Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[Commando]

In the video that's circulating, when they rush the capitol building. They get into the room where senators meet. One guy is flipping through a notebook saying "there's got to be something in here we can use agains these mothereffers" or something to that effect. LOL. Was that guy trolling of just low IQ?

Extremely low-IQ. EXTREMELY. Moments before that, a guy is looking at some papers and reads aloud,"Ted Cruz Objection to Arizona Certification... HE WAS PLANNING ON SELLING US OUT THE WHOLE TIME! DURRRRR"

[jay santos]

Extremely low-IQ. EXTREMELY. Moments before that, a guy is looking at some papers and reads aloud,"Ted Cruz Objection to Arizona Certification... HE WAS PLANNING ON SELLING US OUT THE WHOLE TIME! DURRRRR"

I prefer to think trolling, because it's comedic genius.

[falafel]

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/house-...EM1bS9OHbwmC98

10:00 mark

Terrifying.

[BlueK]

A vote to acquit Trump is a vote that says the senator is ok with what happened. There isn't a logical way around that. Without Trump's words and actions that day and in the weeks leading up to it, it would not have happened. Voting to acquit is just crass justification based on the ultra cynical short term political calculation that not offending Trump helps them be reelected. It's nothing short of disgusting.

It won't bode well for those folks or the party in the long term however. Future history books will be not be kind.

[All-American]

A vote to acquit Trump is a vote that says the senator is ok with what happened. There isn't a logical way around that.

I can't agree with that. A vote to acquit Trump is a vote that says the senator didn't think what Trump did rises to the level of inciting an insurrection. And if you don't believe Trump either intended or even expected what happened to happen, that's not an unreasonable take.

[BlueK]

I can't agree with that. A vote to acquit Trump is a vote that says the senator didn't think what Trump did rises to the level of inciting an insurrection. And if you don't believe Trump either intended or even expected what happened to happen, that's not an unreasonable take.

Trump did nothing to put an end to it for hours. That's infuriating to me. What better evidence could there be that he approved? Seriously.

[falafel]

Trump did nothing to put an end to it for hours. That's infuriating to me. What better evidence could there be that he approved? Seriously.

I agree, that is beyond reprehensible. But that he "liked" it is not the same is intending or inciting it.

FTR, I think the evidence is overwhelming against Trump.

[wapiti]

I can't agree with that. A vote to acquit Trump is a vote that says the senator didn't think what Trump did rises to the level of inciting an insurrection. And if you don't believe Trump either intended or even expected what happened to happen, that's not an unreasonable take.

It's not about his intentions. He recklessly lied, invited them to Washington to protest, and then sent them to the capital with congress in session. His intentions are irrelevant. If someone goes 100 MPH and hits and kills a pedestrian that's vehicular homicide. The intentions of the driver are irrelevant. Same thing here. Trump drove recklessly with his office and following. An ugly insurrection was the result. He's responsible. Convict him.

[Jeff Lebowski]

What did trump intend to have happen that day?

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's not about his intentions. He recklessly lied, invited them to Washington to protest, and then sent them to the capital with congress in session. His intentions are irrelevant. If someone goes 100 MPH and hits and kills a pedestrian that's vehicular homicide. The intentions of the driver are irrelevant. Same thing here. Trump drove recklessly with his office and following. An ugly insurrection was the result. He's responsible. Convict him.

Agreed.

[BlueK]

It's not about his intentions. He recklessly lied, invited them to Washington to protest, and then sent them to the capital with congress in session. His intentions are irrelevant. If someone goes 100 MPH and hits and kills a pedestrian that's vehicular homicide. The intentions of the driver are irrelevant. Same thing here. Trump drove recklessly with his office and following. An ugly insurrection was the result. He's responsible. Convict him.

Well put.

[Now who’s the dean?]

And if you don't believe Trump either intended or even expected what happened to happen, that's not an unreasonable take.

The problem is that this hypothetical is unreasonable. Anyone who says they don’t believe Trump intended for this to happen is lying.

I saw him threaten to shoot Jim and grab the gun and load it and pull back the hammer and aim it at Jim and pull the trigger, but I’m not really sure if he intended for Jim to be shot.

[All-American]

It's not about his intentions. He recklessly lied, invited them to Washington to protest, and then sent them to the capital with congress in session. His intentions are irrelevant. If someone goes 100 MPH and hits and kills a pedestrian that's vehicular homicide. The intentions of the driver are irrelevant. Same thing here. Trump drove recklessly with his office and following. An ugly insurrection was the result. He's responsible. Convict him.

It actually IS about intentions, if you are considering the crime of inciting insurrection. Actual intent is an element of the crime of incitement. You could not convict somebody of incitement in a US courtroom without a finding that they actually intended the action.

Granted, this setting is very different-- we are not in a US Courtroom. And I happen to agree that recklessness should be sufficient for impeachment and conviction in this case. But it's a lot closer a call than many want to admit. I know a lot of very reasonable minds on both sides of this point.

[All-American]

The problem is that this hypothetical is unreasonable. Anyone who says they don’t believe Trump intended for this to happen is lying.

I don't believe Trump intended for people to breach the building.

[All-American]

Trump did nothing to put an end to it for hours. That's infuriating to me. What better evidence could there be that he approved? Seriously.

I've long thought that the better case for impeachment and conviction was not intent to incite insurrection, but failure to act when the insurrection came about. I don't understand why Democrats decided to go with the weaker argument.