Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Sen Cornyn not getting the answer he was hoping for. He's pushing the line that Trump should be tried elsewhere but Raskin nailed it.

Headshot wrote: »

Well that's over

The house managers really destroyed Trump lawyers

It's like Trump went to the bargain bin for lawyers because no one else would represent him

They're still going to be able to claim a win in a Presidential impeachment trial on their record next week given the way the votes are aligned.

Pretty strong marketing tool even if the evidence of their competency is very weak based on this performance.

Tell me how wrote: »

They're still going to be able to claim a win in a Presidential impeachment trial on their record next week given the way the votes are aligned.

Pretty strong marketing tool even if the evidence of their competency is very weak based on this performance.

I could even win this trial which doesnt say alot about competency.

These guys will still continue to represent small time clients who got hit by a bus

Nice to see the senate honour eugene goodman for his heroic actions on January 6th. There’s video of rand Paul not applauding. Jesus how much of a pain in the hole do you have to be to not even fake applaud for the cameras ? He makes Mitch McConnell look somewhat reasonable.

Someone is telling jake tapper on CNN that at no time did Trump show any concern on the day. Shock horror.

Headshot wrote: »

Ya listening to it now

Very strange it's coming out now on the eve of the vote

Something done so it'll be roaming around in the minds of GOP senators overnight while they are trying to get some sleep. It definitely is a public display of the split between the House and the Senate GOP members. It also seems that after the challenging of Tommy Tuberville's phonechat with Trump by Trump's lawyer in the senate, Tuberville is standing by his version of the call content, that he told Trump that Mike Pence had been escorted out of the capitol. The Trump team are reportedly claiming that Tuberville is lying and that the call took place on the 05th Jan. It does explain why Senator Lee was at pains to make sure the record shows he did not know about the call content even though it's accepted that Trump called Lee's phone and Lee handed the phone to Tuberville so Trump could speak to him.

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

was there 1 big piece of evidence that i missed?

i dunno, most reasonable people would agree trump did not incite a riot based on evidence.

what specifically, in your mind, did he do?

Then you didn't listen to the evidence presented by the House Managers.

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

was there 1 big piece of evidence that i missed?

i dunno, most reasonable people would agree trump did not incite a riot based on evidence.

what specifically, in your mind, did he do?

He planted the seed that the only way he would lose would be if there was fraud.
He told the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by.
He claimed victory on the night of the election.
He refused to acknowledge Biden's victory.
He kept telling his supporters that the election had been stolen.
He told them that this was only the start of a Radical Left agenda to control them.
He told them that they needed to fight to ensure that the integrity of the election was upheld.
He invited them to Washington for a Protest specifically timed to coincide with the counting of electoral votes.
He spoke at the protest and told them they needed to go to the Capitola and stop what was happening.
He name checked the Vice President who he said was failing to do what needed to be done.
He told them that they needed to fight, and to be strong.
Several Protestors are on camera saying they were they ere there at his behest.
He told them that he would be there with them.
He sent tweets encouraging them while the insurrection was happening.
He told them he loved them after it was over.

Beyond. A. Reasonable. Doubt.

Water John wrote: »

Then you didn't listen to the evidence presented by the House Managers.

watch the video i posted, and how free speech does not incite any riot unless you explicitly tell people to go out and hurt people right now.

that from a youtuber who is a big dem and a criminal lawyer in DC.

what did trump do? go out and peacefully and patrilocally protest.

Trump IMO stayed just inside the line ,unfortunately. A jury of his peers may have found him responsible,no chance with partisan politics involved.

Tell me how wrote: »

He planted the seed that the only way he would lose would be if there was fraud.
He told the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by.
He claimed victory on the night of the election.
He refused to acknowledge Biden's victory.
He kept telling his supporters that the election had been stolen.
He told them that this was only the start of a Radical Left agenda to control them.
He told them that they needed to fight to ensure that the integrity of the election was upheld.
He invited them to Washington for a Protest specifically timed to coincide with the counting of electoral votes.
He spoke at the protest and told them they needed to go to the Capitola and stop what was happening.
He name checked the Vice President who he said was failing to do what needed to be done.
He told them that they needed to fight, and to be strong.
Several Protestors are on camera saying they were they ere there at his behest.
He told them that he would be there with them.
He sent tweets encouraging them while the insurrection was happening.
He told them he loved them after it was over.

Beyond. A. Reasonable. Doubt.

not quite/quiet (never know which is correct) sure what you are talking about here?

this is about 1 thing, did trump incite a riot? if you are happy he did, you can say how?

not a wall of text, something specific that he did.

some of your points...

1. trump condemned everyone for violence which included the prided boys.
2. so has every past running president.
3.as did biden and all the dems for the prior 4 years
4. see above
5. i agree. media has far too much sway, and media going 1 way. its called the 4th wall for a reason.
6. well obviously you need to know the integrity was upheld.
7. people were arriving in Washington regardless. trump asked for peaceful and patriotic protests.
8. but peacefully do there, no?
9. re mike pence, i actually dont know what happened there.
10. context.
11. let them go on the record. i was told by nanci to go there and cause trouble, just make sure i was wearing a maga hat.
12. ? okay, he would be there? expand on that.
13. haven't seen those tweets, but do present to the senate if it was already happening. cant be incitement.
14. okay. he loves his voters.



some decent observations in fairness; but the question remains, how was trump responsible for inciting a riot?

Free speech doesn't come into it. The first amendment is there to limit the government "the Congress shall make no law" and this was extended with the 14th amendment to state and local government. Of course he could use it effectively probably as a shield from criminal or tort liability, but has no bearing on whether the Congress can take action - the constitution is very clear in the language, high crimes and misdemeanors, very broad language too.

In terms of the balance of probabilities

Incitement as per the USSC in that case that everyone has surely heard about the last couple of weeks - "advocacy directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and likely to produce such action.”

I would be of the opinion that a reasonable person could conclude that on the balance of probabilities, the actions of Donald John trump both leading up to, and including the 6th of January meet the criteria for incitement.

I could also accept how a reasonable person could conclude that though what trump did was reckless, inflammatory, downright wrong in fact that proving it rises to the level of Incitement would be difficult.....

If this were a criminal case, which it isn't. This was a political crime and the man should be held accountable for his actions, but as with so many other instances in life he won't be. And they wonder why so much of the country is in the ****ter with charlatan's covering for other charlatans and laughing at their constituents.

trump knew what he was doing with his scorched earth speech, he knew what his supporters were capable of, Lansing Michigan? It isn't like we just have one isolated event where trump may or may not have gone overboard. We have a large body of evidence to work with.

Ultimately it's for nothing and I genuinely think they may have been better going after him for the phonecall, because it's very hard to paint that as anything other than what it is, but hey, that one they may very well go after him on criminal charges.

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

while you were watching, you seem eagle eyed, did you make more money?

i know this will be tough for you to answer...was there any fraud?

Besides knowing that obviously there would be some fraud in an election of that size we have also publicly seen the trump supporters who have been arrested for election fraud surely?

There was no evidence to support the claims of large scale fraud like the trump and his trumpettes were alleging of course. None, if there was they might have produced it in one of the court cases. Course what they said outside court and inside was very different. "This is not a fraud case your honour"

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

not quite/quiet (never know which is correct) sure what you are talking about here?

this is about 1 thing, did trump incite a riot? if you are happy he did, you can say how?

not a wall of text, something specific that he did.

some of your points...

1. trump condemned everyone for violence which included the prided boys.
2. so has every past running president.
3.as did biden and all the dems for the prior 4 years
4. see above
5. i agree. media has far too much sway, and media going 1 way. its called the 4th wall for a reason.
6. well obviously you need to know the integrity was upheld.
7. people were arriving in Washington regardless. trump asked for peaceful and patriotic protests.
8. but peacefully do there, no?
9. re mike pence, i actually dont know what happened there.
10. context.
11. let them go on the record. i was told by nanci to go there and cause trouble, just make sure i was wearing a maga hat.
12. ? okay, he would be there? expand on that.
13. haven't seen those tweets, but do present to the senate if it was already happening. cant be incitement.
14. okay. he loves his voters.



some decent observations in fairness; but the question remains, how was trump responsible for inciting a riot?

Genuine question, is English your second language? If so, then that's fine, if not, and you struggle with the correct usage of quiet/quite, then there probably is going to be a lot which has gone on in this trial which you are not going to be interpreting in the correct context.

Your responses to my reasons as to Trumps culpability lead me to think that this is the case.

aloyisious wrote: »

Cant open the link but if they are the video clips used by the defence, the difference between them and the managers video clips is that the managers clips show actual actions from President Trump supporters at the Capitol while he [with total control of the reins of federal govt power] took no action on receipt of requests for police and N/Guard assistance from his beleagured govt and party colleagues in the Capitol. The defence team clips show mere spoken words. As his quoted words to the Proud Boys reads, Trump stood back and stood by. He didn't even send in the cavalry.

And the Proud Boys adopted that statement and turned it in to their slogan, having it printed on Tshirts and Jackets that they wore to Trump "rallies"

sliabh 1956 wrote: »

Even Chris Wallace on Fox said using those quotes out of context were ridiculous. And they showed by doing that why the were Trumps 3rd choice defence team Meow!!!

Even if those quotes had weight ,so what?
Who is impeaching the Democratic President today?

We all saw Trump's actions. We all see his enablers' actions.

We all see their apologists weasel words.

Dems debating whether to call witnesses or not

intriguing

Here we go the house managers looking for witnesses

Leroy42 wrote: »

What this means is that any POTUS can do anything and get away totally Scott free once they resign or leave office.

Quite a situation really.

More or less.

dublin49 wrote: »

Trump IMO stayed just inside the line ,unfortunately. A jury of his peers may have found him responsible,no chance with partisan politics involved.

There is no line. He wasn't just in the line. He could have shot someone himself and the Republicans would defend him to the hilt.

It's leaked this morning that McConnell has emailed the caucus that he will vote to acquit.

I'm not at all surprised, but I do think it's a fine example of playing both sides.

After Beutler announced the contents of the McCarthy Trump call on the 6th and her contemporary notes, McConnell has an opportunity to make it appear that he has been backed into the corner by the witness evidence.
It's the witness evidence that would lead to the clear dereliction of duty, and as such he may be hoping to hold onto a significant part of Trump's base whilst simultaneously managing to jettison Trump.

I see Lady G has changed his vote to allow witness?
Very odd move from a trump toady too.

12gauge dave wrote: »

Dems hypocrisy getting shown during the impeachment.

Some shameful things said in this.

Alot worse than stand back and stand by.

https://youtu.be/aj1Rwlztapg

The only defence offered is to say that the other side are just as bad? “I may have killed him your honour, but what about all the other people who killed people?” Whataboutery at its worst.

And the democrats talking about fighting does not equate to them exhorting violence. You have to look at the context in which the word was used.