GOP defense

[forkup]

So, the second impeachment is underway. I think it's useful to go over the GOP arguments for not doing so.

As far as I can tell they fall under 2 main lines. 1. Impeaching is an empty gesture so short before Trump leaves office.
2. Impeaching Trump is divisive.

On the first, I'll say this. Impeaching makes it impossible for him to run again. Not only that but more importantly an impeachment also works as a precedent. The precedent that a president is not allowed to simply refuse to acknowledge without the courts agreeing with him that he lost the election, and try to subvert the democratic process by trying to incite a coup without severe consequences makes sense.

The second is simply cynicism. Considering that those people who bring up the argument had, or even have no problem with propagating the baseless justification for this coup. It's kind of hard to make the argument that you want less divisiveness when you have defended the most divisive president of the modern age no matter what he did until the moment that it literally put their lives in danger. Or even beyond that for some.

 

[kyzr]

1. Trump won't be convicted in the Senate, so the House impeachment is meaningless.
2. Trump won't be prosecuted by the DOJ because his speech did not break any laws.
3. It makes no sense for the senate to even hold a trial on Trump when the president is Joe Biden?!
4. Its just more partisan bullshit instead of fixing SS & Medicare and the Budget, and the economy, etc.

 

[Moonglow]

1. Trump won't be convicted in the Senate, so the House impeachment is meaningless.
2. Trump won't be prosecuted by the DOJ because his speech did not break any laws.
3. It makes no sense for the senate to even hold a trial on Trump when the president is Joe Biden?!
4. Its just more partisan bullshit instead of fixing SS & Medicare and the Budget, and the economy, etc.

Why yes because that is what Trump has been doing for the last three months.

 

[forkup]

1. Trump won't be convicted in the Senate, so the House impeachment is meaningless.
2. Trump won't be prosecuted by the DOJ because his speech did not break any laws.
3. It makes no sense for the senate to even hold a trial on Trump when the president is Joe Biden?!
4. Its just more partisan bullshit instead of fixing SS & Medicare and the Budget, and the economy, etc.

Oh, it's partisan to take a coup attempt seriously?

I've given 2 reasons why impeaching him regardless of who is president is a good thing.

As to prosecution. You might be right although the language in the statutes dealing with insurrection can be interpreted in a way that makes Trump responsible. It comes down to if a prosecutor can prove intent. I don't know if they can make that stick but neither can you.

 

[rightwinger]

1. Impeaching is an empty gesture so short before Trump leaves office.
2. Impeaching Trump is divisive.

1. Trump is not above the law.
2. Making false claims about an election and denying a President who rightfully won the election is divisive

 

[Indeependent]

So, the second impeachment is underway. I think it's useful to go over the GOP arguments for not doing so.

As far as I can tell they fall under 2 main lines. 1. Impeaching is an empty gesture so short before Trump leaves office.
2. Impeaching Trump is divisive.

On the first, I'll say this. Impeaching makes it impossible for him to run again. Not only that but more importantly an impeachment also works as a precedent. The precedent that a president is not allowed to simply refuse to acknowledge without the courts agreeing with him that he lost the election, and try to subvert the democratic process by trying to incite a coup without severe consequences makes sense.

The second is simply cynicism. Considering that those people who bring up the argument had, or even have no problem with propagating the baseless justification for this coup. It's kind of hard to make the argument that you want less divisiveness when you have defended the most divisive president of the modern age no matter what he did until the moment that it literally put their lives in danger. Or even beyond that for some.

Legal lesson 1...Evidence is required to convict.

End of Legal lesson 1.

 

[konradv]

So, the second impeachment is underway. I think it's useful to go over the GOP arguments for not doing so. As far as I can tell they fall under 2 main lines. 1. Impeaching is an empty gesture so short before Trump leaves office. 2. Impeaching Trump is divisive.

So, after four years, now you're going to complain about divisiveness? The lack of personal insight astounding!

 

[kyzr]

1. Trump won't be convicted in the Senate, so the House impeachment is meaningless.
2. Trump won't be prosecuted by the DOJ because his speech did not break any laws.
3. It makes no sense for the senate to even hold a trial on Trump when the president is Joe Biden?!
4. Its just more partisan bullshit instead of fixing SS & Medicare and the Budget, and the economy, etc.

Oh, it's partisan to take a coup attempt seriously?

I've given 2 reasons why impeaching him regardless of who is president is a good thing.

As to prosecution. You might be right although the language in the statutes dealing with insurrection can be interpreted in a way that makes Trump responsible. It comes down to if a prosecutor can prove intent. I don't know if they can make that stick but neither can you.

1. It was a protest of election fraud "stop the steal" before some idiots attacked Congress. If it was a coup attempt they would have had guns instead of flags.
2. Very good. I saw top DOJ lawyers say that what Trump said is not prosecutable. I believe them. Can you point to any language in the speech that proves intent of insurrection? Didn't think so.

 

[rightwinger]

So, the second impeachment is underway. I think it's useful to go over the GOP arguments for not doing so. As far as I can tell they fall under 2 main lines. 1. Impeaching is an empty gesture so short before Trump leaves office. 2. Impeaching Trump is divisive.

So, after four years, now you're going to complain about divisiveness? The lack of personal insight astounding!

If Republicans dont want to be divisive they can admit that Biden won a fair and unbiased election

 

[Astrostar]

1. Trump won't be convicted in the Senate, so the House impeachment is meaningless.
2. Trump won't be prosecuted by the DOJ because his speech did not break any laws.
3. It makes no sense for the senate to even hold a trial on Trump when the president is Joe Biden?!
4. Its just more partisan bullshit instead of fixing SS & Medicare and the Budget, and the economy, etc.

Not meaningless. Just being impeached represents a lifelong stain on his reputation and his legacy; not once, but TWICE!!!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Congress is kabuki theatre and a freak show now.

 

[White 6]

So, the second impeachment is underway. I think it's useful to go over the GOP arguments for not doing so.

As far as I can tell they fall under 2 main lines. 1. Impeaching is an empty gesture so short before Trump leaves office.
2. Impeaching Trump is divisive.

On the first, I'll say this. Impeaching makes it impossible for him to run again. Not only that but more importantly an impeachment also works as a precedent. The precedent that a president is not allowed to simply refuse to acknowledge without the courts agreeing with him that he lost the election, and try to subvert the democratic process by trying to incite a coup without severe consequences makes sense.

The second is simply cynicism. Considering that those people who bring up the argument had, or even have no problem with propagating the baseless justification for this coup. It's kind of hard to make the argument that you want less divisiveness when you have defended the most divisive president of the modern age no matter what he did until the moment that it literally put their lives in danger. Or even beyond that for some.

Wow! They better have something better than that. Not that I support their success. I just think they are entitled to mount a better defense than that or might as well just sign off on it so save time.

 

[kyzr]

1. Trump won't be convicted in the Senate, so the House impeachment is meaningless.
2. Trump won't be prosecuted by the DOJ because his speech did not break any laws.
3. It makes no sense for the senate to even hold a trial on Trump when the president is Joe Biden?!
4. Its just more partisan bullshit instead of fixing SS & Medicare and the Budget, and the economy, etc.

Not meaningless. Just being impeached represents a lifelong stain on his reputation and his legacy; not once, but TWICE!!!

Baseless battle scars, nothing more. Trump is a billionaire, WTF does he care if Nancy and the slimy democrats impeach him 100x? He did a great job in his 4-years as president.
If I were you I'd be more concerned what Biden plans to do and how much it will cost.

 

[forkup]

So, the second impeachment is underway. I think it's useful to go over the GOP arguments for not doing so.

As far as I can tell they fall under 2 main lines. 1. Impeaching is an empty gesture so short before Trump leaves office.
2. Impeaching Trump is divisive.

On the first, I'll say this. Impeaching makes it impossible for him to run again. Not only that but more importantly an impeachment also works as a precedent. The precedent that a president is not allowed to simply refuse to acknowledge without the courts agreeing with him that he lost the election, and try to subvert the democratic process by trying to incite a coup without severe consequences makes sense.

The second is simply cynicism. Considering that those people who bring up the argument had, or even have no problem with propagating the baseless justification for this coup. It's kind of hard to make the argument that you want less divisiveness when you have defended the most divisive president of the modern age no matter what he did until the moment that it literally put their lives in danger. Or even beyond that for some.

Legal lesson 1...Evidence is required to convict.

End of Legal lesson 1.

What do you need evidence for, specifically? Evidence that he denied that he lost the election even when the vote counts and lost court cases made clear he had?
Evidence that he asked his supporters to go to the Capitol in order to stop the certification of the election? Evidence that in the rally where he did so, he and his surrogates called for action? Evidence that this was done with support from lawmakers who now call for unity?

What exactly are you contesting?

 

[forkup]

So, the second impeachment is underway. I think it's useful to go over the GOP arguments for not doing so.

As far as I can tell they fall under 2 main lines. 1. Impeaching is an empty gesture so short before Trump leaves office.
2. Impeaching Trump is divisive.

On the first, I'll say this. Impeaching makes it impossible for him to run again. Not only that but more importantly an impeachment also works as a precedent. The precedent that a president is not allowed to simply refuse to acknowledge without the courts agreeing with him that he lost the election, and try to subvert the democratic process by trying to incite a coup without severe consequences makes sense.

The second is simply cynicism. Considering that those people who bring up the argument had, or even have no problem with propagating the baseless justification for this coup. It's kind of hard to make the argument that you want less divisiveness when you have defended the most divisive president of the modern age no matter what he did until the moment that it literally put their lives in danger. Or even beyond that for some.

Wow! They better have something better than that. Not that I support their success. I just think they are entitled to mount a better defense than that or might as well just sign off on it so save time.

These are the actual arguments presented is all I can say.

 

[occupied]

1. Trump won't be convicted in the Senate, so the House impeachment is meaningless.
2. Trump won't be prosecuted by the DOJ because his speech did not break any laws.
3. It makes no sense for the senate to even hold a trial on Trump when the president is Joe Biden?!
4. Its just more partisan bullshit instead of fixing SS & Medicare and the Budget, and the economy, etc.

Not sure you have considered the damage done to the republicans by the Trump insurrection.

 

[konradv]

Congress is kabuki theatre and a freak show now.

Congress has some very courageous members.

 

[forkup]

1. Trump won't be convicted in the Senate, so the House impeachment is meaningless.
2. Trump won't be prosecuted by the DOJ because his speech did not break any laws.
3. It makes no sense for the senate to even hold a trial on Trump when the president is Joe Biden?!
4. Its just more partisan bullshit instead of fixing SS & Medicare and the Budget, and the economy, etc.

Oh, it's partisan to take a coup attempt seriously?

I've given 2 reasons why impeaching him regardless of who is president is a good thing.

As to prosecution. You might be right although the language in the statutes dealing with insurrection can be interpreted in a way that makes Trump responsible. It comes down to if a prosecutor can prove intent. I don't know if they can make that stick but neither can you.

1. It was a protest of election fraud "stop the steal" before some idiots attacked Congress. If it was a coup attempt they would have had guns instead of flags.
2. Very good. I saw top DOJ lawyers say that what Trump said is not prosecutable. I believe them. Can you point to any language in the speech that proves intent of insurrection? Didn't think so.

1. A protest is peaceful. When there's violence they call it a riot. When that riot is political in nature they call it an insurrection when that insurrection is trying to achieve the installment of a usurper to the elected leader it is called an attempted coup. COUP | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

2. You saw top lawyers who as of this moment are still working for this president saying it is not prosecutable. Before any actual investigation into intent was done by the way.

As to what I can show. (27) ‘You’ll never take back our country with weakness’ - Trump encourages supporters before protest - YouTube
I can show that the government response when the violence started was delayed. I can show Trump tweeted that the protest was gonna be wild and I can show that even when they rioted he didn't initially condemn them. There is of course other possible information that I'm not privy to that might be helpful in proving intent. The point is neither of us knows if a prosecutor can make a case for intent.

 

[DBA]

Trump won't be prosecuted by the DOJ because his speech did not break any laws.

A Biden DOJ won't care one bit about the law or guilt. Party first at all cost, just like the Democrat SCJs. They don't deviate from the party line. They are group think lemmings.

 

[White 6]

So, the second impeachment is underway. I think it's useful to go over the GOP arguments for not doing so.

As far as I can tell they fall under 2 main lines. 1. Impeaching is an empty gesture so short before Trump leaves office.
2. Impeaching Trump is divisive.

On the first, I'll say this. Impeaching makes it impossible for him to run again. Not only that but more importantly an impeachment also works as a precedent. The precedent that a president is not allowed to simply refuse to acknowledge without the courts agreeing with him that he lost the election, and try to subvert the democratic process by trying to incite a coup without severe consequences makes sense.

The second is simply cynicism. Considering that those people who bring up the argument had, or even have no problem with propagating the baseless justification for this coup. It's kind of hard to make the argument that you want less divisiveness when you have defended the most divisive president of the modern age no matter what he did until the moment that it literally put their lives in danger. Or even beyond that for some.

Wow! They better have something better than that. Not that I support their success. I just think they are entitled to mount a better defense than that or might as well just sign off on it so save time.

These are the actual arguments presented is all I can say.

Suspect he will have better representation than you. No skin off my nose, either way.