Impeachment Trial Of Donald Trump Underway. Discuss If You Want.

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,862
7,465
PA
✟320,399.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Citation please.
I'd suggest watching the video clips shown on day 3 of the impeachment trial, taken by the rioters themselves and shared on social media.

Some excerpts quoted here: Trump impeachment trial Day 3 highlights: ‘We were invited’ and a quick defense - Chicago Tribune

Also, is there any evidence that Trump actually made such orders? Did he have some secret meeting with his secret soldiers to storm the Capital building?
Some of the things that he said in his speech, along with the tweets and rallies that he held between the election and the day of the riot, could certainly be interpreted as such. And at least some of his supporters clearly did see it that way.

Remember, it is your camp who is labeling the Trump supporters as brain washed moronic lunatics. So why would anyone find any credibility with the rantings of a Trump supporter?
I have no reason not to believe the reasons for their actions as stated from their own mouths in the heat of the moment.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Some of the things that he said in his speech, along with the tweets and rallies that he held between the election and the day of the riot, could certainly be interpreted as such.

Translation: No, he never did that.
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,862
7,465
PA
✟320,399.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Translation: No, he never did that.
He absolutely incited the riot. The rioters' own words show that. Did he intend to? Did he set out from the White House that morning planning to sic a mob on Congress? I doubt it. But this isn't a criminal trial, so intent is irrelevant. Far more important is that he engaged in a pattern of reckless speech, taking advantage of his position as President to reach large numbers of people and spread lies about the election. And far more important is that, when the riot started, he did nothing to curb it. In doing so, he violated his oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States. In doing so, he committed high crimes against our country.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
He absolutely incited the riot. The rioters' own words show that.

So, every word from the mouth of some guy wearing a buffalo head is beyond doubting but IS sufficient to cause Congress to junk the Constitution?

Is there some point at which the idea that so many Americans are feeling at the present--that our nation's laws are being dismantled before our eyes and simply in order to advance the political goals of one political party--will make sense?


 
  • Agree
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,862
7,465
PA
✟320,399.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
So, every word from the mouth of some guy wearing a buffalo head is beyond doubting but IS sufficient to cause Congress to junk the Constitution?
Aaand we've come around to this again. Junk the Constitution? Really?
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟982,622.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Reposting #96

LINK

The Justice Department is now making clear that a leader among the Oath Keepers paramilitary group -- who planned and led others in the US Capitol siege to attempt to stop the Biden presidency -- believed she was responding to the call from then-President Donald Trump himself.

"As the inauguration grew nearer, [Jessica] Watkins indicated that she was awaiting direction from President Trump," prosecutors wrote in a filing Thursday morning.

The Justice Department filing continued: "Her concern about taking action without his backing was evident in a November 9, 2020, text in which she stated, 'I am concerned this is an elaborate trap. Unless the POTUS himself activates us, it's not legit. The POTUS has the right to activate units too. If Trump asks me to come, I will. Otherwise, I can't trust it.' Watkins had perceived her desired signal by the end of December."

This doesn't implicate Trump.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
33,239
36,555
Los Angeles Area
✟829,321.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
This doesn't implicate Trump.

She says the only reason she would do it was if Trump ordered it.
She did do it.
Therefore, Trump's words and deeds "activated" her, in her words.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SkyWriting
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Citation please. Also, is there any evidence that Trump actually made such orders? Did he have some secret meeting with his secret soldiers to storm the Capital building? Remember, it is your camp who is labeling the Trump supporters as brain washed moronic lunatics. So why would anyone find any credibility with the rantings of a Trump supporter?

The video was shown during the trials in the last few days.
Each arrested rioter has his words and deeds documented by the FBI in files that are available to the public.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Citation please. Also, is there any evidence that Trump actually made such orders? Did he have some secret meeting with his secret soldiers to storm the Capital building? Remember, it is your camp who is labeling the Trump supporters as brain washed moronic lunatics. So why would anyone find any credibility with the rantings of a Trump supporter?

His orders were to "stand down and stand by."

His speech was to go "Fight" mentioned 23 times.
His speech was to go "protest" zero times.

His response to the rioters was "We love you."
That was after people were dead.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Even the Prosecutors in the Senate trial know that Trump did not "order" anyone to overthrow the government, so if such comments were made during the incident, there is a different explanation.
Trump requested that Pense throw out the count. "And he better do it"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Trump requested that Pense throw out the count. "And he better do it"

...and you think this is a clear invitation to overthrow the government? o_O

A much more logical explanation would be that if Pence did not do what was wanted, his career as a Republican leader would be over. Or that any hopes he might have of becoming the Presidential nominee in 2024 (which had been rumored), would be finished. Any of us can easily add to the list of possibilities.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Chrystal-J
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,862
7,465
PA
✟320,399.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
...and you think this is a clear invitation to overthrow the government? o_O

A much more logical explanation would be that if Pence did not do what was wanted, his career as a Republican leader would be over. Or that any hopes he might have of becoming the Presidential nominee in 2024 (which had been rumored), would be finished. Any of us can easily add to the list of possibilities.
Yet his supporters clearly didn't see it that way - seeing how they tried to overthrow the government, chanting "Hang Mike Pence!"
 
Upvote 0

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Citation please. Also, is there any evidence that Trump actually made such orders? Did he have some secret meeting with his secret soldiers to storm the Capital building? Remember, it is your camp who is labeling the Trump supporters as brain washed moronic lunatics. So why would anyone find any credibility with the rantings of a Trump supporter?
It was presented in the trial. In order to discuss, it’s helpful to watch what is being discussed.
upload_2021-2-12_9-36-17.jpeg
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Impeachment has 2 functions. Removal from office and prevention from holding future office.

You find it suspect that the goal of the impeachment is to accomplish the only thing that impeachment can serve to do in this case (as Trump is already removed from office)? It's bizarre that your defense is "they're trying to do what the process explicitly states it does!".



Defense Attorney: Your honor, it is no longer denied by the prosecution that the real purpose for the trial is to have my client put in prison!

Prosecutor: Yes, your honor. As the penalty for this crime is jail time, that is exactly the recourse I seek.

Let's not overlook another purpose of prosecution... deterrence. We need to insure that the next guy who wants to egg on an angry mob to storm the capitol (which, let's face it, may very well be Donald in 2024) thinks twice about it.

It's the not severity of punishment that deters future crime, it's the certainty.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: whatbogsends
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,719
9,443
the Great Basin
✟329,873.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you believe they were acting on Trump's orders?

I believe that it is what they believed, and that is what matters. In an incitement case, it does not matter if it is what you intended. If you yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you may well intend a prank and not intend for anyone to get hurt. Despite that, if people do panic and are hurt, you are likely to be convicted of incitement, since a "reasonable man" understands that is the likely result.

In the same way, Trump may not have intended what happened; and short of Trump taking the stand, we likely won't ever know what Trump's intentions were. What we do know is the words he said in the six months leading up to and following the election -- about how it was "rigged" and "no more free elections," and "fight." Again, using that type of language over that long a period, he should have known what would happen.

In fact, as President, he would have received the security briefings about what some of the right-wing groups were doing. He had the power to order the National Guard to deploy, to protect the Capitol Building and DC. Yet he didn't do it, instead we hear some rumor that he "ordered" it -- but as Commander in Chief, if he had ordered it, it would have been done. Period.

Last, there is the issue of what occurred on the afternoon of Jan 6. You have the President in the White House. Again, rumors claim he was watching the coverage on TV and "cheering" it on. Even if that isn't true, the fact remains, as President, he would have been receiving updates about the security situation at the Capitol -- it likely would have been put on a TV for him, so he could see first-hand. And, again, aides have claimed they kept telling the President that he needed to intervene, at a minimum he needed to Tweet to tell his followers to go home.

That is the second part that Trump supporters seem to ignore. The riot started, and Trump knew about it and did nothing. He didn't Tweet to his followers to stop, he didn't activate the National Guard to take back the Capitol; instead he did nothing -- for over two hours. He only finally intervened after one of his followers had been killed, at which point he finally released a video telling the rioters to go home, and that he loved them very much.

Yes, you can argue that Pres. Trump didn't intend to start the riot; that he didn't plan it. The issue is, he had to know, based on security briefings, what was planned -- and he did nothing to stop it until one of his followers had been killed.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟982,622.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I believe that it is what they believed, and that is what matters. In an incitement case, it does not matter if it is what you intended. If you yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you may well intend a prank and not intend for anyone to get hurt. Despite that, if people do panic and are hurt, you are likely to be convicted of incitement, since a "reasonable man" understands that is the likely result.

In the same way, Trump may not have intended what happened; and short of Trump taking the stand, we likely won't ever know what Trump's intentions were. What we do know is the words he said in the six months leading up to and following the election -- about how it was "rigged" and "no more free elections," and "fight." Again, using that type of language over that long a period, he should have known what would happen.

In fact, as President, he would have received the security briefings about what some of the right-wing groups were doing. He had the power to order the National Guard to deploy, to protect the Capitol Building and DC. Yet he didn't do it, instead we hear some rumor that he "ordered" it -- but as Commander in Chief, if he had ordered it, it would have been done. Period.

Last, there is the issue of what occurred on the afternoon of Jan 6. You have the President in the White House. Again, rumors claim he was watching the coverage on TV and "cheering" it on. Even if that isn't true, the fact remains, as President, he would have been receiving updates about the security situation at the Capitol -- it likely would have been put on a TV for him, so he could see first-hand. And, again, aides have claimed they kept telling the President that he needed to intervene, at a minimum he needed to Tweet to tell his followers to go home.

That is the second part that Trump supporters seem to ignore. The riot started, and Trump knew about it and did nothing. He didn't Tweet to his followers to stop, he didn't activate the National Guard to take back the Capitol; instead he did nothing -- for over two hours. He only finally intervened after one of his followers had been killed, at which point he finally released a video telling the rioters to go home, and that he loved them very much.

Yes, you can argue that Pres. Trump didn't intend to start the riot; that he didn't plan it. The issue is, he had to know, based on security briefings, what was planned -- and he did nothing to stop it until one of his followers had been killed.

So we need to eliminate the idea of 'intent' from the law? How would we apply that to homicide cases?
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,783
13,353
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟367,283.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
If that is what you want to believe, then so be it. What I said (and what the usual news commentators noted yesterday after the Senate's adjournment for the day) was that THE PROSECUTORS' alleged purpose of the trial being about inciting insurrection or treason or the rest of that silly stuff has given way IN THEIR OWN PRESENTATIONS to it being about keeping Trump from running for office again. Running against them. And that's a purely partisan worry.
It's not what I "want to believe". That makes it sound arbitrary and capricious.

IT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE TELLS ME. It's what the freakin' INSURRECTIONISTS tell me. Why aren't you listening to them?


Given that his supporters took actions against the machinations of the state in an attempt to destabilize and delegitimize a rightful president, and also indicate a desire to murder certain politicians, of COURSE they are not going to want him to run again.

How stupid do you have to be to think "Yeah. So Trump caused this insurrection but he should DEFINITELY be able to run again". OBVIOUSLY they aren't going to want him to run again because he caused his insurrection.

And what's his defense strategy? The ULTIMATE whinge against responsibility "Ignore what I did. Look! They don't like me". Look folks. We don't like him BECAUSE OF WHAT HE DOES. What is it going to take to realize that? It's not some "personal vendetta" it's because he keeps doing awful things.


What a pathetic manchild.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FenderTL5

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2016
5,085
5,960
Nashville TN
✟634,456.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I'm curious; I wonder why the Trump attorney(s) didn't simply walk into the well of the Senate and say, "Trump is a Republican," then sit back down.
That's all the GOP senators really needed no hear to consider the defense unimpeachable.
 
Upvote 0