Monkeys typing wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
You also have to determine whether he intended to incite the rioters.
I don't have to determine anything.
De Blasio's gambit is that Trump, should he chose to fight the contract termination, has to try the case that he intended to incite the rioters. I'm guessing De Blasio's legal team expects Trump to just walk away rather than effectively initiate a criminal trial against himself.
NY will be very happy to see him run out of there for good
Flagpole wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Another one trying to sweep it under the rug
https://twitter.com/geraldorivera/status/1349165191246831616?s=21Yep. It is good that morons like Geraldo are actually seeing Trump now for what he is, but his insanity was easily seen years before this. Shame on Geraldo for not seeing this earlier, and shame on all those who supported Trump, especially the last 2 years. I really wish I would have been wrong about Trump. I wasn't. He is a POS...just human garbage.
Gotta love how he is blaming the Dems for cornering trump into his current situation and mental state...
Dr. Racket wrote:
Flybang mosh wrote:
You have a different idea of "iron clad case" than I'll guess even some of your fellow liberals on here have.
I don't know how detailed or compelling that Articles of Impeachment are required to be, but if that was a Complaint in federal court, it would be a weak one, and in danger of being dismissed by motion. There isn't much in there, and what is in there is ambiguous at best.
Obviously, saying "we won this election" can't be punishable without moving dangerously into the area of creating thought crimes or First Amendment violations. Basically, no one wants there to criminal liability for inaccurate statements, even flat our falsehoods or lies (unless, of course, they are under oath - perjury is different situation altogether). So let's assume the "we won this election" quote is in there for background/premise reasons. That leaves the two statements below.
It will be very hard to link the "fight like hell" statement with any kind of intent to incite violence. I'm sure the "fight" idiom is used by nearly every single U.S. politician when campaigning. The common understanding when a politician urges supporters to "fight" is that they should put a lot of work into the campaign, not that they should assault people or destroy other's property.
The characterization of the "find [enough votes]" statement is inaccurate, which would be a glaring deficiency in a Complaint, and likely lead a judge to wonder how much credibility the Complaint had. The inaccuracy of that quote has been covered on this thread before - Trump didn't tell Raffensperger to find the votes, rather Trump announced that he, Trump, needed to find them. A significant difference in this context.
Even spending one minute with that document would not lead an objective person to think it is "iron clad" about anything. But again, I'm not familiar with what an Article of Impeachment needs, and I have no doubt it could say virtually anything, and Trump will be impeached. So it's "iron clad" in that sense, I guess.
Impeachment is described and outlined in the Constitution. There is no standard for burden of proof or evidence - it is a political process where the House of Representatives condemns the presidents actions and recommends his removal to the Senate where a trial will take place.
Interesting. If true, I'm surprised this doesn't happen every month when the president is of a different party than the majority of the House.
I suppose any Article of Impeachment one drafts is "iron clad" if there is no standard.
Flagpole wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
I wish you were right but the brainwashing was way too potent this time. It won't just go away and the GOP isn't going to go back to being what it was before in one piece. It will have to split which means these people will still have a strong voice. It's an extremely polarized electorate right now. Many trumpers may have been against the violence in DC but they are not backing down from the cause. As long as Republicans or "Patriots" can gain more power by gas lighting and enabling these blatant lies they will do so. Can't put the toothpaste back in.
Does anyone here really thing the GOP will fully unite against trumpism? LOLz
This is the one thing you and I disagree on. Even before Jan. 6, I had said Trump's influence would steadily decline after Biden's inauguration. Now that Trump has incited insurrection, that has been sped up, and here's why:
1) Elected GOP members are pushing back.
2) Trump is about to be impeached a second time, making him the biggest loser in American political history.
3) There are already some Trumpers (hard core even) who have stepped away from him since Jan. 6. Some of these people have stated so on TikTok with lots of people agreeing with them. Just a final step too far for many of them.
4) Big corporations are severing ties with Trump, and that's going to hurt his brand tremendously which is part of his allure.
5) He can't escape the fact that he was elected as a populist. Populism lasts one election cycle. He's done.
6) Trump has very poor business sense. He has started scores of business ventures outside of his core real estate one (that Daddy left him) that have all failed. He will not be successful in starting any kind of broadcast network or new party. If he forms a new political party, it will fizzle.
There will be stories about Trump's "fall from grace", but to me it not shocking or surprising. He can not and will not withstand the wave of negativity coming at him from now on through the rest of his life. Trumpers are already saying "It's not about Trump...it's about good vs. evil" and other sh!t like that. He's done.
And it's another one I hope I am wrong about.
Flagpole wrote:
agip wrote:
I agree with Pence on 25A - it's not meant for things like this.
25A is for a serious health breakdown.
Impeachment is the Constitutional remedy for someone like Trump.
Unfortunately I have to agree. I DO think the 25th Amendment could be used for a clear mental health breakdown (I mean if a President walked out to address the nation naked for example, I think that might be cause), and I DO think Trump is mentally unstable, BUT that would have to be proven by doctors, AND I submit that Trump just could be evil, and I'm not sure being evil is a mental disorder (though I could perhaps be convinced otherwise).
I would like to see some clearer language added to the 25th Amendment that makes it clear that being mentally unfit is a reason to use it.
I think they could make a case, but it doesn't even matter because it's in the hands of Pence
https://www.salon.com/2020/09/25/a-psychopath-psychologists-call-trump-the-most-psychiatrically-disordered-president-in-history_partner/Flybang mosh wrote:
Dr. Racket wrote:
Impeachment is described and outlined in the Constitution. There is no standard for burden of proof or evidence - it is a political process where the House of Representatives condemns the presidents actions and recommends his removal to the Senate where a trial will take place.
Interesting. If true, I'm surprised this doesn't happen every month when the president is of a different party than the majority of the House.
I suppose any Article of Impeachment one drafts is "iron clad" if there is no standard.
Says enough about your intellect
SDSU Aztec wrote:
I understand that although it's hard to not be intimidated by Trump's lunatics, we're not talking about ISIS. They will easily be rooted out and many will be imprisoned. F.B.I. agents pretending to be morons will have no problem infiltrating various groups and nipping future plans at the bud. Those that are employed now know that just being seen at an uprising can cost them their jobs.
I agree with you. A large and lengthy uprising is highly unlikely because our intelligence agencies are too good and Trumpers are too stupid. However, there's nothing to stop, in isolated instances, a highly motivated and angry Trumper from doing something desperate. That's why Id prefer there to be measures of dialogue and attempts at finding some, any middle ground because if these lunatics feel disenfranchised who knows what they will do.
Sally Vix wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
They have the unilateral right to do what they're doing. The argument that they don't want to do business with a shamed ex-POTUS would be compelling in court, should Trump try to fight it.
So if Gavin Newsom is recalled and becomes a shamed ex-Governor, any current contract he is a party to is void?
So this is today's attempt to prove you're an idiot.
Consider it a success!
Trollminator wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
This is the one thing you and I disagree on. Even before Jan. 6, I had said Trump's influence would steadily decline after Biden's inauguration. Now that Trump has incited insurrection, that has been sped up, and here's why:
1) Elected GOP members are pushing back.
2) Trump is about to be impeached a second time, making him the biggest loser in American political history.
3) There are already some Trumpers (hard core even) who have stepped away from him since Jan. 6. Some of these people have stated so on TikTok with lots of people agreeing with them. Just a final step too far for many of them.
4) Big corporations are severing ties with Trump, and that's going to hurt his brand tremendously which is part of his allure.
5) He can't escape the fact that he was elected as a populist. Populism lasts one election cycle. He's done.
6) Trump has very poor business sense. He has started scores of business ventures outside of his core real estate one (that Daddy left him) that have all failed. He will not be successful in starting any kind of broadcast network or new party. If he forms a new political party, it will fizzle.
There will be stories about Trump's "fall from grace", but to me it not shocking or surprising. He can not and will not withstand the wave of negativity coming at him from now on through the rest of his life. Trumpers are already saying "It's not about Trump...it's about good vs. evil" and other sh!t like that. He's done.
And it's another one I hope I am wrong about.
Well, he is for sure done. You will be shown to be wrong on this.
welp wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
I understand that although it's hard to not be intimidated by Trump's lunatics, we're not talking about ISIS. They will easily be rooted out and many will be imprisoned. F.B.I. agents pretending to be morons will have no problem infiltrating various groups and nipping future plans at the bud. Those that are employed now know that just being seen at an uprising can cost them their jobs.
I agree with you. A large and lengthy uprising is highly unlikely because our intelligence agencies are too good and Trumpers are too stupid. However, there's nothing to stop, in isolated instances, a highly motivated and angry Trumper from doing something desperate. That's why Id prefer there to be measures of dialogue and attempts at finding some, any middle ground because if these lunatics feel disenfranchised who knows what they will do.
There is no "IF" here, they DO feel disenfranchised and as far as they are concerned the legitimately elected POTUS told them to defend the constitution. One option is for them to do a 180 and go against their feelings and against everything they've been told by trump, the GOP and their online interactions and friends. Not gonna happen. Most aren't violent but will remain angry and continue to blame whoever they could. There are a lot of them who feel ready to be heroes though. This is not a fire that can be put out overnight and for them to watch the GOP try to save itself by aligning with the deep state again is straight up Tabasco in the wound.
TTH wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
So if Gavin Newsom is recalled and becomes a shamed ex-Governor, any current contract he is a party to is void?
So this is today's attempt to prove you're an idiot.
Consider it a success!
That proof was shown long ago.
Flybang mosh wrote:
Dr. Racket wrote:
Impeachment is described and outlined in the Constitution. There is no standard for burden of proof or evidence - it is a political process where the House of Representatives condemns the presidents actions and recommends his removal to the Senate where a trial will take place.
Interesting. If true, I'm surprised this doesn't happen every month when the president is of a different party than the majority of the House.
I understand. A lot of people think impeachment is done for the lolz since Newt Gingrich decided it'd be funny to impeach Clinton during a Congressional lame duck session for a blowski from an intern. The lame duck part is important because Democrats were actually set to pick up a few seats and compromise the Republican majority.
The Constitution considers it to be a pretty big deal though, not something to be fired off just cuz. Gingrich realized that only afterwards and it pretty much ruined his career in politics. He would, however, go on to have an illustrious career as one of the sleaziest persons in history. I imagine by now he's on his 7th or 8th wife - hope she doesn't get sick!
Flybang mosh wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I don't remember if anyone posted the articles of impeachment yet, but everyone should read it. It will take you less than five minutes. It is an iron clad case.
https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20449065-house-impeachment-resolution-finalHowever, because most Americans won't bother to read it or think deeply about it, we still need witnesses in the senate who will give an eyewitness account of Trump's sedition from behind the scenes. We must bury Trumpism forever. The deeper the better.
You have a different idea of "iron clad case" than I'll guess even some of your fellow liberals on here have.
I don't know how detailed or compelling that Articles of Impeachment are required to be, but if that was a Complaint in federal court, it would be a weak one, and in danger of being dismissed by motion. There isn't much in there, and what is in there is ambiguous at best.
Obviously, saying "we won this election" can't be punishable without moving dangerously into the area of creating thought crimes or First Amendment violations. Basically, no one wants there to criminal liability for inaccurate statements, even flat our falsehoods or lies (unless, of course, they are under oath - perjury is different situation altogether). So let's assume the "we won this election" quote is in there for background/premise reasons. That leaves the two statements below.
It will be very hard to link the "fight like hell" statement with any kind of intent to incite violence. I'm sure the "fight" idiom is used by nearly every single U.S. politician when campaigning. The common understanding when a politician urges supporters to "fight" is that they should put a lot of work into the campaign, not that they should assault people or destroy other's property.
The characterization of the "find [enough votes]" statement is inaccurate, which would be a glaring deficiency in a Complaint, and likely lead a judge to wonder how much credibility the Complaint had. The inaccuracy of that quote has been covered on this thread before - Trump didn't tell Raffensperger to find the votes, rather Trump announced that he, Trump, needed to find them. A significant difference in this context.
Even spending one minute with that document would not lead an objective person to think it is "iron clad" about anything. But again, I'm not familiar with what an Article of Impeachment needs, and I have no doubt it could say virtually anything, and Trump will be impeached. So it's "iron clad" in that sense, I guess.
I believe his speech can easily interpreted as incitement, but it doesn't really matter. His 2 months of falsely ranting against the election created the volatile situation. He was also responsible for anything said by Guliani and his sons. POTUSs are held to a higher standard and as the last speaker, he should have made it clear that no one was to enter the building. He was probably even told that by his advisors.
Flagpole wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
And it's another one I hope I am wrong about.
Well, he is for sure done. You will be shown to be wrong on this.
My view on trump's survivability has definitely changed since the Republican Benghazi but I am talking more about trumpism and the GOP's openness to welcoming the next nutcase with open arms. I think the base became way too invested in their wacko ideas and I still don't see how that's going to be remedied. 74m voted for trump and don't see a good replacement so I think a huge chuck of the right will stick with him and whoever he endorses. He has been totally rejected by the left, that's for sure. But the censoring we are seeing, for example, is being treated as confirmation to those people of the witch hunt and deep state operations. The GOP would have to publicly reject trump as a unit. This aint over IMO.
Mitch says no trial until Biden is in office
So Trump will finish his term unless he resigns for some pardon deal.
And no doubt mitch will use the trial to stop the Biden admin in its tracks.
agip wrote:
Mitch says no trial until Biden is in office
So Trump will finish his term unless he resigns for some pardon deal.
And no doubt mitch will use the trial to stop the Biden admin in its tracks.
Mitch will not be the Senate leader after Jan 20th. He cannot single-handedly stonewall Biden's agenda.
The true reason Moscow Mitch declined to recall the Senate from his imposed vacation (they have been on vacation most days since before the election ... do nothings) is because they fear for their lives. Being a Trumper politician has ugly consequence.
https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1349369689227603968verne wrote:
agip wrote:
Mitch says no trial until Biden is in office
So Trump will finish his term unless he resigns for some pardon deal.
And no doubt mitch will use the trial to stop the Biden admin in its tracks.
Mitch will not be the Senate leader after Jan 20th. He cannot single-handedly stonewall Biden's agenda.
The true reason Moscow Mitch declined to recall the Senate from his imposed vacation (they have been on vacation most days since before the election ... do nothings) is because they fear for their lives. Being a Trumper politician has ugly consequence.
https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1349369689227603968
What a bunch of fvcking cowards. You spend 4 years trying to light this fire with nothing but high grade retard fuel and now you don't even have the balls to face it?
Imagine these people 250 years ago in Philadelphia
agip wrote:
Mitch says no trial until Biden is in office
So Trump will finish his term unless he resigns for some pardon deal.
And no doubt mitch will use the trial to stop the Biden admin in its tracks.
I don't think anyone expected that the trial would happen before trump left. This won't hurt the Biden admin, it's left overs from trump's time. Mitch will be very busy trying to keep his party in one piece.
Dr. Racket wrote:
verne wrote:
Mitch will not be the Senate leader after Jan 20th. He cannot single-handedly stonewall Biden's agenda.
The true reason Moscow Mitch declined to recall the Senate from his imposed vacation (they have been on vacation most days since before the election ... do nothings) is because they fear for their lives. Being a Trumper politician has ugly consequence.
https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1349369689227603968What a bunch of fvcking cowards. You spend 4 years trying to light this fire with nothing but high grade retard fuel and now you don't even have the balls to face it?
Imagine these people 250 years ago in Philadelphia
LOL they dug their own holes. They need to own this and they will. Sure the people pay a price too, but the GOP is going to have to swim in it's own $hit for a long time.
welp wrote:
A large and lengthy uprising is highly unlikely because our intelligence agencies are too good and Trumpers are too stupid. However, there's nothing to stop, in isolated instances, a highly motivated and angry Trumper from doing something desperate. That's why Id prefer there to be measures of dialogue and attempts at finding some, any middle ground because if these lunatics feel disenfranchised who knows what they will do.
Middle ground? Like Biden replacing Harris with Trump as VP and stepping down after two years? They would not trust Biden's promise to step down. They might be satisfied if Biden agrees to become Trump's VP. That will allow Dems to control the Senate, but they hate Pence so much they might accept it.
Parker Valby post 5k interview... Worst of all time? Are Parker Valby interviews always cringe?
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Start Lists for the Men's and Women's Mile/1500 at Pre are up
MSU men > NAU by 1 point even though Nico Young and Colin Sahlman tripled!!
What is the worst insult anyone gave you about your running ability and how did you respond?
Do Australians consider their culture closer to Britain's or America's?