trump shouldn't have been impeached today

Author: n8nrgmi ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 89
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,000
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    now, trump is the only president to have been impeached twice. i disagreed with both impeachments incidents, though. 

    they said he incited a riot. i disagree. at most he egged them on, but he didn't say to riot. in fact, at one point he told them to 'peacefully' and 'patriotically' go to the capitol. 

    the liberals can't rationally defend impeachment. the actions of the president dont match up with the charges. all liberals care about is makin trump look bad, and kicking him on his way out the door. facts be damned. 
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,000
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @HistoryBuff
    do you think he should have been impeached today? why or why not? 
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 920
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    That riot was a culmination of Trump peddling nonsensical election theft conspiracies for weeks on end. I fail to see how he isn't entirely culpable.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,778
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @n8nrgmi
    Senate trial will begin in 5 days. Get your popcorn ready.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,132
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @n8nrgmi
    do you think he should have been impeached today? why or why not? 
    of course. he incited an insurrection against democracy. He has been feeding them a pack of lies for months about he won in a landslide but it was secretly stolen. He told that crowd they had to do something about it. He told them they had to retake their country with strength. His personal attorney told them that same morning they needed a trial by combat. 

    And that doesn't even get into his actions during the riot. He reportedly resisted calling in the national guard and pence needed to do it. He failed to make a statement for hours while people were dying. When he finally did make a statement, he repeated all the lies that were causing them to attack the capitol in the 1st place thus egging them on even more. 
  • Death23
    Death23 avatar
    Debates: 21
    Forum posts: 618
    3
    4
    7
    Death23 avatar
    Death23
    --> @n8nrgmi
    the liberals can't rationally defend impeachment. the actions of the president dont match up with the charges. all liberals care about is makin trump look bad, and kicking him on his way out the door. facts be damned. 
    There is a strong probability that impeachment will substantially reduce Trump's influence, and it would prevent him from running in 2024 provided that the senate convicts and passes a post-conviction resolution on eligibility to hold office. Trump has been a divisive politician and his lies have significantly worsened post-truth politics. Reducing his influence in the future is good for the future. As to whether or not he actually is guilty of inciting an insurrection - What do you base your factual position on? It's obvious that Trump was well within the chain of causation that led to the attack on the capitol. His personal lawyer was up there and said "Lets have trial by combat!" I doubt his lawyer would have said that without Trump's approval given how deferent the lawyer has been to Trump in the past.
  • FLRW
    FLRW avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 442
    2
    2
    5
    FLRW avatar
    FLRW
    From a Conservative web site: In a speech of about 14 minutes that the leftist mainstream media ignored on Tuesday, President Trump argued this case.
    He won the election on November 3 with landslide numbers, he said, but 11th-hour vote fraud gave “President-elect” Joe Biden the victory.
    Indeed, Trump said, Biden’s vote total was statistically impossible, a conclusion that comports with the massive vote fraud the president claims occurred.
    Trump’s convincing appeal — which won’t matter to hate-Trump Democrats and Republicans — did not include hints about what he might do given that he believes Biden and his gang — with the help of the leftist social and mainstream media — robbed him. 
    But he did say Americans can’t let stand an election won by fraud and fakery.

     Trump is guilty of Criminal Negligence. 
    Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

  • MisterChris
    MisterChris avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,352
    5
    9
    11
    MisterChris avatar
    MisterChris
    --> @FLRW
    Trump is guilty of Criminal Negligence. 
    Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

    I agree with this assessment. Not sure whether it necessarily warrants a 2nd impeachment, but I know I won't be voting for him anytime soon, even though I was all set to before this all went down. 

    As I've said before:

    Trump created a hungry, uncontrollable monster, pointed it towards food, and then asked it to sit quietly. 
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,874
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    right, this make two fraud impeachments
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,000
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @HistoryBuff
    so if someone tells a crowd to do something about injustice, and tot take back the country with strength.... you are responsible for inciting a riot if that crowd turns riotous?

    i can't believe you can't see how the first thing is no where near causing the second thing. your position is irrational. 
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,345
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @n8nrgmi
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" (also expressed as "troublesome priest" or "meddlesome priest") is a quote attributed to Henry II of England preceding the death of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170. While the quote was not expressed as an order, it prompted four knights to travel from Normandy to Canterbury, where they killed Becket. The phrase is commonly used in modern-day contexts to express that a ruler's wish may be interpreted as a command by his or her subordinates.

    Purportedly upon hearing the king's words, four knights—Reginald FitzUrse, Hugh de Morville, William de Tracy and Richard le Breton—traveled from Normandy to Canterbury with the intention of forcing Becket to withdraw his excommunication, or, alternatively, taking him back to Normandy by force.  The day after their arrival, they confronted Becket in Canterbury Cathedral. When Becket resisted their attempts to seize him, they slashed at him with their swords, killing him.  Although nobody, even at the time, believed that Henry directly ordered that Becket be killed, his words had started a chain of events that was likely to have such a result.   Moreover, as Henry's harangue had been directed not at Becket, but at his own household, the four probably thought that a failure to act would be regarded as treachery, potentially punishable by death.

    Following the murder, Becket was venerated and Henry was vilified. There were demands that the king be excommunicated. Pope Alexander forbade Henry to hear mass until he had expiated his sin. In May 1172, Henry did public penance in Avranches Cathedral.

    According to Alfred H. Knight, the phrase "had profound long-term consequences for the development of constitutional law" because its consequences forced the king to accept the benefit of clergy, the principle that secular courts had no jurisdiction over clergy.

    It has been said that the phrase is an example of "direction via indirection", in that it provides the speaker with plausible deniability when a crime is committed as a result of their words.

    The New York Times commented that even though Henry might not actually have said the words, "in such matters historical authenticity may not be the point".  The phrase has been cited as an example of the shared history with which all British citizens should be familiar, as part of "the collective memory of their country".

    In a 2009 BBC documentary on the Satanic Verses controversy, journalist and newsreader Peter Sissons described a February 1989 interview with the Iranian chargé d'affaires in London, Mohammad Mehdi Akhondzadeh Basti. The position of the Iranian government was that the fatwa against Salman Rushdie declared by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini was "an opinion". Sissons described this argument as being "a bit like the, 'who will rid me of this turbulent priest', isn't it?"

    In a 2017 appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI director James Comey testified that US President Donald Trump had told him that he "hoped" Comey could "let go" of any investigation into Michael Flynn; when asked if he would take "I hope", coming from the president, as a directive, Comey answered, "Yes. It rings in my ears as kind of 'Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?'"




  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,778
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    right, this make two fraud impeachments.
    If the Senate votes to dismiss and acquit the charges, Trump will have 2 more acquittals than Nixon, and one more than Clinton.

    Also, he will be the only president exonerated from House charges while not a  president.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,874
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @Greyparrot
    record breaker
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,345
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    Just because I took my pitbulls to the playground and let them off the leash doesn't make me responsible for the dog bites that followed.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 1,158
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @oromagi
    Just because I took my pitbulls to the playground and let them off the leash doesn't make me responsible for the dog bites that followed.
    People are pitbulls?
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,724
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @oromagi
    And Adolph was a wonderful Guy.....Never hurt a flea.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 1,158
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @HistoryBuff
    of course. he incited an insurrection against democracy.
    So?

    He has been feeding them a pack of lies for months about he won in a landslide but it was secretly stolen.
    This has not been confirmed.

    He told that crowd they had to do something about it.
    So?

    He told them they had to retake their country with strength.
    So?

    His personal attorney told them that same morning they needed a trial by combat. 
    Did the State choose a champion? Was the The Donald clad in armor? No? Then this is irrelevant, albeit hilarious.

    And that doesn't even get into his actions during the riot. He reportedly resisted calling in the national guard and pence needed to do it.
    Because they were invited and let in.

    He failed to make a statement for hours while people were dying.
    So?

    When he finally did make a statement, he repeated all the lies that were causing them to attack the capitol in the 1st place thus egging them on even more. 
    Lies cause attacks?


  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,778
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @zedvictor4
    Never hurt a flea.

    Certainly didn't stop the determined Marxist authority. 
  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,345
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    --> @zedvictor4
    --> @oromagi
    And Adolph was a wonderful Guy.....Never hurt a flea.
    Well, he murdered his niece when he found out she'd been cheating on him but fleas?  There is no direct evidence Hitler ever knowingly killed a flea.

     Most criminals work hard to make sure they're never recorded actually ordering the commission of a crime.  Hitler never killed any Jews and there is no hard evidence  public or private that Hitler ever directly ordered the death of any Jew or even knew that Jews were being exterminated en masse.  Hitler worked hard to make sure he was not connected to the crime.  To remain intellectually consistent, Trump apologists must argue that Hitler is therefore blameless for the Holocaust.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,132
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Athias
    of course. he incited an insurrection against democracy.
    So?
    That violates his oath of office. And is a hair short of treason. 

    He has been feeding them a pack of lies for months about he won in a landslide but it was secretly stolen.
    This has not been confirmed.
    except it has been by every single court and law enforcement agency that has looked at this. And that is alot of courts and law enforcement agencies. 

    His personal attorney told them that same morning they needed a trial by combat. 
    Did the State choose a champion? Was the The Donald clad in armor? No? Then this is irrelevant, albeit hilarious.
    no, his supporters picked up guns, spears and pipe bombs etc. and led an armed assault on the capitol resulting in the deaths of several people. 

    And that doesn't even get into his actions during the riot. He reportedly resisted calling in the national guard and pence needed to do it.
    Because they were invited and let in.
    what? there is tons of footage of police being attacked by the insurrectionists. Once they had already breached the building the police pulled back to defend the people inside the building. 

    He failed to make a statement for hours while people were dying.
    So?
    he incited an insurrection against the US government. His actions as that violent insurrection were being carried out are important. He did nothing to stop it for hours. And even then egged them on by repeating the lies which triggered the attack in the 1st place. 

    When he finally did make a statement, he repeated all the lies that were causing them to attack the capitol in the 1st place thus egging them on even more. 
    Lies cause attacks?
    yes. there are lots of cases in india where someone claims they saw someone eat beef and that person gets lynched. The lie caused the murder. Trump lied and told his cultists that he really won the election and it was being stolen. And that they needed to use strength to prevent this. The cultists then attacked the capitol resulting in the deaths of at least 5 people. His lies and incitement caused that attack. His lies triggered a terrorist attack. 
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,132
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @n8nrgmi
    so if someone tells a crowd to do something about injustice, and tot take back the country with strength.... you are responsible for inciting a riot if that crowd turns riotous?
    he spent months getting them fired up on lies. he convinced them the election was stolen. he convinced them that they personally had to do something to stop it. He told them to assemble on that specific day in that specific place where the results of the election would confirm he lost. He told them to march there and take action. His associates told them they needed to use violence (a trial by combat). 

    Well they listened. they believed his lies. They believed he really won and it was stolen. They believed that pence could do something about it and was refusing (he couldn't). They listened when he told them to gather there are march on the capitol. They listened when they were told they had to personally do something to stop the election results. They listened when they were told violence was needed. 

    And we all saw the results. Trump is guilty of inciting an attack on the US government and on democracy. He deserves to be impeached. No one has ever deserved it more. 

    When a mob boss tells his hitman to "take care of a guy", we don't say "well he didn't explicitly say to murder him". If that was the level of proof necessary then no high level mobster would ever be convicted of anything. Trump did incite them to attack the capitol, in the same way a mob boss gives orders without explicitly saying the crime he wants them to commit. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,778
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @zedvictor4
    Just need a more competent Hitler to finally defeat evil Marxism.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 1,158
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @HistoryBuff
    That violates his oath of office. And is a hair short of treason. 
    And if that democracy is corrupt? Does the insurrection violate the oath of his office?

    except it has been by every single court and law enforcement agency that has looked at this. And that is alot of courts and law enforcement agencies. 
    Which ones?

    no, his supporters picked up guns, spears and pipe bombs etc. and led an armed assault on the capitol resulting in the deaths of several people. 
    So? How did he incite this? Did he encourage armed conflict? And if so, where in the transcript is this explicitly stated?

    what? there is tons of footage of police being attacked by the insurrectionists. Once they had already breached the building the police pulled back to defend the people inside the building. 
    And there's footage of these "insurrectionists" being allowed in. There's actually a thread on this forum which reports on this.

    he incited an insurrection against the US government. His actions as that violent insurrection were being carried out are important. He did nothing to stop it for hours. And even then egged them on by repeating the lies which triggered the attack in the 1st place. 
    Where does he incite insurrection? And please do not cite nebulous terms like "strength" and "fight" which are contingent on the context. Case in point: I am currently fighting against your opinion right now.

    yes. there are lots of cases in india where someone claims they saw someone eat beef and that person gets lynched. The lie caused the murder. Trump lied and told his cultists that he really won the election and it was being stolen. And that they needed to use strength to prevent this. The cultists then attacked the capitol resulting in the deaths of at least 5 people. His lies and incitement caused that attack. His lies triggered a terrorist attack. 
    According to you and those of your ilk, he's been lying since he was elected. If lies cause attacks, and we control for this, why was this the only "attack" he incited? Why weren't all of his supporters implicated in the instigation of this "terrorist attack"?

    It's nonsense like this, and the regurgitation through sheepish devotees of "the LEFT," that gives birth to contrarians like the Donald.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,132
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Athias
    That violates his oath of office. And is a hair short of treason. 
    And if that democracy is corrupt? Does the insurrection violate the oath of his office?
    i'm not sure i know what you mean by "democracy is corrupt". that could mean alot of things. but generally speaking, yes, it absolutely violates his oath of office. 

    except it has been by every single court and law enforcement agency that has looked at this. And that is alot of courts and law enforcement agencies. 
    Which ones?
    off the top of my head, the courts in every contested state in the dozens of lawsuits (none of which came up with actual evidence of any sort of crime or fraud). the FBI and the US justice department. 

    So? How did he incite this? Did he encourage armed conflict? 
    yes. 

    And if so, where in the transcript is this explicitly stated?
    you don't need to explicitly confess something to be guilty of it. If a mob boss tells his hit man to take care of a guy and then the hit man goes out and kills him, the mob boss ordered the murder even though he didn't say the words "go commit a murder". 

    According to you and those of your ilk, he's been lying since he was elected. 
    hundreds and hundreds of times, yes that is very well established. 

    If lies cause attacks, and we control for this, why was this the only "attack" he incited?
    it's not. he has incited attacks before. this example is just far more direct and egregious. 

    Why weren't all of his supporters implicated in the instigation of this "terrorist attack"?
    The FBI is hunting down the people who engaged in this attack as we speak. 

    It's nonsense like this, and the regurgitation through sheepish devotees of "the LEFT," that gives birth to contrarians like the Donald.
    ahh yes. punishing someone for inciting an attack on the US government in nonsense. If this isn't impeachable, literally nothing is. 
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @n8nrgmi
    I think the Left and the media are equally culpable of the riots.  If they had not lied about the fact that there was evidence about a mass fraud then those who knew that such evidence was real would not have felt so threatened. 

    When the Left and the media denied the reality of the evidence - then it meant that unless good people did something about it - then evil would win. 

    I think Trump being impeached is a last effort ditch by Pelosi to try and destroy the man who continues to make her look like a fool.