The "Trump's out of office" impeachment argument is nonsense.

[CanadaJohn]

It helps to be factually correct in an argument intended to persuade another, wouldn’t you agree?



No, this is not “quite rightly” because “impeachment of a former President who’s left office” is factually false. Under the U.S. Constitution the House has the sole power of impeachment. The House impeached Trump while he was President. Under the Constitution, the Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments by the House. Trump was impeached. The Senate then has a trial to decide whether to convict or acquit him of the allegations made in the impeachment.



Is it? Perhaps you are remiss to ignore the possibility the Dems do rationally believe Trump incited the mob he summoned to D.C. Sure, maybe there’s some political motive for impeachment but the notion Trump incited the mob to lawless conduct is rational.

I’m not referring to the incitement test of Brandenburg v Ohio, and amplified by Indiana v Hess, which pertains to criminal incitement. Congress need not adhere to the incitement test by SCOTUS when seeking to impeach Trump and determine guilt. Congress may rely upon a lower threshold for incitement for impeachment and assessing guilt. Perhaps the Oxford meaning of, “to encourage someone to do or feel something unpleasant or violent.”

Incitement need not be explicit. Considering the totality of the facts, the Dems’ argument Trump incited the lawless conduct is reasonable, although not ineluctable. Trump’s many tweets prior to 1/6, persistently alleging massive fraud and a stolen election, and the necessity to preclude the election to be stolen, calling for them to gather on 1/6 (the date he selected is important) and it will be “wild,” his specific comments in Georgia, and then the entirety of his speech, make it reasonable to conclude Trump incited the lawless conduct.

Maybe the Dems genuinely and sincerely believed Trump incited the mob. They wouldn’t be alone in such a belief, considering the polling (assuming the polling was scientific). In addition, some prominent Republicans believed Trump incited the mob, and 17% of registered Republicans believed he should have been impeached and convicted.

I could argue, as Trump's defense did, that many Democrats are equally culpable for the damage wrought on various cities in the US over the past summer of 2000. I could argue that politics is passion. You wouldn't have had an American Revolution without the passion incited by various politicians.

The real crime here is that Democrats got a taste of what others in American have endured as a result of Democrat passionate political rhetoric inciting leftist mobs to burn and loot and kill police. It's only impeachable conduct when someone on the right is doing the inciting. When it comes from the left, it's free speech and civic duty.

As for 17% of Republicans believing Trump should be impeached and convicted, I'm not surprised. Richard Nixon would not have been threatened with impeachment and forced to resign but for brave Republican politicians who considered country over party. I can't think of any Democrats who acted similarly during the Clinton impeachment, even though, once Clinton left office, Arkansas found him guilty and suspended his law license for a period of time.

There are always some Republicans of principle who will stand up for what they believe is right even when it is counter to what may be good for their party - you can't say the same for Democrats.

 

[Luckyone]

I could argue, as Trump's defense did, that many Democrats are equally culpable for the damage wrought on various cities in the US over the past summer of 2000. I could argue that politics is passion. You wouldn't have had an American Revolution without the passion incited by various politicians.

The real crime here is that Democrats got a taste of what others in American have endured as a result of Democrat passionate political rhetoric inciting leftist mobs to burn and loot and kill police. It's only impeachable conduct when someone on the right is doing the inciting. When it comes from the left, it's free speech and civic duty.

As for 17% of Republicans believing Trump should be impeached and convicted, I'm not surprised. Richard Nixon would not have been threatened with impeachment and forced to resign but for brave Republican politicians who considered country over party. I can't think of any Democrats who acted similarly during the Clinton impeachment, even though, once Clinton left office, Arkansas found him guilty and suspended his law license for a period of time.

There are always some Republicans of principle who will stand up for what they believe is right even when it is counter to what may be good for their party - you can't say the same for Democrats.

What a load of BS

 

[NotreDame]

As for 17% of Republicans believing Trump should be impeached and convicted, I'm not surprised. Richard Nixon would not have been threatened with impeachment and forced to resign but for brave Republican politicians who considered country over party. I can't think of any Democrats who acted similarly during the Clinton impeachment, even though, once Clinton left office, Arkansas found him guilty and suspended his law license for a period of time.

I could argue, as Trump's defense did, that many Democrats are equally culpable for the damage wrought on various cities in the US over the past summer of 2000. I could argue that politics is passion. You wouldn't have had an American Revolution without the passion incited by various politicians.

Likely wise if you do not, the argument wasn’t persuasive when his attorneys made the argument. So what if Dems are “equally culpable for the damage wrought on various cities.” Does this exonerate Trump? No, Trump can still have incited the mob to violence regardless of the alleged “damage” in some cities by Dems, one has nothing to do with the other.

It is a familIar smokescreen. The person X being blamed for some conduct deflects attention away from their culpability by alleging some person engaged in some misconduct elsewhere at another time. Yet, even if true, person X may still be culpable.

But it is hypocrisy, right? Maybe, but hypocrisy doesn’t mean the hypocritical person/crowd is wrong. A smoker advising a teen not to smoke because it increases their risk for lung cancer is not wrong in their remarks because they are a hypocrite.

And the causal link between Dems and the “damage” in the cities is tenuous.

The real crime here is that Democrats got a taste of what others in American have endured as a result of Democrat passionate political rhetoric inciting leftist mobs to burn and loot and kill police.

No, the tragedy is too many people were persuaded by this poor argument. But, hey, maybe you will write something on this subject I haven’t read yet. So, tell me, what specific language the Dems, date and time, “incited” these “leftists mobs to burn and loot and kill the police.”

See, I’m a conservative. However, I’m not conservative for the sake of being conservative and neither do I see the world through a conservative lense because I’m a conservative. The problem today is some conservatives and Republicans make some very poor and illogical arguments for the sake of being conservative. The Trump incitement incident is a fine exposition in conservatives and Republicans make some very poor arguments to defend Trump from the incident in 1/6. One such argument is the pathetic “wgataboutism” that so many adopted, despite the lack of facts making the examples parallel and the poor logical reasoning underlying the “whataboutism.”

It is better to be a conservative and not a conservative bafoon (not talking about you but Trump attorneys and the Republicans co-opting the attorneys’ stupidity). Yet, this is what was displayed in the impeachment trial. The Trump attorneys made poor arguments, they rambled, at times lacked a cogent point, were incoherent, and made pathetic parallels to other examples. I know 1Ls who could have made a superior, logical, factual defense of Trump.

Legally, Trump’s conduct likely flirts with the legal meaning of incitement announced in Brandenburg v Ohio, clarified in Indiana v Hess, but doesn’t broach the line. However, using a more colloquial meaning of incitement, as the House argued, Trump did incite this crowd. The facts and rational inferences support a reasonable belief Trump incited this mob, where the word “incite” is the more common meaning, and not the more exacting legal meaning.

There are always some Republicans of principle who will stand up for what they believe is right even when it is counter to what may be good for their party - you can't say the same for Democrats.

You are placing unadulterated partisan thinking above rational reasoning. So, there’s not one, not one Democrat presently in existence “who will stand up for what they believe is right, even when it is counter to what may be good for their party”? Really? That’s the reality you live in? That’s factual? As factual as gravity causes object to fall to the ground and 2 plus 2 equals 4?

So, all the nobility exclusively takes up residence with Republicans? Yeah?

 

[Luckyone]

Likely wise if you do not, the argument wasn’t persuasive when his attorneys made the argument. So what if Dems are “equally culpable for the damage wrought on various cities.” Does this exonerate Trump? No, Trump can still have incited the mob to violence regardless of the alleged “damage” in some cities by Dems, one has nothing to do with the other.

It is a familIar smokescreen. The person X being blamed for some conduct deflects attention away from their culpability by alleging some person engaged in some misconduct elsewhere at another time. Yet, even if true, person X may still be culpable.

But it is hypocrisy, right? Maybe, but hypocrisy doesn’t mean the hypocritical person/crowd is wrong. A smoker advising a teen not to smoke because it increases their risk for lung cancer is not wrong in their remarks because they are a hypocrite.

And the causal link between Dems and the “damage” in the cities is tenuous.



No, the tragedy is too many people were persuaded by this poor argument. But, hey, maybe you will write something on this subject I haven’t read yet. So, tell me, what specific language the Dems, date and time, “incited” these “leftists mobs to burn and loot and kill the police.”

See, I’m a conservative. However, I’m not conservative for the sake of being conservative and neither do I see the world through a conservative lense because I’m a conservative. The problem today is some conservatives and Republicans make some very poor and illogical arguments for the sake of being conservative. The Trump incitement incident is a fine exposition in conservatives and Republicans make some very poor arguments to defend Trump from the incident in 1/6. One such argument is the pathetic “wgataboutism” that so many adopted, despite the lack of facts making the examples parallel and the poor logical reasoning underlying the “whataboutism.”

It is better to be a conservative and not a conservative bafoon (not talking about you but Trump attorneys and the Republicans co-opting the attorneys’ stupidity). Yet, this is what was displayed in the impeachment trial. The Trump attorneys made poor arguments, they rambled, at times lacked a cogent point, were incoherent, and made pathetic parallels to other examples. I know 1Ls who could have made a superior, logical, factual defense of Trump.

Legally, Trump’s conduct likely flirts with the legal meaning of incitement announced in Brandenburg v Ohio, clarified in Indiana v Hess, but doesn’t broach the line. However, using a more colloquial meaning of incitement, as the House argued, Trump did incite this crowd. The facts and rational inferences support a reasonable belief Trump incited this mob, where the word “incite” is the more common meaning, and not the more exacting legal meaning.



You are placing unadulterated partisan thinking above rational reasoning. So, there’s not one, not one Democrat presently in existence “who will stand up for what they believe is right, even when it is counter to what may be good for their party”? Really? That’s the reality you live in? That’s factual? As factual as gravity causes object to fall to the ground and 2 plus 2 equals 4?

So, all the nobility exclusively takes up residence with Republicans? Yeah?

Bravo, great post!

 

[CanadaJohn]

What a load of BS

Thanks for proving my point

 

[Luckyone]

Thanks for proving my point

You have no point to prove, meaning you are lying to yourself. That is always the most dangerous lie that exists. It blinds you to reality and you do know what that means, don't you?

when you argue with reality, you lose – but only 100% of the time.
– Byron Katie