Impeachmen' 2: Electoral Boogaloo

[Dill]

Is anyone out there following the Impeachment Defense?

An orgy of "Bothsidesism" for sure. If the point is to provide cover for those voting against impeachment, I think a montage of Dems shouting "fight back" and "punch him in the face" certainly does that.

But I'm wondering if a majority of voters will conclude that such political speech is "the same" regardless of context. Or if the context is effectively expanded/extended to include inflammatory speech from "both sides"?

A second question--Is the "free speech" argument working? At one point, van der Veen seems to be arguing that speech which is Constitutionally protected under the 1st Amendment cannot therefore make a president impeachable: the speech is "Constitutional" and protected by the Constitution--so it cannot ipso facto be represented as "unConstitutional." Am I oversimplifying that?

Holding Trump's speech accountable violates protection of unpopular speech?

Elected officials have "enhanced" free speech rights according to much precedent? (But not enhanced accountability?)

Wood vs Georgia The SCOTUS decided in favor of a sheriff censured for publicly criticizing a grand jury impaneled to investigate his re-election: "...imperative that [elected officials] be allowed freely to express themselves on matters of current public importance."

Trump can therefore use "free speech" to defend his political interests.

In my view, none of this affects the charge that Trump behaved in a manner that a president should not. Free speech protects frivolous speech and even lying, but there is no reason why protection of bad conduct should protect a president from impeachment.

[GMDino]

(02-12-2021, 03:39 PM)Dill Wrote: Is anyone out there following the Impeachment Defense?

An orgy of "Bothsidesism" for sure. If the point is to provide cover for those voting against impeachment, I think a montage of Dems shouting "fight back" and "punch him in the face" certainly does that.

But I'm wondering if a majority of voters will conclude that such political speech is "the same" regardless of context.

A second question--Is the "free speech" argument working?  At one point, van der Veen seems to be arguing that speech which is Constitutionally protected under the 1st Amendment cannot therefore make a president impeachable: speech is "Constitutional"--so it cannot be represented as "unConstitutional."  Am I oversimplifying that?

Holding Trump's speech accountable violates protection of unpopular speech?

Elected officials have "enhanced" free speech rights according to much precedent? (But not enhanced accountability?)

Wood vs Georgia The SCOTUS decided in favor of a sheriff censured for publicly criticizing a grand jury impaneled to investigate his re-election: "...imperative that [elected officials] be allowed freely to express themselves on matters of current public importance."

In my view, none of this affects the charge that Trump behaved in a manner that a president should not. Free speech protects frivolous speech and even lying, but there is no reason why protection of bad conduct should protect a president from impeachment.

I've been able to hear very little of either side this week.  Caught a bit while driving at lunchtime, the bit filled with clips of Democrats challenging the 2016 results from a few states and a few out of context quotes about protests.  The same quotes that floated around the internet after the 6th.

I supposed "they do it too but their followers don't attack and threaten to kill people because of it" *IS* a defense.

[Belsnickel]

The whole First Amendment argument with impeachment is bullshit. There are not 1A protections against impeachment. That flies in the face of the intention of the impeachment mechanism.

[*Nately120*]

Unless the people who left that Elizabeth Warren rally where she said "FIGHT" 100 times ransacked a federal building the argument seems to boil down to "politicians on both sides say FIGHT, but only Trump's followers are stupid enough to take it literally, but hey that's not HIS fault that he has idiot followers."

Maybe I'm just biased against Trump, but the notion that it's just a big ol' coincidence that his specific Jan 6th mob was the one to misinterpret the all-too-common FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT words of a politician is just a little hard to swallow. We've been talking for nearly 5 years about Trump inspiring/condoning violence in his followers. Ah well, at least the peasants who stormed the capitol are getting thrown under the bus for their messiah.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(02-12-2021, 05:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Unless the people who left that Elizabeth Warren rally where she said "FIGHT" 100 times ransacked a federal building the argument seems to boil down to "politicians on both sides say FIGHT, but only Trump's followers are stupid enough to take it literally, but hey that's not HIS fault that he has idiot followers."

Maybe I'm just biased against Trump, but the notion that it's just a big ol' coincidence that his specific Jan 6th mob was the one to misinterpret the all-too-common FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT words of a politician is just a little hard to swallow.  We've been talking for nearly 5 years about Trump inspiring/condoning violence in his followers.  Ah well, at least the peasants who stormed the capitol are getting thrown under the bus for their messiah.

Pretty much agree with all of that. Trump isn't being impeached for saying "Fight" . . . he's being impeached for organizing a rally a couple of miles away from the capitol just before they were to ratify the electoral college and telling them to fight if they want to still have a country and all of it based on mis-information. But that display by the lawyers was only to keep at least 35 spineless Republican Senators in line.

[Au165]

Kevin McCarthy on call with Trump to call off his supporters during attack. Trump claimed they were Antifa, McCarthy said no they are your supporters and then Trump said...

Well Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.

Yep, the man had no intention of stopping anything.

[Dill]

Every post above makes, I think, a telling point about or objection to the defense argument.

Absolutely the most condemning piece of evidence is Trump's behavior during the riot, and his siding with the rioters by tweeting that he loves them and exhorting them to "remember this day." "Stay peaceful" instead of "STOP NOW and "LEAVE THE CAPITOL BUILDING."

The most telling evidence against the claim Trump was a "law and order president," who could not have incited violence given his past support for law and police, is his retweet, set to music, of his supporters harassing that Biden-Harris campaign bus in Texas.

I am now very curious as to how the Fox talk shows will respond to all this. I am guessing they say that Dem "hypocrisy" has been made even more clear. One rule for Harris, who bails out rioters, and another for Trump, who just wants his supporters to fight for their beliefs "peacefully."

In retrospect, I think the Defense lawyers were right, as a political strategy, to keep harping on "free speech" and repeatedly asking what would happen if an elected official's free speech were curtailed. This fits the larger RW narrative I see developing that we soon or already are living in a "totalitarian" society in which one party controls the Exec, Senate and House, with the MSM policing language.

Trump's seditious behavior is then recast as "unpopular opinion" which Dems want to "silence" as part of their larger totalitarian project. First Trump, then YOU dear reader. The Impeachment is another "hoax" to hobble a feared potential opponent, no more. Dems will stop at nothing to seize and keep control of government. Free speech stands in their way.

[Dill]

(02-12-2021, 09:11 PM)Au165 Wrote: Kevin McCarthy on call with Trump to call off his supporters during attack. Trump claimed they were Antifa, McCarthy said no they are your supporters and then Trump said...

Well Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.

Yep, the man had no intention of stopping anything.

One of the defense counselors also claimed the first person arrested for the Capitol insurrection was an ANTIFA leader.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-lawyer-impeachment-antifa-b1801694.html

Funny how that keeps coming up. The day after the riot a number of RW commentators were suggesting that ANTIFA played a major role in it, or at least that we should "wait and see."

This after we all saw those MAGA hats and Trump flags wielded as weapons in virtually all video of the rioters.

[BigPapaKain]

(02-12-2021, 10:05 PM)Dill Wrote: One of the defense counselors also claimed the first person arrested for the Capitol insurrection was an ANTIFA leader.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-lawyer-impeachment-antifa-b1801694.html

Funny how that keeps coming up. The day after the riot a number of RW commentators were suggesting that ANTIFA played a major role in it, or at least that we should "wait and see."

This after we all saw those MAGA hats and Trump flags wielded as weapons in virtually all video of the rioters.

To be fair, all the defense team is doing is pandering to the psychotic extremists. They don't have to convince half of the Senate of anything; their minds were made up when the Articles were being drawn up.

[Dill]

(02-12-2021, 11:08 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: To be fair, all the defense team is doing is pandering to the psychotic extremists. They don't have to convince half of the Senate of anything; their minds were made up when the Articles were being drawn up.

Yeah, I'm not all pins and needles waiting to see if Trump will actually be impeached.

During the trial I was always wondering what parts of the defense were either directly from or presented directly to Trump. 

As for the rest, my interest is in what parts get taken up, expanded, and reworked in media accounts. Which questionable or outright false points will be converted to "truth" by repetition?  

[BigPapaKain]

(02-12-2021, 11:16 PM)Dill Wrote: Yeah, I'm not all pins and needles waiting to see if Trump will actually be impeached.

During the trial I was always wondering what parts of the defense were either directly from or presented directly to Trump. 

As for the rest, my interest is in what parts get taken up, expanded, and reworked in media accounts. Which questionable or outright false points will be converted to "truth" by repetition?  

Depends on the news outlet repeating said false points. I'm sure ***** Carlson already has a superclip of straight up lies to put on repeat for the next 3 months.

[NATI BENGALS]

Did the senators swear an oath to be impartial jurors?

If so what is the punishment for breaking that oath?

Because meeting with the defense team and calling them “our side” seems like they took this oath as seriously as their oath to defend and uphold the constitution.

[Dill]

Breaking news. This will spice up the last day of the trial.


Herrera Beutler says McCarthy told her Trump sided with Capitol mob
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/herrera-beutler-says-mccarthy-told-her-trump-sided-with-capitol-mob/

On the eve of a verdict in Donald Trump’s Senate trial, one of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach him confirmed Friday night that the top House Republican, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, told her that the former president had sided with the mob during a phone call as the Jan. 6 Capitol attack unfolded.

In a statement Friday night, Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Wash., recounted a phone call relayed to her by McCarthy of California, the minority leader, in which Trump was said to have sided with the rioters, telling the top House Republican that members of the mob who had stormed the Capitol were “more upset about the election than you are.”

She pleaded with witnesses to step forward and share what they knew about Trump’s actions and statements as the attack was underway.

“To the patriots who were standing next to the former president as these conversations were happening, or even to the former vice president: if you have something to add here, now would be the time,” Herrera Beutler said in the statement....

Her account of the call between McCarthy and Trump, first reported by CNN, addressed a crucial question in the impeachment trial: what Trump was doing and saying privately while the Capitol was being overrun.

Herrera Beutler said that McCarthy had relayed details of his phone call with Trump to her. She has been speaking publicly about it for weeks, including during a virtual town hall Monday with constituents, and confirmed it in the statement Friday....

She said McCarthy asked him “to publicly and forcefully call off the riot.”

Trump replied by saying that antifa, not his supporters, was responsible. When McCarthy said that was not true, the former president was curt.

“Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” he said, according to Herrera Beutler’s account of what McCarthy told her.

Hours after the assault began, Trump tweeted a video in which he asked those ransacking the Capitol to leave. “Go home. We love you. You’re very special,” he said.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/1360440160186478594
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D) Rhode Island tweet
One way to clear it up? Suspend trial to depose McCarthy and Tuberville under oath and get facts. Ask Secret Service to produce for review comms back to White House re VP Pence safety during siege. What did Trump know, and when did he know it?

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

Also



This is handcuffing the potential response to an insurrection by a Trump appointee.

[GMDino]

(02-13-2021, 03:39 AM)Dill Wrote: Breaking news. This will spice up the last day of the trial.


Herrera Beutler says McCarthy told her Trump sided with Capitol mob
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/herrera-beutler-says-mccarthy-told-her-trump-sided-with-capitol-mob/

On the eve of a verdict in Donald Trump’s Senate trial, one of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach him confirmed Friday night that the top House Republican, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, told her that the former president had sided with the mob during a phone call as the Jan. 6 Capitol attack unfolded.

In a statement Friday night, Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Wash., recounted a phone call relayed to her by McCarthy of California, the minority leader, in which Trump was said to have sided with the rioters, telling the top House Republican that members of the mob who had stormed the Capitol were “more upset about the election than you are.”

She pleaded with witnesses to step forward and share what they knew about Trump’s actions and statements as the attack was underway.

“To the patriots who were standing next to the former president as these conversations were happening, or even to the former vice president: if you have something to add here, now would be the time,” Herrera Beutler said in the statement....

Her account of the call between McCarthy and Trump, first reported by CNN, addressed a crucial question in the impeachment trial: what Trump was doing and saying privately while the Capitol was being overrun.

Herrera Beutler said that McCarthy had relayed details of his phone call with Trump to her. She has been speaking publicly about it for weeks, including during a virtual town hall Monday with constituents, and confirmed it in the statement Friday....

She said McCarthy asked him “to publicly and forcefully call off the riot.”

Trump replied by saying that antifa, not his supporters, was responsible. When McCarthy said that was not true, the former president was curt.

“Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” he said, according to Herrera Beutler’s account of what McCarthy told her.

Hours after the assault began, Trump tweeted a video in which he asked those ransacking the Capitol to leave. “Go home. We love you. You’re very special,” he said.

What I am really enjoying are the people who STILL think we should suspend everything Trump has ever said or done and "give him a chance" that he really didn't want the mob to get violent or he didn't "mean" they had to fight or lose their country forever.

After all this time we have to try an pretend the scorpion isn't a scorpion and then feign surprise when we get stung.  They have either learned nothing, are incapable of learning or are as dirty as he is.

[GMDino]

I just saw this quote on Facebook and wanted to make sure it was real.  It is.

Apparently it was quoted during the first impeachment of Trump.



I also included more of the quote for context.  I consider it very profound given where we are right now in America. 

(Bold is mine for emphasis)

Quote:Objection XIV44  The ultimate object of all



To this there is no other answer than a flat denial—except this that the project from its absurdity refutes itself.




The idea of introducing a monarchy or aristocracy into this Country, by employing the influence and force of a Government continually changing hands, towards it, is one of those visionary things, that none but madmen could meditate and that no wise men will believe.




If it could be done at all, which is utterly incredible, it would require a long series of time, certainly beyond the life of any individual to effect it. Who then would enter into such plot? For what purpose of interest or ambition?




To hope that the people may be cajoled into giving their sanctions to such institutions is still more chimerical. A people so enlightened and so diversified45 as the people of this Country can surely never be brought to it, but from convulsions and disorders,46 in consequence of the acts of popular demagogues.




The truth unquestionably is, that the only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions, to throw affairs into confusion, and bring on civil commotion. Tired at length of anarchy, or want of government, they may take shelter in the arms of monarchy for repose and security.





Those then, who resist a confirmation of public order, are the true Artificers of monarchy—not that this is the intention of the generality47 of them. Yet it would not be difficult to lay the finger upon some of their party who may justly be suspected. When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanour—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may “ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.”





It has aptly been observed that Cato was the Tory-Cæsar the whig of his day. The former frequently resisted—the latter always flattered the follies of the people. Yet the former perished with the Republic the latter destroyed it.





No popular Government was ever without its Catalines & its Cæsars. These are its true enemies.




As far as I am informed the anxiety of those who are calumniated is to keep the Government in the state in which it is, which they fear will be no easy task, from a natural tendency in the state of things to exalt the local on the ruins of the National Government. Some of them appear to wish, in a constitutional way, a change in the judiciary department of the Government, from an apprehension that an orderly and effectual administration of Justice cannot be obtained without a more intimate connection between the state and national Tribunals. But even this is not an object of any set of men as a party. There is a difference of opinion about it on various grounds among those who have generally acted together. As to any other change of consequence, I believe nobody dreams of it.



Tis curious to observe the anticipations of the different parties. One side appears to believe that there is a serious plot to overturn the state Governments and substitute monarchy to the present republican system. The other side firmly believes that there is a serious plot to overturn the General Government & elevate the separate power of the states upon its ruins. Both sides may be equally wrong & their mutual jealousies may be materially causes of the appearances which mutually disturb them, and sharpen them against each other.

While they were answering the questions if a monarchy style system was ever seriously considered the above quote is very telling today.

[BigPapaKain]

(02-13-2021, 04:57 AM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Also



This is handcuffing the potential response to an insurrection by a Trump appointee.

****'s sake, man. These pieces of shit really have no reason set in reality to be let off the hook. What a god damned joke.

[BigPapaKain]

(02-13-2021, 10:22 AM)GMDino Wrote: What I am really enjoying are the people who STILL think we should suspend everything Trump has ever said or done and "give him a chance" that he really didn't want the mob to get violent or he didn't "mean" they had to fight or lose their country forever.

After all this time we have to try an pretend the scorpion isn't a scorpion and then feign surprise when we get stung.  They have either learned nothing, are incapable of learning or are as dirty as he is.

Why not all 3?

[GMDino]

(02-13-2021, 11:39 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Why not all 3?

I like to give them an out.