Steve Bannon believes the Democrats have a 'compelling' case for convicting Trump

[snakestretcher]

Yes, we should see it, indeed.

"I was only following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg. Several executions ensued; like that planned for Pence by those fine 'patriots'.

 

[ouch]

Emotional and compelling to the democrat party minions. Legal and correct is completely a different story.

In this particular case v Trump, the Democrats are displaying good common sense and decency for upholding our Constitution and legally correct in doing so. The evidence is overwhelmingly compelling.

 

[Ikari]

"I was only following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg. Several executions ensued; like that planned for Pence by those fine 'patriots'.

It didn't, and it wouldn't, but it might point to them having been under orders. We should hear from them and they should stand to cross-examination and we should hear that.

 

[dave8383]

Well, let's define terms here:

"Compelling: Forceful, demanding attention, convincing." Compelling | Definition of Compelling by Merriam-Webster (merriam-webster.com)

Nowhere in such definitions do we see the words "factual, proven, removes all reasonable doubt."

What Mr. Bannon is saying was shown by his own words..."The Democrats have a very emotional...case."

A trial (and this is a Senate "trial") should not be based on "emotion," but rather FACTS.

If a trial is based on emotion and partisan spin, then it may "compel" some to agree based on their own partisan bias.

However, it is nothing upon which to base a decision of factual guilt. Else it is no more than a kangaroo court, leading to a witch-hunt style "burning."

He's as factually guilty as the day is long.

 

[snakestretcher]

In this particular case v Trump, the Democrats are displaying good common sense and decency for upholding our Constitution and legally correct in doing so. The evidence is overwhelmingly compelling.

And of course the cowardly scumbag won't testify in his own defence-mainly because he has none.

 

[snakestretcher]

It didn't, and it wouldn't, but it might point to them having been under orders. We should hear from them and they should stand to cross-examination and we should hear that.

Trump won't testify. He's too scared. One way or another he's heading for a fall (excuse the pun).

 

[Ikari]

Trump won't testify. He's too scared. One way or another he's heading for a fall (excuse the pun).

So long as he falls into federal prison.

 

[Moot]

Well, let's define terms here:

"Compelling: Forceful, demanding attention, convincing." Compelling | Definition of Compelling by Merriam-Webster (merriam-webster.com)

Nowhere in such definitions do we see the words "factual, proven, removes all reasonable doubt."

What Mr. Bannon is saying was shown by his own words..."The Democrats have a very emotional...case."

A trial (and this is a Senate "trial") should not be based on "emotion," but rather FACTS.

If a trial is based on emotion and partisan spin, then it may "compel" some to agree based on their own partisan bias.

However, it is nothing upon which to base a decision of factual guilt. Else it is no more than a kangaroo court, leading to a witch-hunt style "burning."

The Senators are supposed to vote with their conscience. Conscience and emotion are kind of inseparable.

 

[JasperL]

Well, let's define terms here:

"Compelling: Forceful, demanding attention, convincing." Compelling | Definition of Compelling by Merriam-Webster (merriam-webster.com)

Nowhere in such definitions do we see the words "factual, proven, removes all reasonable doubt."

What Mr. Bannon is saying was shown by his own words..."The Democrats have a very emotional...case."

A trial (and this is a Senate "trial") should not be based on "emotion," but rather FACTS.

If a trial is based on emotion and partisan spin, then it may "compel" some to agree based on their own partisan bias.

However, it is nothing upon which to base a decision of factual guilt. Else it is no more than a kangaroo court, leading to a witch-hunt style "burning."

LOL, comparing this to a witch burning is pretty hilarious as a defense.

And what you are assuming, for some reason, is that it's illegitimate for someone to look at the FACTS as we know them, what we saw play out for months, and conclude that Trump's behavior was impeachable conduct. There is no requirement that Senators agree with YOUR subjective opinion about whether those FACTS justify a conviction. And, no, someone disagreeing with your highly subjective opinion about those facts isn't equivalent to a "witch-hunt style 'burning'." It's people disagreeing with you. That's actually OK!

Some of us, and some Senators, might simply and rationally conclude that lying to the public for months, undermining the rule of law, respect for the courts, attempting to strong arm state officials and the VP to lawlessly overturn the election in its entirety and let Congress anoint Trump for another four years is a bridge too far, conduct that sails over the red line of acceptable behavior.

 

[JasperL]

I know you see it differently than I do and nothing I could ever say will change your mind but the "incitement" was not isolated to Jan 6th. It was the constant incendiary rhetoric over the previous two months. Incendiary language that the election was stolen, that Trump really won, that the Dems had orchestrated incredible and vast fraud to remove him illegally.

I suspect that you have a balanced enough mind to hear those words and likely believe them but would not act upon them in a violent manner. However many, many people are not as balanced and take these things very seriously, to the point of believing their democracy is truly in danger if they don't act to "take it back" and "take it back" now! Responsible leaders temper their words so as not to inflame the radicals out there, I am sorry that is not something you can see but it is nonetheless true.

It's important that in his speech that day, Trump spoke in the present tense - "was being" stolen, not "was" stolen. "We will never concede" versus we "did not" concede. And that they "will stop the steal" not that Trump tried but failed to do so. Throughout the speech, he was referring to an action happening in real time, the alleged stealing of the election, ongoing, with responses - 'will stop the steal' - that required real time action to stop.

The crowd wasn't going to stop the steal with a peaceful march and a protest outside where none of Congress could even hear them. The only way they could stop the steal was with what they tried - invading congress, stopping the certification.

 

[ouch]

Yeah....not really gonna take anything Bannon has to say with any amount of confidence.
lol

A date on the calendar is correct once a year.

 

[Lursa]

Trump won't testify. He's too scared. One way or another he's heading for a fall (excuse the pun).

He is too scared...he must be because he never turns downt he spotlight.

But he doesnt need to...it's all in his tweets, video, speech transcripts, his own quotes in interviews, and from the mouths of many at the Capitol that day in video and interviews that The Donald told them to do it.

 

[Lursa]

It's important that in his speech that day, Trump spoke in the present tense - "was being" stolen, not "was" stolen. "We will never concede" versus we "did not" concede. And that they "will stop the steal" not that Trump tried but failed to do so. Throughout the speech, he was referring to an action happening in real time, the alleged stealing of the election, ongoing, with responses - 'will stop the steal' - that required real time action to stop.

The crowd wasn't going to stop the steal with a peaceful march and a protest outside where none of Congress could even hear them. The only way they could stop the steal was with what they tried - invading congress, stopping the certification.

Exactly. His words clearly encouraged fear, outrage, and getting justice (implication that it had been denied) in the crowd. And his words were all based knowingly on lies.