The impeachment boils down to this.

[KLATTU]

If person A says X and and person B interprets it as Y , where is A's liability for Y.

Traditionally , very little
It's looking the case is for impeachment isn't as strong as first thought.
Comments?

 

[Mr Person]

If person A says X and and person B interprets it as Y , where is A's liability for Y.

Traditionally , very little
It's looking the case is for impeachment isn't as strong as first thought.
Comments?

This adds up to roughly one fifth of a moronic thought.

 

[independentusa]

This adds up to roughly one fifth of a moronic thought.

Less than that, I would say one one hundredth of a thought.

 

[KLATTU]

This adds up to roughly one fifth of a moronic thought.

So you can't answer. Thanks for confirming!

 

[vegas giants]

If person A says X and and person B interprets it as Y , where is A's liability for Y.

Traditionally , very little
It's looking the case is for impeachment isn't as strong as first thought.
Comments?

The reasonable person standard must be applied. Using that trump is guilty

 

[Mr Person]

So you can't answer. Thanks for confirming!

Answer what? Was "Traditionally , very little" supposed to be your thesis? Or was it the question?

Your OP is incoherent swill. The only thing clear about it is that you intended to say something negative about the impeachment because you feel that is what Trump would want you to do.


LAFFRIOT, amirite?

 

[gbg3]

If person A says X and and person B interprets it as Y , where is A's liability for Y.

Traditionally , very little
It's looking the case is for impeachment isn't as strong as first thought.
Comments?

Yep, it reminds me of the crazed Dem "interpretation" of Trump saying he wouldn't attend the inauguration on Wednesday.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If person A says X and and person B interprets it as Y , where is A's liability for Y.

Traditionally , very little
It's looking the case is for impeachment isn't as strong as first thought.
Comments?

Isn't that the Charles Manson defense?

How did that end up working out for him?
He got off, right?

 

[KLATTU]

Here is apparantly the *worst* statement used by the Dems to show incitement.

"if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore"

In other words, unremarkable rhertoric that has been used countless times over the years by politicians,
( would ' fight for 15" be considered speech that incited somebody to storm a MacDonalds'?)

In the same speech.

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."


Now in a court of law , we know that incitement charges would be laughed out based on this,

But will it stick in the impeachment trial?

 

[KLATTU]

Isn't that the Charles Manson defense?

How did that end up working out for him?
He got off, right?

yes that is the crux of it. Since he didn't explicitly order these people to do what they did, should he be held accountable?
now this a very biased left wing source , so that must be considered.
If this was a court of law, does Trump cross the line?
It's quite rare that somebody can be convicted of incitement. In applying that to the president's speech at the Wednesday rally, it's an agonisingly close case. It's pretty goddamn imminent because he's telling people to march to the Capitol and I will march with you. There wouldn't be any time for better counsels to prevail because you're just going to leave the Ellipse and walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. He says we have to fight and show strength, but he also said we're very peacefully and patriotically going to ask, so he's covering himself. In the end, I think it's a jury question.
I'm not sure he's entitled to a dismissal of charges as a matter of law. There's some discussion that government leaders have more leeway, but I don't know how that would play out. He clearly knew there were people in that crowd who were ready to and intended to be violent, and he certainly did nothing to discourage that. He not only did nothing to discourage it, he strongly hinted it should happen.

Capitol riots: Did Trump's words at rally incite violence?

Donald Trump was accused of inciting violence that left five people dead. So what did the president say?

www.bbc.com

 

[lwf]

If person A says X and and person B interprets it as Y , where is A's liability for Y.

Traditionally , very little
It's looking the case is for impeachment isn't as strong as first thought.
Comments?

The people who stormed the capitol are saying that they were answering Trump's call. One or two might be a misinterpretation, but that was large protest, and Trump claims everything he said was appropriate.

 

[KLATTU]

The people who stormed the capitol are saying that they were answering Trump's call.

Yeah there's that . But if a bunch of people burnt down a Target and said they were answering a call from Kamala Harris to fight for equal justice, would that make her responsible.

 

[Luce]

If person A says X and and person B interprets it as Y , where is A's liability for Y.

Traditionally , very little
It's looking the case is for impeachment isn't as strong as first thought.
Comments?

And then suddenly incitement ceases to exist as a legal concept, because MAGA fans don't like it.

 

[Helix]

Don't incite insurrections, mkay? Inciting insurrections... is bad. And you don't want to do that. Cause it'd be bad.

 

[KLATTU]

And then suddenly incitement ceases to exist as a legal concept, because MAGA fans don't like it.

no. It's definitely a thing. But you need to define it specifically. Especially for politicians who are eternally trying to fire up their base with 'fight' rhetoricc'.
Don't be intellectually lazy by using the MAGA BS .

 

[sjmay]

And then suddenly incitement ceases to exist as a legal concept, because MAGA fans don't like it.

You should know better, in court, it would be EXTREMELY difficult, if not impossible, to get a conviction for incitement, on this statement,

" "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." "

 

[KLATTU]

Don't incite insurrections, mkay? Inciting insurrections... is bad. And you don't want to do that. Cause it'd be bad.

But you need to define it specifically. Especially for politicians who are eternally trying to fire up their base with 'fight' rhetoric'.
Don't be intellectually lazy by using the MAGA BS .

 

[Helix]

But you need to define it specifically. Especially for politicians who are eternally trying to fire up their base with 'fight' rhetoric'.
Don't be intellectually lazy by using the MAGA BS .

No, I don't.

 

[KLATTU]

The people who stormed the capitol are saying that they were answering Trump's call.

So if people who burnt down stuff say they did it because they answring Kamala HArris' call to fight for equal justice, she should be held reponsible.?

 

[sjmay]

No, I don't.

Ok great, tell me how this statement incites violence,

" "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." "

 

[KLATTU]

No, I don't.

"Don't be intellectually lazy "

I knew that that was too much to expect.

 

[Helix]

"Don't be intellectually lazy "

I knew that that was too much to expect.

Nah, it's more like don't jump down rabbit holes with those who won't be convinced. Waste of time.

 

[Luce]

You should know better, in court, it would be EXTREMELY difficult, if not impossible, to get a conviction for incitement, on this statement,

" "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." "

Yeah, but "You have to get your people to fight.... You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong... If you don't fight like hell, you won't have a country anymore." is a little easier.

 

[Helix]

Ok great, tell me how this statement incites violence,

" "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." "

He incited the insurrection. It's not up for debate.

 

[Sand Castle]

Bottom line, this entire trump matter, requires a full throated, for everyone to see, under oath, debate in the Senate.

Let's call it Impeachment.

This time trump must play on a level playing field.

Witnessed can't be voted away.

GOP Senate jurors can't vote away right and wrong

This is not removing trump from POTUS this is about another offense perpetrated by Donald.

But, this time he will really need to have facts on his side.

No Bill Barr spin, no Collins, oh trump was impeachable, but he learned his lesson.

Additionally, why wouldn't trump supporters want Donald with everyone under oath, why wouldn't you want Donald on the Senate floor telling America the truths he spews.

What a great venue, in front of his wonderful supreme court justice.

Making his fraud case to America while everyone is under oath.

Don't you guys want him to fight for your truth.

I urge trumpians to urge Donald to take the "Stand"