House Impeachment Threatens Freedom of Speech

No one has the right to incite violence. The only defense I've seen is the technical one that he didn't specifically tell people to invade the Capitol. The technicality of the law might preclude obtaining a criminal conviction, but the mere fact that it is technically LEGAL doesn't imply there was no incitement. Same as anyone else, Trump could potentially be acquitted of criminal charges based on this technicality, even though he is morally responsible for it. However, the Constitution has another means for dealing with certain government officials who engage in serious behavior such as this: impeachment.

Stating a fact does not constitute "fake news". Everyone who is subject to impeachment can be held to the same standard, so I'm seeing no unequal application to Trump.

"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a term of art, as there were no criminal statutes on the books when the Constitution was written and ratified. This article from the American Enterprise Institute analyzes the term, and concludes:

• • The framers did not give an extended explanation of what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors.” However, through an analysis of the text of the Constitution, the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, and British and American impeachment precedents, it is possible to reach a broad understanding of what behavior is covered by those terms.
  • The key to unlocking that understanding in the case of the presidency is that the office is one of powers whose ends and limits are fixed by a specific set of duties. High crimes and misdemeanors are not limited to actual crimes but extend to an abuse or violation of the public trust in carrying out those duties.
  • By judging the actions of executive and judicial officials against the standard of their constitutional duties and broad public responsibilities, the impeachment process serves three great ends: It removes from office those who have forfeited their right to serve, protecting the public from further depredations; it induces others to act in accord with their high public responsibilities; and it provides the citizenry with a vital lesson in the principles of constitutional democracy.

This view is consistent with Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65:

The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

No, disqualification follows CONVICTION. That disqualification only requires a majority vote, and that is an obvious certainty if he were convicted. Disqualification is the obvious motive for pursuing this.

Very possibly true, and that proves he's being treated the same under the law as everyone else.

Nixon was not eligible to again run for President, per the 22nd Amendment. Moreover, his offenses were minor compared to Trump's. Trump's behavior was dangerous.

 

He didnt' incite violence.

The "technicality" is the First Amendment. We have a legal standard for incitement. Trump didn't come within a country mile of meeting it, which is why the House impeachment doesn't cite it, neither the code nor the Brandenburg test, because, doing either would immediately show that Trump is wholly innocent of the charge they have lodged against him.

There are four criteria for impeachment charges and all four are crimes.

Never has there been a House crazed enough to impeach someone for Constitutionally protected speech.

It is a term with meaning just like every other word in the US Constitution.

There were no dictionaries either, yet, we determine the meaning of words in the Constitution, all the time.

 

Make the case that people would have been in Washington on Jan 6 if Trump had publicly accepted his loss.

The first amendment doesn't permit incitement.

I gave you an analysis by a Conservative think tank, and you're ignoring it. Sounds like you're in denial.

Incitement is not constitutionally protected speech.

The meaning of the term is best understood by the context of the era in which the Constitution was formulated. I gave you that. You choose to use your own definition.

 

You keep forgetting that while a Senate Impeachment hearing follows the basic outline of a court case, there is no requirement
that the Senators must be ruled by absolutes. If they feel intent was there, regardless of the "exact wording" then they can find
him guilty.

It's like a mob murder case - when the boss tells his boys to take Bob for a walk down to the pier and introduce him
to the fish, he never actually tells them to kill him, but it's "reasonable" to make that assumption. Given that The Orange One
sat there for two hours watching the violence erupt at the Capitol and made no calls to stop it, even though his
MAGA folk were watching his Twitter feed - and in fact made reference to Pence being a coward during that time, but
did not call for "peace", then it is REASONABLE to assume he was more concerned with stopping the verification
of the Electoral votes than he was in a peaceful resolution.

His actions outweigh his words in this case.

 

Using the highest office in the land to over turn an election falsely is not free speech. That is attempting to overthrow democracy.

 

No one has a "free speech" right to incite violation of the law.

Hardly. It depends, perhaps, on a broader view of what constitutes incitement than is described in law- a view that would apply exclusively to Presidents.

No speech that incites illegal activity is protected. The defense would need to be based on the claim that Trump's words (over a 2 month period) didn't incite anyone to do anything illegal.

 

Impeach the guy .. couldn't care a less. - but enough of this "Domestic Terrorism" BS and fearmongering. .. This is bad Karma - down a dark path.. and why do you guys and gals not understand this ?

 

He has the same right to organize a speaking event as everyone else does.

He engaged in constitutionally protected Free Speech, not criminal incitement.

Yes. Bribery, Treason, High Crimes and Misdemeanors are all crimes.

Fake News, we have an accepted definition of criminal incitement including the Brandenburg test developed by the Supreme Court. Congress didn't use that, because Trump engaged in Constitutionally protected free speech, not criminal incitement, so the House made up it's own novel definition, ex post and ad hoc. They have gone quite mad.

 

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism — Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

Seems like a pretty accurate use of the word in this context.
Doesn’t really meet the definition of fearmongering however.

 

Fake News. There will be no CONVICTION, therefore, no disqualification.

Fake News, you will never get a conviction on these ex-post ad-hoc standards that the crazed House made up. We have an accepted legal standard for Criminal Incitement, and the House admitted that Trump's actions didn't meet it, by making up a brand new one, on the fly, and after the fact.

Fake News. The Left hates that we have Constitutionally Protected Free Speech.

The Left likes to pretend that thoughts and speech that they don't like are "illegal" and "crimes". But here in a America, we define our crimes BEFORE the conduct occurs as Ex Post Facto laws are unconstitutional. You'll find that right next to the unconstitutionality of Bills of Attainder.

 

Bull Twaddle - this definition could be applied to any protest that gets out of hand- Mr. Appeal to Authority.

and fearmongering it is 100% -- already there was another incident where the Terrorism card was played .. saw on the Tele earlier today..

What a goofball definition .. and you needed me to enlighten you of this ? .. If you don't stand for something - you will fall for anything.

and you for one are smarter than this of that I can assure you - but do feel free to protest and we can endow you with further enlightenment .. and perhaps extract a few poison lizards hanging around from all that State Sponsored Koolaid someone bin feedn you.

 

As I said .. doesn't bother me much if they want to continue the impeachment charade - just another distraction for the mob .. bread and circuses ..

Speaking of which .. how about that 1.9 Trillion stimulus package .. interesting times these are

When money falls from the tree .. but - I think it is going to fall - big time - and I think it should fall big time .. as that is the only way to save the planet. - going to have to be a global thing though - and dem who have the Gold gonna have to give some up.

Just stop the Terrorism BS .. as this goes to a dark place .. and it pains me when Red is right .. no pun intended LOL .. Wow ..that one came out accidentally .. too funny painful x 2 ~ ... get it ?!

 

Absolutely it could, for many issues. And I am Mr. Appeal to Definitions. I can cite Wikipedia, Websters, or virtually any other source if the FBI definition scares you? It is a fairly universal and well known application of the word. I mistakenly believed it to be common knowledge.

It is impressive how you have gone from well reasoned to... what you just wrote. It’s almost unintelligible... Sad...

Words have meaning.

What would you call the event?

 

OK .. so you wish to treat all protesters - from a protest that got violent and/or destroyed property - as "terrorists" along with any leaders of the protest.

Yup - that friggen scares me.. as the other definition you can cite is the definition of authoritarianism - in dealing with civil disobedience .. which you seem to love. .. claiming "The Law told me so" - as if our justice system has credibility w/r to terrorism in some way shape or form

More the Orwellian Irony ...

 

I think that people that commit acts of violence should be dealt with very severely.
Most crimes do not require prison sentences, but this does.

Civil disobedience is one thing. This wasn’t that imo.

So you believe this should be called civil disobedience?

 

If this were true then we could sue every single politician or have them arrested for fraud.

Btw...the sky is purple polka dotted on a green background. I dare you to try and have me arrested.

 

Of course it does, in the political/governmental arena. One can lie in the private arena, but can also be sued for it.

 

He was for the 50-60 years when he was a liberal Democrat. Although he still is a liberal Democrat, just an honest realistic one.

 

Now if you had some speech that incited a crime, you might have a point. But you don't. Which part of Trump's admonition to march to the Capitol peacefully and patriotically did you miss? Which part of the violence getting supplied days before Jan 6 did you miss? Which part of the rioting at the Capitol starting before Trump's speech did you miss?

 

True, except the geniuses on the left have no clue at the moment.

 

If you had an example of an attempt to overturn an election falsely -- even a falsified election -- you might have a point. But reveries don't count in such arguments. Besides, a president does have free speech rights -- likely more so than the average citizen as stated by other courts -- to speak out about sham elections and such.

 

How many times must it be pointed out your standard for what qualifies as impeachable behavior is all wrong?

 

The problem is there was no speech that incited any violence. What part of Trump's speech where ho told the crowd to march "peaceably and patriotically" did you miss? My guess all of it as the attacking media never played that clip.

Making up a law so you can purge the guy by any and all possibilities, even through laws that do not exist? Or a real new ex post facto law or bill of attainder in violation of the Constitution -- not that this would in any way be an inhibitor?

You guys have a very steep mountain full of cliffs and crevices to climb.

 

He did not have to break a law to warrant impeachment. A fact you repeatedly ignore.

 

Sorry but it does. Nice speech doesn't need protection. It is not so nice speech that requires it.