Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

L L wrote:

If there is an impeachment trial for Trump inciting this riot, the victims will also be the jurors.

They don’t need to be presented with any evidence or testimony.

They are the witnesses for much of it.

Yep... unless we hear some Rs say they only saw patriots trying to enter peacefully and witnessed a fellow Republican (the woman) get shot by a deep state operative. The patriots were merely concerned about the theft of trump’s legitimate win! We could see different versions of the truth.

Trollminator wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I do believe that Trump is responsible. Of course he is.

But I am not the one who needs to be convinced. We need to hear from witnesses who can attest to Trump's culpability and to his gleeful state of mind as the capitol was being desecrated.

The more who are convinced of Trump's responsibility, the more we can hope to drive Trumpism away forever.

Also, if he is ever charged in a criminal court for his role then a jury will need solid evidence to render a guilty verdict. And that is as it should be.

But why are you comparing impeachment voting with a court trial?

In an impeachment trial you will get more Republicans on board if the evidence is more convincing. I don't think all Republicans (except one) will vote strictly based on politics. That's not what we are looking at this time. This time there is a real opportunity put Trumpism behind us. The quality of the evidence is very important. Eyewitness testimony is very important.

In a criminal trial it is even more important because the rules of evidence are more strict.

I can only hope enough Rs turn under pressure. They must recognize, if there is any organized forum within the party left, that voting to convict Trump means the end of the GOP as the base will retaliate. They must also recognize that if they don’t vote to convict they are screwed anyway as they have to remain under trump’s thumb for the next 4 years. It sucks to be them but my how they deserve to be permanently crippled.

McCarthy, right wing analyst, thinks Trump's actions are not criminal, but worthy of impeachment. But he thinks that with just 10 days left, it is not possible.

I'm not sure about the time frame part, but I agree with his description of why Trump's actions are impeachable: Not criminal, but impeachable.

///

As noted earlier this week, I have prosecuted the federal offense of inciting crimes of violence. In my judgment, there is no way the president could be convicted in a criminal trial. The First Amendment makes incitement a very tough proof. My defendant was convicted because I had strong evidence that he (a) made statements that unambiguously called for murder, (b) fully intended his statements to incite the commission of murder, and (c) was a globally notorious terrorist who had a history of directing subordinates to conduct lethal attacks. There is nothing like that in Trump’s situation.

The president was utterly irresponsible in his demagoguery. He plainly intended for thousands of supporters to march on the Capitol to create political pressure on Vice President Pence and congressional Republicans — i.e., to induce them to take what would have been lawless procedural steps to invalidate electoral votes that states had cast for President-elect Biden. There is no evidence, though, much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump intended to instigate the Battle of Capitol Hill. He did not want anyone to be physically injured, let alone killed.

Yet the issue in impeachment is not criminal liability. As we extensively covered a year ago, impeachment concerns what Hamilton described as political offenses that call into question fitness for high public office. On that standard, the president’s incitement is indefensible, both for the undermining of our constitutional system that it promoted and the carnage it caused — however unintentionally. As someone who contended that the Ukraine kerfuffle was partisan theater masqueraded as impeachable offenses, I must say that this incident, to the contrary, is undeniably impeachable.

A new House Representative who is a rabid-Trumper was texting out the whereabouts of Nancy Pelosi as the rioters stormed the Capitol. This is the Q-Anon woman who carries a Glock pistol around with her in the halls of Congress.

Also, the wife Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was involved with planning the "march" on the Capitol. She paid cost of 80 buses to chauffeur the rioters because the walk from their cars was too far.

https://twitter.com/CheriJacobus/status/1348133746055262208

https://twitter.com/nonquiescent/status/1348133929312788483

You’re right. Your answers were bad.

agip wrote:

McCarthy, right wing analyst, thinks Trump's actions are not criminal, but worthy of impeachment. But he thinks that with just 10 days left, it is not possible.

Alan Dershowitz is claiming Trump cannot be impeached because by the time Congress acts on it Trump will be an immune private citizen.

I think we're in for a lot of civil violence unless the Republican Party stands up and says Biden won a fair election and Trump is a liar.

Uniform Republican rejection of lies is the only way we get out of this without a lot of dead bodies.

And they'll never do it.

So I do think there will be more political killings.

identifier wrote:

agip wrote:

McCarthy, right wing analyst, thinks Trump's actions are not criminal, but worthy of impeachment. But he thinks that with just 10 days left, it is not possible.

Alan Dershowitz is claiming Trump cannot be impeached because by the time Congress acts on it Trump will be an immune private citizen.

https://www.wgowam.com/news/dershowitz-senate-rules-would-prevent-impeachment-trial-of-trump/

ACB nomination and confirmation happened in 8 days. They can get it done.

Trollminator wrote:

identifier wrote:

Alan Dershowitz is claiming Trump cannot be impeached because by the time Congress acts on it Trump will be an immune private citizen.

https://www.wgowam.com/news/dershowitz-senate-rules-would-prevent-impeachment-trial-of-trump/

ACB nomination and confirmation happened in 8 days. They can get it done.

what if Mitch declines to pull the Senate back into action?

agip wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

ACB nomination and confirmation happened in 8 days. They can get it done.

what if Mitch declines to pull the Senate back into action?

Obviously that eliminates the possibility but it can be done.

All democrats will be rounded up and charged with treason.

identifier wrote:

Alan Dershowitz is claiming Trump cannot be impeached because by the time Congress acts on it Trump will be an immune private citizen.

To remedy a wrong committed during a Presidential term but not discovered until late in term or after term, there's a pretty good argument that said remedy can be pursued such as making the ex-POTUS ineligible to run again or receive the perks of an ex-POTUS.

It would surely end up at the foot of the SCOTUS.

I don't believe anything the opportunistic windbag Dershowitz has to say on anything.

identifier wrote:

A new House Representative who is a rabid-Trumper was texting out the whereabouts of Nancy Pelosi as the rioters stormed the Capitol. This is the Q-Anon woman who carries a Glock pistol around with her in the halls of Congress.

Source?

agip wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

ACB nomination and confirmation happened in 8 days. They can get it done.

what if Mitch declines to pull the Senate back into action?

I saw something today suggesting that the Dems would impeach, but not send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a few months. I don't know if impeaching while Trump is in office but not convicting until he is out of the office is constitutional, but if it is, Mitch is irrelevant.

Fat hurts wrote:

identifier wrote:

A new House Representative who is a rabid-Trumper was texting out the whereabouts of Nancy Pelosi as the rioters stormed the Capitol. This is the Q-Anon woman who carries a Glock pistol around with her in the halls of Congress.

Source?

TTH wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Source?

https://twitter.com/laurenboebert/status/1346898958900199429

actaully she doesn't carry a gun in congress. She made a political ad *claiming* she did, but after being told that her permit is not valid in DC, she told reporters that the ad was a lie and that she does not in fact carry a gun in DC.

So sure, she could be carrying in violation of firearm laws, or lying. Neither is a good look.

agip wrote:

TTH wrote:

https://twitter.com/laurenboebert/status/1346898958900199429

actaully she doesn't carry a gun in congress. She made a political ad *claiming* she did, but after being told that her permit is not valid in DC, she told reporters that the ad was a lie and that she does not in fact carry a gun in DC.

So sure, she could be carrying in violation of firearm laws, or lying. Neither is a good look.

And her tweet is pretty weird. What's the point of telling the world that Pelosi has been removed from the Chamber? Especially as the sh*it's hitting the fan.

On the other hand, this guy was somewhere in the mob that stormed the Capitol:

Meredith had allegedly sent a text message saying he was thinking of "putting a bullet in [Pelosi's] noggin on Live TV" and another that said he was headed to Washington with "a s--- ton of ... armor piercing ammo," according to court documents. On Wednesday, he also allegedly texted about running over Pelosi. Meredith punctuated his messages with purple devil emojis, and used several slurs for women to refer to the speaker, the police said.

TTH wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Source?

https://twitter.com/laurenboebert/status/1346898958900199429

Thanks. I read some of her feed. Total nut case. She also posted this the day before the riots.