To Impeach Trump or?? Consequences for Inciting Insurrection.

It wasn't a trial. Think of it as an indictment by the people. The trial is in the Senate. Oh yeah...remember his last impeachment? The Republican Senate blocked attempts by the Democratic prosecution to present witnesses in the Senate trial.

 

The discussion was over the definition of "domestic terrorism," not over whether or not I'm an authoritarian. I was simply explaining the definition to you...neither supporting it or rejecting it.

 

It was a pure abuse of power by the congress. There was no due process what so ever. It is a stain on our system of Government. The first impeachment was an abuse of power, but that one pales in comparison to this one. Anyone who supported that should be ashamed.

 

The "shame" rests with those who attacked (or supported the attack) of our Capitol. On impeachment, the House indicts and the Senate tries to either convict or not. You don't seem to understand the process.

 

The founders said that when our government becomes too abusive we have the right to abolish it and create a new government..

Based the actions of government for the last year, that time has come.

 

There’s a right way and wrong way to do they. They did it the wrong way. They abused their power. History will be on my side.

 

Hmmm? That was in the Declaration of Independence declaring our independence from Great Britain and its King George, who had already declared us to be in rebellion and had sent troops to Boston to quell the rebellion. The colonies then formed an alliance to fight the revolution and agreed to be governed under the Articles of Confederation. After the success of the Revolution, the Articles proved to be too weak to govern the separate states and the Constitution was written to "form a more perfect union." The Declaration is certainly part of our heritage...but not part of our law.
But why do you think our government has become "too abusive?" We still govern under law.

 

Wow...McConnell just gave his last speech as Majority Leader. He condemned the attack on the Capitol, which he blamed on the President and others (unnamed) who lied to those who took part. That sounds like a vote to convict on impeachment.

 

So what?

 

Here is more on Mitch.

McConnell says Capitol rioters were 'provoked' by Trump. Follow our live blog.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...en-inauguration-n1254610?cid=eml_nbn_20210119

Interesting turn around.........after enabling Trump in his behaviors for so long. I guess Trump is too toxic now.

Will see if this change has a ripple effect.......

Uncanny sense of timing too. ... Cunning bloke.

 

So, the Declaration of Independence is NOT U.S. law. Read the Constitution.

 

Yes, he is. I disagree with him MOST of the time, but on this one, I agree and I think we'll discover that he just saved the Republican Party (unlike Paul's fear that impeachment and conviction will destroy the Party). I also think the will become more apparent as the investigation is made public and more arrests occur. I voted for Biden and am currently a Democrat. However, I believe in a strong multiple party system. All power in one party is too risky for human nature. Few of us are all that good.

 

indeed. And absolute power corrupts. . Mitch had far to o much power over the past four years and much of what he did was borderline unethical......... due to his affinity to Trump. Personally, I don't/ can't trust him. He seems to do what is in his best political interest. as opposed to what is best for the country.

 

One of the Reagan quotes I liked was "trust, but verify."

 

Lawmakers who objected to election results have been cut off from 20 of their 30 biggest corporate PAC donors

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...0.ChH3Smafuz5VGpCX1PlIXuzJxiaSz8V0ua1x6tTReAw

The consequences are just starting to play out.

 

Those House members whose responsibility it was to carry out the role of prosecution of the impeachment in the Senate ABSOLUTELY and STRONGLY wanted to bring witnesses. They were VERY MUCH in favor of witnesses being called by both sides.

As the prosecution, they were stymied by Senators who had no interest in the facts of the case.

I do agree that the Republican majority blocked all attempts to make the impeachment trial more than a total sham.

 

The Democrats executed the most blatant abuse of power in US history and it’s the Republican’s fault. lol.

 

The DOI is not in the constitution - do you know what the document is about Mate ? - and this relates specifically to the OP.. but also to Law and the Constitution - and a Constitutional Republic.

Speaking of which - Do you know what that is Mate - and how it relates to the DOI ?

Don't feel bad if you don't know these basics - 12 years of school and we manage not to teach them to our kids -

What know thee about the founding principles ?

 

I know the definition - the only grey area being the term "Mass Destruction" - you have yet to give a definition of this.

You have however gone beyond the definition - putting the bar even lower -- Your definition requires not that kidnapping - assassination - or Mass destruction be present.

For you - just occupying and damaging a Gov't building constitutes terrorism in your books.

My claim was simply that regardless of how we want to look at the terrorism law - your bar is very low - and thus "NOT YOU" but your Bar - is authoritarianism.

The reason such a low bar is Authoritarianism - is because your definition includes all manner of Protest - merely requiring some damage to have occurred to be classified as Terrorism - and further - you wish to charge people who did not do the damage - but did occupy the building - Terrorists - and further - you want to charge people who may have spoken to the crowd with terrorism - making them responsible for actions which they did not suggest..

This is a dark dark path - very bad precedent.

 

Today Hillary Clinton speculated that Trump and Putin colluded to incite the capitol riot. The woman has been drunk since the minute the 2016 election was called for Trump.

 

How do you KNOW she has been drunk since the last election?? Do you know her personally??

 

What else would explain it?

 

Well, I taught U.S. Government at a major American University for several years in Grad School and read a lot of American history as a hobby, so why don't you try me. Not sure what OP means?

 

Explain what?? Her supposed theory?? Where did that information come from?? Usually,if she makes a statement....it makes the man news networks.

If it is something circulating on social media........ well....... then it might wise to be skeptical.

 

Not my bar...the law's bar.