if they didn't change their votes). I also recall the riots that happened then also. Was anyone ever charged for inciting rebellion? Or even charged with any crime at all?

 

Actually they show the intent. Sorry but thems the facts bruh.

 

Anyone can go online and see the whole speech. If you want to pretend that the talking heads on Fox or CNN are the
final word, then you are lost. The people who voted to impeach Trump lived through the event. The film crews followed
the marchers from the Trump speech to the invasion of the Capitol, they interviewed people along the way, and they
recording real-time reactions to Trump's speech. What Trump followers took away from the speech is recorded - and very
few mention "peaceful" in any of their responses. It is what it is.

 

Lol. Yeah, you go with that.

The intent was to "stop the steal." Pretty open and shut.

 

Sorry, dude. The House is in no way confined as is court room to only direct evidence. They have the authority to consider
supporting information to determine intent. The many calls of fraud and the veiled threats to Pence and McCain and
others is admissible in the House. Is what it is.

 

I haven't watched either CNN or Fox about this. I've judged the words themselves. It doesn't matter what CNN, Fox, or even Trumps supporters think or say about the speech. If you're going to prove that Trump intended to incite a riot (part of the requirement is intent) then you have to get past those words that I have mentioned. And you can't. Which is why I say that no court would convict.

 

The fact that Congress can use the fact that Trump is orange to vote against Trump is not relevant. Get my drift? In other words just because Congress can use something doesn't mean that its relevant to what actually happened. The fact that you put McCain into your post, a man that is dead and has been for quite some time now, shows that you know this. Sorry but I prefer relevance. I prefer facts. And I expect an impeachment process to be conducted just as if they were a court of law. Not based on emotions. Not based on things unrelated. Not based on politics. Doing so only cheapens what impeachment is supposed to be about and lowers the bar for impeachment so much that now it can be used as a political weapon. Something that was warned against by the Founders of this country. And for good reason. It is only going to cause division.

 

A President’s words hold far more weight than the average citizen’s. If a President preaches for 59 minutes to “stop the steal” and spends 10 seconds talking about “peaceful”, then the courts are going to weigh his words as such.

 

Clinton was rightfully impeached for lying about a blow job - so why would you think that Trump couldn’t be impeached for continuous lies about an election that led to the storming of the Capitol and threats against the VP and members of Congress?Trump literally tried to stop Congess from fulfilling its Constitutional duty.

 

Actually no, it doesn't hold more weight. Otherwise only a President could be charged with inciting riots. Plenty of people have just as powerful a bully pulpit as a President. Speaker of the House for instance has just as much power. Celebrities have just as much power. Talking heads at news media have just as much power. Anyone that can be heard can have just as much power. If you think otherwise then perhaps you can explain why the need for social media to ban people? In fact isn't Parler banned because people believe that what was said there contributed to the riot? That the riot was planned there? Wasn't it believed that Russia influenced people in 2016 to vote for Trump via Ads bought and "fake" accounts?

Funny how that narrative seems to change when the occasion warrants such.....

 

I, like many were against Clinton's impeachment.

 

Going one better: impeachment of a VP and president

Cool story. I look forward to seeing how it all works out for ya.

 

There's no maybe, Hillary beat him by 3 mill.

 

Not if this is how the Democrats are going to use it, the Republicans have no choice but to respond in kind.

 

And they witnessed Trump entering the Capital leading the charge? The only thing they witnessed was what occurred in the Capital. And leftist were already plotting how they would remove him before he took office and that included the Clinton campaign and Trump administration.

 

Sorry dude - but when mobsters are charged with a crime, they aren't let off because the FBI looked at them once for another crime.
Each crime is looked at as a separate incident.

Now I really doubt that Trump will be convicted in the Senate because of the 2/3 rule ... unless something else happens
in the next 5 days. Trump wound these people up with talk of stolen elections and fraud and the treason of Pence and
other Republicans, and now they are out there, out of his control. I don't know if he was just too self-centered to understand
what he was creating, or just too much of an ass to care - but this is on him.

 

Friggin' Hatfields and McCoys - of no use to America in the midst of a pandemic, or of anything else. Over 2 million dead
world-wide, and Trump has left the building - totally consumed by an election he lost and how he can create revenge against
the Republicans he feels stabbed him in the back.

 

Of course they have a choice. We all have the option to make the right choice rather than the easy choice, you just have to be a better person. You just demonstrate my point that most of the people involved (politicians and supporters) aren't any better (or worse) than each other.

 

Here's how we'll play this. It does not matter what you come up with, how much evidence you bring, or what Biden does. Dems WILL NOT VOTE against Joe Biden as long as he can squeeze in one more federal judge for us, write one more executive order for us, or fire a civil servant and appoint one more Democratic crony to his place. Not if you have video of him raping horses, molesting the local nuns and shooting up toddlers with heroin. We will label it a 'partisan witchhunt, refuse to consider any evidence, and scream how you have destroyed the institution by bringing the case.

But come back to us with another impeachment when Biden is a total lame duck and has nothing more to do than pack his bags, and is completely useless to us, we will definitely revisit our strategy.

 

No they don't else the Democrats will continue to use impeachment as the political weapon they have turned it into and the Republicans cannot allow that gross shift of power to occur. The Dems and set the precedent and the Republicans will have no choice but to engage themselves. I'm a realist and believe it bad for the country but it is in the hands of the Democrats to cease and desist in their attempted power grab and elimination of their political opposition.

 

There are the mid-terms in two years and the Dems lost HUGELY in the House this time.

 

Thank you Democrats