Hüsker Dü
DA
The only thing I am having trouble comprehending was that post of yours. Would you like to try again? Or is that some attempt at shop talk, either way, weak.
President Joe Biden
- Thread starter tenacious
- Start date
Hüsker Dü
DA
And what happened in the Brown/Goldman civil suit against the juice?
Cant help it if you comprehend. Mcconnell conceded the evidence didn’t hold to the level of criminal incitement. Felt trump could have been charge with something else (like recklessness) if still in office and his behavior immoral. I already said I agreed. I’ve been saying for a while the ds made a tactical mistake in that regard. I liked the McConnell speech
Different jury (take a guess as to one of the differences). Different standard too
Hüsker Dü
DA
That’s what the ‘Philadelphia lawyer’ claimed.
Hüsker Dü
DA
You like the speech in the context of the way you misrepresented it.
Hüsker Dü
DA
So good luck mr trump.
Hey I can’t help what your fevered delusions misunderstand
Because there's a bunch of different questions:
1. Which lawyer's did a better job? Answer: Trump's lawyers did...the House managers underperformed. Busker slighted the Trump lawyer by saying he was an ambulance chaser. He gave a pretty good case despite not being one of the Ivy League grads and did a better job than they did.
2. Was Trump guilty? Answer: No. He did not incite the crowd under the legal definition of incitement. The House managers could have brought a different charge, but they didn't. Trump was acquitted of the charge.
3., Who was going to win? Answer: Given the charge levelled, the outcome was pretty much preordained.
4. Was it a good idea then to bring the impeachment charge for incitement? Answer: Unclear. Depends on whether you believe in moral victories. Tactically it didn't work out great for the Ds (see 2 above). Their consolation prize is dividing the establishment and populist wings of the R.
5. Did the Senate have the authority to remove a President no longer sitting? Answer: Unclear but neither McConnell nor Roberts seem to think so.
7. Does that mean that Trump didn't do anything wrong? Answer: No., and that's where McConnell's speech was brilliant.
1. Your opinion, from a decidedly minority position. The laughter directed at the defense lawyers wasn't confined to the Senate Chamber.
2. Another opinion, especially since this was an impeachment trial which is fundamentally political in nature.
3. Agree.
4. The charge was appropriate for the crime.
5. Yes. There is a settled precedent.
6. What happened to 6? Did you delete your errors about Roberts?
7. Agree.
I don't think anyone ever thought the Ds would get enough Rs to join in. I didn't. If nothing else, it shows how our representative democracy is a complete failure.
Desert Hound
DA
5. What is the settled precedent?
As to 1 it’s a professional opinion which if dad is correct means more than yours. My bro thought it was pretty funny his roommate got schooled by a trial lawyer.
2 is not an opinion. It is now a fact since the senate agreed
4 there is no crime here. This didn’t rise to the level of incitement and didn’t meet the legal standards here
6 I’m doing multiple things here. You don’t require a very large portion of my brain power nor do you merit my full attention
hes citing the post hoc removal of some judges iirc. There’s some issues with that precedent though and the chief seemed to agree but now that the senate has voted the precedent has been irrevocably changed.
The ds failure to understand that the legal charge of incitement wasn’t met but joining in anyways in a desire to punish trump certain does show our democracy is a complete failure especially since a lot of them including the vp are guilty of similar conduct
Other federal officers have been impeached after leaving office in order to disqualify them from future federal positions.
What issues?
Have you forgotten there was an armed mob bent on multiple murders, sent there by the President?
I really don’t recall at this time. I read a paper on it Thursday but don’t remember the specifics and don’t have time to look at it (playing board game with the kids)
1. While certain members were both armed and bent on murder not all of them were. That’s like saying all the blm protestors were rioters
2. Trump certainly sent them to the capitol but he said to do it peacefully and patriotically. He never instructed them to seize the capitol
3. His behavior was certainly reckless and inspired the rioters to seize the capitol. That isn’t legally incitement. The ds including the vp did similar things with the spring riots. That’s not legal incitement either.