Trump's 2nd Senate Impeachment Trial Begins Tuesday

?? This really can't be construed as a race thing, dude.... and it has nothing to do with our legal system.

Also, there will be one Black Senator who is likely to vote to acquit....

But if you were trying to compare the OJ jury to this one, that's a point I think many can agree with...

 

Richard Nixon.

 

You can't make up your own mind and have to rely on them. The Black Panthers supported Obama did you?

 

Do arrest the rioters. Was Trump there hunting Pelosi?

 

It is interesting how so many say that the rioters cannot use the defense that Trump made them do it, but yet the entire purpose of this unconstitutional trial is to find Trump guilty of making the rioters do what they did! Hmmmm....

 

Oh GEEEZ what a stupid and lame attempt at inane analogy.

The person would STILL be charged in the judicial system just as Trump can be charged in the judicial system. More appropriate would be that someone accused of domestic abuse and gets divorced and then the prosecutor determines there was no domestic abuse by that someone.

Do you think a prosecutor has a case to charge Trump with a crime with a likely conviction?

 

And no evidence has been presented that Trump explicitly told anyone to engage in violence and insurrection that day, inciting violence and insurrection under the law upon which he was impeached.

 

Couldn’t run again anyway. Awful example.

 

It's not just the Presidency, it's ANY high office, read the constitution. So why didn't they continue and vote he could never hold a high office again? You know to "hold him accountable" to punish him? Heck if the Republicans take back the Congress they should impeach Obama and vote that he could not hold another high office like say the Supreme Court where many on the left want him appointed.

 

Of course he wasn't there because he said he would be....and everything he says is a lie(and he is a coward)...and the stupid/gullible fall for it.

BTW, it may help you in the future if you look up the word "incite"....

 

Then explain Belknap. Precedent set already. I appreciate you pointing out that it’s any high office and not just the president.
And yes republicans could do that. They could also bar Carter from a 2nd term.

 

Oh no... that's not good... I was planning for Jimmy to get his 2nd term in after Joe finished his 2 terms...

 

I do, but I don't think we will ever try a previous President in count or imprison one

this is the best we will ever get of any President for their crimes

 

Wait, so in your mind, the only way to incite a crowd is to explicitly say "instruction #1 do that. Instruction #2, do this"...

The concept of inference is a legal loophole to fly through to you?

 

if Trump had resigned and went quitly into the night, not talking about running in 2024, I would say let it be, but Trump refused to resign

 

if Trump is not held responsible for his crimes, it will be like GA election all over, that will get the dem vote out in 2022

this could be a good thing for dems as dems often have a hard time getting the vote out in midterms

 

NO they couldn't "Impeach Obama"!!!

That "Talking Point" Has been DEBUNKED (and Laughed Off of the Internet).

I am actually stunned that anybody would actually repeat such Utterly Debunked BS.

Wow.:smh:

Trump was Impeached WHILE he was STILL the Sitting President.

Tl;Dr--Your "Talking Point" has been DEBUNKED, Destroyed, and Dismantled.

Carry on.

 

What am I missing about incitement to insurrection? But this is about him being a liar now since the Dems have made NO case for incitement to insurrection and that is the ONLY thing the Senate can consider, what is the one article of impeachment.

Which of the House Managers presented from Trump's speech where he told people to go to the Capital and over run it, and violently engage in insurrection. You can't because they didn't. The fact is the Dems screwed by making that their one article before the investigators reported there is clear evidence this was well planned out before hand all the way back to November.

 

It’s a worthy topic to debate on the floor, regardless of whoever is being impeached.

 

The Dems/Left/MSM are claiming that when it comes to impeachment and removal when the Constitution says THE President it includes former Presidents. And that the House has the "sole power to impeach" which means like the Senate which has "the sole power to try" and they can do whatever they want.

It's not my position that's the Dems/Left/MSM. So former-officials can be impeached and sanctioned like making sure Obama can never serve as a Justice of the SCOTUS.

 

And impeachment is not for the purpose of holding someone accountable for their crimes. It is to remove from office and then they can be fully prosecuted by the JUDICIAL Branch where such punish shall occur according to the Constitution, NOT in the Legislative.

Tell me do you think Trump should be prosecuted and will be and well be found guilty of incitement to insurrection?

 

If he is guilty of inciting insurrection then why would he go quietly into the night?

Tell me do you think Trump should be prosecuted and will be and well be found guilty of incitement to insurrection?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Of course he wasn't there because he said he would be....and everything he says is a lie(and he is a coward)...and the stupid/gullible fall for it.

BTW, it may help you in the future if you look up the word "incite"....

Everything.

Only according to you....

Is that a statement or a question?? It makes no sense.

What do you call what they did? An afternoon tea ?

The Dems are using ALL of Trump's inflammatory, inciting, lies not just the ones he made on the day of the INSURRECTION....


BTW, getting back to my post that you quoted :

He did NOT have to be present to be charged with inciting...


If a person hires a hitman and he does the deed , the one hiring him is charged with murder whether they were present at the murder OR NOT!

 

Yes incitement to a crime requires that. Inference which if occurred is solely up to the person who believed it was, they would have to provide something concrete not just "OH I thought that's what he meant". Especially when they have been charged with a crime because of THEIR acts in which THEY choose to engage.

 

About incitement to insurrection...............can you be a little more specific? Simple dismissals certain refute nothing.

No according to their own presentation and how much he lied about things which have nothing to do with that for which he is charged.

The Senate can ONLY consider what is charged in the Article of Impeachment and the charge is he incited insurrection that day.

Read more slowly

Which of the House Managers presented from Trump's speech where he told people to go to the Capital and over run it, and violently engage in insurrection.

Inflammatory and "lies", which they would have to prove he knew were lies and not just that he had it all wrong. are NOT incitement to insurrection. What statements did they produce from previous speeches or texts or anything that specifically and explicitly called for an insurrection with time and place?

The Dems choose this path and it was a mistake on their part. They called it incitement to riots, that requires lots of facts they don't have.