Impeachment

[1blackman1]

HF - I stated the sentence with HB1 (House Bill)

[bill sins]

Could start art 25 proceedings on Jan 20. Get 2 at the same time. Trump is bat shit crazy and Biden is brain dead.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

HF - I stated the sentence with HB1 (House Bill)

And try as I may, I can't find a copy of HB1. This is what I get with a Google search.


https://www.google.com/search?client...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


What I was trying to determine is if HB1 is an impeachment bill and I was hoping you would counter the legal reasoning I was making in post #37 not merely repeat the charges.


I think you already wrote that you don't think those charges would stand up in a court of law which is completely different than the floor of the House where literally anything can be voted on without proof that a law was broken using legal standards which of course we found out isn't necessary in the House.


Saying Trump lead an insurrection and proving it with the words he used, I imagine wouldn't be so easy to do.

[winn dixie]

pelosi is making an ass of herself AGAIN! I believe she is a disciple of satan. No human can be that filled with so much hate and bourbon

[1blackman1]

It was the language from the impeachment bill which I think may be Resolution rather than a bill so I may have made an error in its listing. I’ll have to have a look.

In any event, is trying to overturn an election through use of his power and authority and ginning up a bunch of looneys to show up in Washington and to attack the capital a high crime or misdemeanor? I believe it is. Does he have to say “go attack the capital” explicitly for him to face charges both politically (impeachment) and legally (criminally)? No, his actions taken as a whole along with his words and those around him at his rally and on the internet leading up to the event and his actions during the event can’t provide evidence of his intent. In a criminal court he likely would be acquitted. In the Senate, I think he might end up with 58-60 votes against him and his impeachment in the house will likely get 20 Republican congressman.

As I stated previously I’ve not listened to his or the others speeches at the rally but the lack of action and particularly a reticence (if true) to provide aid to the capitol by delaying authority of the military weighs against him. And his and Giuliani’s (supposedly recorded) messages on Mike Lee’s voicemail telling Tubberville to try to gum up the works and maybe stretch the objections out to most states he lost in hopes no certification could be made at in light of the attack would weigh against him as well.

It let’s be honest. If pushing people to attack congress isn’t impeachable what is. I don’t think anyone being honest believes Trump wasn’t the cause of this even if the result wasn’t what he sough. People can be culpable for unintended effects even when they couldn’t be foreseen, not that I believe this is an unforeseen consequence of the totality of Trump and the Trumpys lies and crazy beliefs.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

It was the language from the impeachment bill which I think may be Resolution rather than a bill so I may have made an error in its listing. I’ll have to have a look.

In any event, is trying to overturn an election through use of his power and authority and ginning up a bunch of looneys to show up in Washington and to attack the capital a high crime or misdemeanor? I believe it is. Does he have to say “go attack the capital” explicitly for him to face charges both politically (impeachment) and legally (criminally)? Impeachment, apparently not. Conviction, Yes No, his actions taken as a whole along with his words And I'm asking, what words were those? Did he say "attack" and those around him at his rally and on the internet leading up to the event and his actions during the event can’t provide evidence of his intent. In a criminal court he likely would be acquitted.That was a point I was trying to make, thank you. In the Senate, I think he might end up with 58-60 votes against him and his impeachment in the house will likely get 20 Republican congressman. He very well might. Each Republican Senator would have to weigh what that vote may or may not cost them next election time but I would agree that if you want Trump gone from politics forever more, vote to convict. I don't really care. I'm just trying to argue the finer points of the law.

As I stated previously I’ve not listened to his or the others speeches at the rally but the lack of action and particularly a reticence (if true) to provide aid to the capitol by delaying authority of the military weighs against him. On that I would have to agree. He should have immediately called for re-enforcement And his and Giuliani’s (supposedly recorded) messages on Mike Lee’s voicemail telling Tubberville to try to gum up the works and maybe stretch the objections out to most states he lost in hopes no certification could be made at in light of the attack would weigh against him as well. Here again, calling for procedures to "gum up the works" is not the same as ordering or condoning an attack on the Capital. But when Guiliani said "trial by combat", now that is fomenting insurrection and I believe that Guiliani should be criminally charged.

It let’s be honest. If pushing people to attack congress isn’t impeachable what is. I don’t think anyone being honest believes Trump wasn’t the cause of this even if the result wasn’t what he sough. People can be culpable for unintended effects even when they couldn’t be foreseen, not that I believe this is an unforeseen consequence of the totality of Trump and the Trumpys lies and crazy beliefs.

I completely agree, if you can prove that he said or even suggested "attacking" Congress but he did not use that word that you and I agree would make him culpable. Yes, I know I'm splitting hairs here but isn't that what many legal cases do? Require indisputable proof? We can never get to a point in our democracy where "feelings and emotions" outweigh the law. Wouldn't you agree? That's trial by mob.



Yes, he wanted his supports to "raise hell", but he wanted them to attack Congress, kill a police officer in the process? I agree the man is an asshole but I'll need more than what I see to say he wanted this to happen. I have no investment in Donald Trump, one way or the other.

[1blackman1]

As I said. He can be culpable even if the result was more than what he initially intended. I’ll give you an easy example. 2 guys get into an argument. One slaps the other and as a result the guy slips on a rock, hits his head and is seriously injured. The slapper never intended a serious injury. Nonetheless he’s culpable for the resulting injury.

Trump did not have to want the capitol breached and for people to die. Buy that resulted from his ginning them up and pointing them to capitol and and all the talk of Rudy, Jr and Brooks along with his words might have made the event foreseeable. That’s something that’s arguable. But no, it doesn’t have to indisputable that he wanted this to happen or that he intended it.

[winn dixie]

Hypocrisy! No one can prove Trump wanted that! He condemned it twice!
Wheres the outrage for burn it down! Fuck the police all summer?
Way more destruction division covid spreading and death happened during the months long "protests"!

[royamcr]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Articles of Impeachment what a joke. Biden will be sworn in in less than two weeks. They should start articles of impeachment on Biden for being incompetent.

Along those lines, Trump should have been impeached numerous times for being incompetent.

Republicans would be dumb not to impeach, do they really want to debate him for 2024? There is a good chance Trump will be incapacitated (or incarcerated) for 2024 anyway but why take the chance?

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by royamcr

Along those lines, Trump should have been impeached numerous times for being incompetent.

Along your same lines dementia incompetent joe shouldnt take office.

He has shown clear signs of dementia. Not to mention his 47 years of INCOMPETENCE.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

As I said. He can be culpable even if the result was more than what he initially intended. I’ll give you an easy example. 2 guys get into an argument. One slaps the other and as a result the guy slips on a rock, hits his head and is seriously injured. The slapper never intended a serious injury. Nonetheless he’s culpable for the resulting injury.

Trump did not have to want the capitol breached and for people to die. Buy that resulted from his ginning them up and pointing them to capitol and and all the talk of Rudy, Jr and Brooks along with his words might have made the event foreseeable. That’s something that’s arguable. But no, it doesn’t have to indisputable that he wanted this to happen or that he intended it.

I think that is a poor example because he fell and hit his head because he was assaulted, a crime. That is where the crime and it's fallout began. Trump committed no assault, said nothing to indicate he wanted the protesters to physically attack the capital and cause death. Nothing to indicate he wanted harm to come to any member of Congress but I do understand how hate can blind people leading them to believe things that never happened because they want somebody punished.


It is the reason you can't bring up prior bad acts in prosecuting someone for a specific crime. Most people are finding fault based on prior bad acts IMHO but I understand where all the hostility comes from. I'm just not willing to jump to the conclusion that Trump wanted this to happen. That's a bridge to far for me. If Trump had said what Rudy said "let's have trial by combat", I would have a different opinion.


For me, Kamala Harris offering money to bail out arsonist and looters, people who assaulted federal officers in the line of duty is reason enough she shouldn't be Vice President but some how in this country we have gotten to the point where bad acts are now determined by political association and it is going to hurt this country in the long run.

[royamcr]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Along your same lines dementia incompetent joe shouldnt take office.

He has shown clear signs of dementia. Not to mention his 47 years of INCOMPETENCE.

I highly doubt you are a Dr that can diagnose Dementia. I see no signs of it and I have experience with a family member that had it and died a few years back.

You would have to prove incompetence over his career, just saying it makes you a fool. Someone voted for him for over 40 years and how many elections? Are they all incompetent?

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by royamcr

I highly doubt you are a Dr that can diagnose Dementia. I see no signs of it and I have experience with a family member that had it and died a few years back.

You would have to prove incompetence over his career, just saying it makes you a fool. Someone voted for him for over 40 years and how many elections? Are they all incompetent?

libs vote who theyre told to vote for. no matter who they are.

dementia joe didnt get his nickname for being cognizant.
Look up signs for dementia! dementia joe can check every box.
Sorry about family member. But most of us have experience with seeing loved ones go thru dementia. I do and many others see the signs in joe. He thought he was running for the senate! lolling

[royamcr]

Republicans vote who they are told to vote for, except this time.

Biden was probably a better candidate 4 years ago. He did just fine vs a colossal asshole in the the debates. Someone with dementia would haven't been able to do that.

[Kinkster90210]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

OK counselor, take your best shot. Prove to the jury that Trump supporting the actions that took place. Did he say "attack" the capital? Or did he encourage people to protest, to air their grievances just like Cuomo told his audience that protests are perfectly legal, they are as American as apple pie, "who says protestors are supposed to be polite and peaceful"? said Cuomo. If I'm the opposing council, you can bet, if the judge would allow it, I would be playing all the clips that Fox News is now playing of Democrats doing exactly what Trump did, call for protests.

But hey if you can pull, how did you put it to me, "exactly" the words that would prove your case that Trump didn't just call for a protest but told his followers to attack the capital, lets hear them.

And no one knows what we will be talking about in 2022 but I have a pretty good idea it won't have anything to do with Trump. It will be what Democrats did after they took power. If the economy is in shambles because Joe Biden couldn't get Covid under control like he promised or the unemployment problem leads us into an actual depression aided by things Democrats did like passing laws that clearly exacerbated to economic problems? Will they be able to convince the people it was all Trumps fault?

This is a great example of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

An impeachment proceeding is NOT the same as a criminal trial. It is an inherently political action. Guilt does NOT have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And there is no jury selection or voir dire. The President is impeached by the members of one political body and removed by the members of another political body.

Although the Chief Justice presides over the proceedings, there is NO legal appeal to the courts. Once voted out, that is the end of it.

I have no doubt that most of Congress will look at the President's words and think "We know exactly what you meant to do. We won't let you off the hook because you tried to weasel word it."

If there is any justice in this world, Pence will get revenge by removing him under the 25th Amendment and Congress will impeach and remove him to make sure he can never do it again.

But time is running out on the 25th Amendment. I don't think they can do it in time to stop him from trying to pardon himself.

And then he should be prosecuted for incitement, tax fraud, and whatever else they can figure out to put him in jail and to financially ruin him.

Let him serve as a warning for future demagogues.