Impeachmen' 2: Electoral Boogaloo

[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.