Bigger Than Trump

 

Having now reviewed everything I can find on what the President actually said at the protest in D.C., I can state with confidence that he did not cross a line into legally actionable speech. The bar set for classifying speech as criminal is pretty high, and the President did not even come close to meeting it.

Try to set aside what you think about President Trump. That’s a stretch goal for a lot of us, but let’s stretch: consider, for just a moment, that there might be an issue here that’s bigger than the President himself, and that could have repercussions that go far beyond January of 2021.

Those who call for the President’s removal from office are asking that punitive action be taken — in fact, that the most punitive action which can be taken, in the case of the Chief Executive, be taken — for his exercise of constitutionally protected speech.

Let that sink in. If the most powerful man in the United States can receive the highest punishment which Congress can mete out for the non-crime of speaking in a way that offends many people, then what protection does anyone have to speak freely? What does it mean to set a precedent that a sitting President can be removed from office for constitutionally protected speech?

During the Kavanaugh hearings, I argued that it was critical that the Senate confirm the nominee following the vague and unsubstantiated allegations made by Ms. Ford. A failure to do so would diminish the Senate’s authority by signaling that any future nominee could be derailed by nothing more than an unverifiable claim of past misbehavior.

Something even greater than that is at stake here. If we remove the sitting President, a man who received, barely two months ago, the support of more than seventy million Americans, that decision should be rooted in the most profound and solid Constitutional reasoning. Anything less elevates virtue signaling above the Constitution, and both endorses and enshrines the left’s view that the right not to be offended transcends freedom of speech and the rule of law.

If this disregard for law and the Constitution were coming only from the left, from people who already held neither law nor the Constitution in high esteem, I could almost overlook it as merely more of the unprincipled toxicity of the progressive movement. But some on the right are falling for this too — as evidenced by Ricochet’s own misguided rush-to-judgment piece a few days ago.

It’s time to put one’s feelings about the President aside, and to take a hard-headed look at the law and the Constitutional principles that are at stake. Everyone’s right to free expression is in the dock right now. That serves a left that has already embraced censorship and controlled speech. We on the right must do better.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 243 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

     

    It is impeachable. If Trump is not removed via the 25th Amendment, and if Trump does not resign. Not only is it is impeachable, Trump should forever be disqualified from holding any position of honor and profit in our country forever.

    As I said above, a theoretical discussion of whether there’s impeachable conduct may be of some interest, but as a practical matter it should be moot given our proximity to Jan. 20.  Unfortunately, it is not moot for the true haters among us, even if they purport to be Republicans.  You’ve already got your needed pound of flesh.  You’re not going to persuade a single soul. Let it rest.

     

    • #31
  2. D.A. Venters Inactive
    D.A. Venters
    @DAVenters

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I don’t think Trump intended to incite a riot, but I do believe his conduct is impeachable, and doing that would pose no threat to freedom of speech. I don’t really support it, only because he has such a short time left in office.

    A president does not have to commit an actual crime to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. That is an ancient term of art that encompasses a broad range of misconduct by officials, who have special oaths and obligations beyond those of non-office holding citizens.

    I suppose that, technically, what’s impeachable is what Congress concludes is impeachable. However, I don’t see how impeaching a President for expressing an opinion which is (1) not demonstrably false, (2) shared by tens or perhaps scores of millions of Americans, and (3) legal and constitutionally protected speech can not have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

    In this case, the President attempted to use a mass gathering to intimidate the VP and Congress into illegally keeping him in power, something to they could not lawfully do. And that’s not even a close legal question. That’s bad enough. That alone is a breach of public trust, a dangerous disregard for the rule of law that ought to disqualify him from office.

    I would say it like this:

    “In this case, the President attempted to use a peaceful gathering to persuade the VP and Congress into exercising its authority under 3 U.S.C. §15 to reject electoral votes it deems tainted by fraud, and to encourage the states to review their ballots and confirm or correct their slates of electors. While it was likely a hopeless effort, it was within his right to make it and something he might honesty have hoped would occur.”

    There is no such authority and 3 usc 15 is clear on that. Regardless of why the objection is made, the only lawful reasons to reject an electoral vote is if it wasn’t certified under 3’usc 6 (which clearly requires any controversies to have been resolved by the states), or if there are competing slates of electors. Neither of those circumstances existed. The counting was a pure formality. 

    This is what I mean by misleading his people. They apparently believed there was some legal remedy and there wasn’t, and under that mistaken belief they died or caused people to die. 

    I don’t know how this could fail to outrage anyone. Trump fans ought to be especially outraged. 

     

     

    • #32
  3. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    Henry Racette:

    Having now reviewed everything I can find on what the President actually said at the protest in D.C., I can state with confidence that he did not cross a line into legally actionable speech.

    Well, since I haven’t listened to or read it, what were the worst parts or the worst part that the Left is claiming are so bad?

     

    • #33
  4. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    The Cloaked Gaijin (View Comment):

    Henry Racette:

    Having now reviewed everything I can find on what the President actually said at the protest in D.C., I can state with confidence that he did not cross a line into legally actionable speech.

    Well, since I haven’t listened to or read it, what were the worst parts or the worst part that the Left is claiming are so bad?

    Post #13 above may be of some help.

    • #34
  5. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I do believe his conduct is impeachable…

    Yuk.

    If speaking is impeachable, then anything is impeachable — and impeachment will be constant forever.

    Bad trend…

    A little bravery and patience from the Right would be nice.

    • #35
  6. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Muleskinner, Weasel Wrangler (View Comment):

    From the archives, and probably instructive,

    “President Reagan’s instinctive anti-communism – and occasional graveyard humour – has embroiled him in another embarrassing incident. The White House was yesterday trying to calm reactions generated around the world by a bellicosely anti-Soviet presidential comment made into a live microphone.

    It came as Mr Reagan was preparing for his weekly radio broadcast on Saturday. During a test to adjust the microphones for voice level, Mr Reagan intoned: ‘My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you that I have signed legislation to outlaw Russia for ever. We begin bombing in five minutes.’

    The Democratic presidential nominee, Mr Walter Mondale, chided Mr Reagan for his joke, saying: ‘A President has to be very, very careful with his words.’

    He told a press conference: ‘I am willing to accept he saw it as a joke…but others will think it is serious…I don’t think it is very funny…’”

    I remember the incident, certainly one of the most embarrassing “open mike” errors of my lifetime.

    But I’m not sure what lesson I should draw from it, other than the obvious one that we should always assume a microphone is on. Care to elaborate?

    There has been a school of thought, I forget the source right now, that Reagan’s “slip” was not an accident. It was calculated. Maybe it was in Steve Hayward’s biography.

    That is what I read somewhere.  It was a gambit between Reagan and Kissinger 

    • #36
  7. DonG (Biden is compromised) Coolidge
    DonG (Biden is compromised)
    @DonG

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Theodoric of Freiberg (View Comment):

    This all comes down to the fact that Trump has been lying about the election being stolen for the past two months. This is why character matters and he doesn’t have any. Pray for our country.

    Define “lying.” Are you in the group that mistakenly believes it’s just “saying something that’s wrong”?

    Just repeating the CNN propaganda. 

    • #37
  8. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

     

    It is impeachable. If Trump is not removed via the 25th Amendment, and if Trump does not resign. Not only is it is impeachable, Trump should forever be disqualified from holding any position of honor and profit in our country forever.

    As I said above, a theoretical discussion of whether there’s impeachable conduct may be of some interest, but as a practical matter it should be moot given our proximity to Jan. 20. Unfortunately, it is not moot for the true haters among us, even if they purport to be Republicans. You’ve already got your needed pound of flesh. You’re not going to persuade a single soul. Let it rest.

    There are two reasons to impeach. 

    First is to remove Trump from office.  (He has 257 hours left.  Heck, he could do a great deal of damage in one hour, let alone 257 hours.) 

    Second is to disqualify Trump from ever seeking office in the future.  This would formally put an end to Trumpism, and would be salutatory for the Republican Party and the Republic.

    Both are valid reasons.  

    • #38
  9. Weeping Inactive
    Weeping
    @Weeping

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I don’t think Trump intended to incite a riot, but I do believe his conduct is impeachable, and doing that would pose no threat to freedom of speech. I don’t really support it, only because he has such a short time left in office.

    A president does not have to commit an actual crime to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. That is an ancient term of art that encompasses a broad range of misconduct by officials, who have special oaths and obligations beyond those of non-office holding citizens.

    In this case, the President attempted to use a mass gathering to intimidate the VP and Congress into illegally keeping him in power, something to they could not lawfully do. And that’s not even a close legal question. That’s bad enough. That alone is a breach of public trust, a dangerous disregard for the rule of law that ought to disqualify him from office.

    If you add in what did happen, if you consider the recklessness made clear by what actually transpired, it only enhances the case. He misled people to the point they were willing to commit crimes on his behalf, to risk their own lives, and jeopardize the lives of others, and sure enough people did die. Died because of his absurd and shameful refusal to give up power. If he had conceded when his legal options were exhausted, those people would be alive today.

    If that’s not impeachable, God help us.

    My understanding is that the legal options hadn’t been exhausted yet. The House and Senate separating to discuss the issues (which would have been activated by the objections that were planned) would have been the last legal option available. Unfortunately before that could happen, the riot occurred and the objections were dropped. Am I misunderstanding the details there?

    • #39
  10. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    Theodoric of Freiberg (View Comment):

    This all comes down to the fact that Trump has been lying about the election being stolen for the past two months. This is why character matters and he doesn’t have any. Pray for our country.

    There is abundant evidence that the election was stolen. Your not acknowledging that does not change the evidence.

    If there was such evidence, then in at least one of the 60 lawsuits, somebody would have introduced evidence of a stolen election. They did not. Over 90 judges and justices ruled against Trump.

    This is so careless and inaccurate.  I expect better of a lawyer.

    These issues are exceptionally complicated.  You probably don’t know anything about a single one of those cases to express an opinion.  I know about only a small handful, which I have examined personally.

    The most notable one is the Georgia state court case in Fulton County, not brought by Trump, but by a private citizen.  It was dismissed for misjoinder — while the judge carefully granted the motion to dismiss before considering the pending motion to intervene filed by alternative defendants — and while the judge ignored the applicable Georgia statute on civil procedure.  I detailed this here.  The Georgia rule was the equivalent of Rule 21 of the federal and Arizona rules of civil procedure (with which we’re probably both familiar, as Arizona lawyers).

    • #40
  11. MichaelKennedy Inactive
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I don’t think Trump intended to incite a riot, but I do believe his conduct is impeachable, and doing that would pose no threat to freedom of speech. I don’t really support it, only because he has such a short time left in office.

    A president does not have to commit an actual crime to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. That is an ancient term of art that encompasses a broad range of misconduct by officials, who have special oaths and obligations beyond those of non-office holding citizens.

    In this case, the President attempted to use a mass gathering to intimidate the VP and Congress into illegally keeping him in power, something to they could not lawfully do. And that’s not even a close legal question. That’s bad enough. That alone is a breach of public trust, a dangerous disregard for the rule of law that ought to disqualify him from office.

    If you add in what did happen, if you consider the recklessness made clear by what actually transpired, it only enhances the case. He misled people to the point they were willing to commit crimes on his behalf, to risk their own lives, and jeopardize the lives of others, and sure enough people did die. Died because of his absurd and shameful refusal to give up power. If he had conceded when his legal options were exhausted, those people would be alive today.

    If that’s not impeachable, God help us.

    Yes, I hope God helps you NTs to get over your obsession and hate.

    • #41
  12. MichaelKennedy Inactive
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    Theodoric of Freiberg (View Comment):

    This all comes down to the fact that Trump has been lying about the election being stolen for the past two months. This is why character matters and he doesn’t have any. Pray for our country.

    There is abundant evidence that the election was stolen. Your not acknowledging that does not change the evidence.

    If there was such evidence, then in at least one of the 60 lawsuits, somebody would have introduced evidence of a stolen election. They did not. Over 90 judges and justices ruled against Trump.

    Oh, God ! Please spare us from the lunatic NTs who are obsessed and won’t shut up.

    • #42
  13. MichaelKennedy Inactive
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    DonG (Biden is compromised) (View Comment):

    Henry Racette: During the Kavanaugh hearings,

    Do you remember that time when the crowd of Democrats interrupted the hearings? Do you remember all the media calling it an insurrection? All the Dems politicians calling it insurrection? Do remember people calling it domestic terrorism and talking about lifetime bans on air travel and social media for participants and those that riled them up?

    I don’t remember the Democrats breaking into the Senate Chambers and sitting at the dais. I don’t remember the Democrats rushing the House Chamber, breaking windows and stopped only when facing drawn guns. I don’t remember the Democrats trashing Mitch McConnell’s office. Please provide me a link to those pictures.

    The Democrats during Kavanaugh were bad, but they all went through the metal detectors and did not bring guns into the Capitol complex. The mob who breached the Capitol on January 6, 2021 were far, far worse.

    December 6, 1941, September 11, 2001 and January 6, 2021 will all be days that will live in infamy. After Pearl Harbor, my father enlisted and placed his body into the path of the enemy. After 9/11, I swore “never again.” After the Trump Riot, I again swore “never again.”

    Go away and pester someone else.

    • #43
  14. MichaelKennedy Inactive
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I don’t think Trump intended to incite a riot, but I do believe his conduct is impeachable, and doing that would pose no threat to freedom of speech. I don’t really support it, only because he has such a short time left in office.

    A president does not have to commit an actual crime to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. That is an ancient term of art that encompasses a broad range of misconduct by officials, who have special oaths and obligations beyond those of non-office holding citizens.

    I suppose that, technically, what’s impeachable is what Congress concludes is impeachable. However, I don’t see how impeaching a President for expressing an opinion which is (1) not demonstrably false, (2) shared by tens or perhaps scores of millions of Americans, and (3) legal and constitutionally protected speech can not have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

    In this case, the President attempted to use a mass gathering to intimidate the VP and Congress into illegally keeping him in power, something to they could not lawfully do. And that’s not even a close legal question. That’s bad enough. That alone is a breach of public trust, a dangerous disregard for the rule of law that ought to disqualify him from office.

    I would say it like this:

    “In this case, the President attempted to use a peaceful gathering to persuade the VP and Congress into exercising its authority under 3 U.S.C. §15 to reject electoral votes it deems tainted by fraud, and to encourage the states to review their ballots and confirm or correct their slates of electors. While it was likely a hopeless effort, it was within his right to make it and something he might honesty have hoped would occur.”

    There is no such authority and 3 usc 15 is clear on that. Regardless of why the objection is made, the only lawful reasons to reject an electoral vote is if it wasn’t certified under 3’usc 6 (which clearly requires any controversies to have been resolved by the states), or if there are competing slates of electors. Neither of those circumstances existed. The counting was a pure formality.

    This is what I mean by misleading his people. They apparently believed there was some legal remedy and there wasn’t, and under that mistaken belief they died or caused people to die.

    I don’t know how this could fail to outrage anyone. Trump fans ought to be especially outraged.

    More lunacy.

     

    More mlunacy.

    • #44
  15. StoughtonObserver Inactive
    StoughtonObserver
    @Bruce W Banerdt

    philo (View Comment):

    Time and again, I return to Madam Himmelfarb:

    As liberty of thought is absolute, so is liberty of speech, which is “inseparable” from liberty of thought. Liberty of speech, moreover, is essential not only for its own sake but for the sake of truth, which requires absolute liberty for the utterance of unpopular and even demonstrably false opinions. Indeed, false or unpopular opinions are so important to truth that they should be encouraged and disseminated by “devil’s advocates” if necessary, for only by the “collision of adverse opinions” can the most certain of truths survive as live truth rather than “dead dogma.” – Page 78 (from Liberty: “One Very Simple Principle”?)

    The anti-liberty forces from both sides of the aisle are afoot. Truly despicable…every damn one of them.

    Thank you Philo. Just ordered it from Amazon.

    • #45
  16. MichaelKennedy Inactive
    MichaelKennedy
    @MichaelKennedy

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

     

    It is impeachable. If Trump is not removed via the 25th Amendment, and if Trump does not resign. Not only is it is impeachable, Trump should forever be disqualified from holding any position of honor and profit in our country forever.

    As I said above, a theoretical discussion of whether there’s impeachable conduct may be of some interest, but as a practical matter it should be moot given our proximity to Jan. 20. Unfortunately, it is not moot for the true haters among us, even if they purport to be Republicans. You’ve already got your needed pound of flesh. You’re not going to persuade a single soul. Let it rest.

    There are two reasons to impeach.

    First is to remove Trump from office. (He has 257 hours left. Heck, he could do a great deal of damage in one hour, let alone 257 hours.)

    Second is to disqualify Trump from ever seeking office in the future. This would formally put an end to Trumpism, and would be salutatory for the Republican Party and the Republic.

    Both are valid reasons.

    More lunacy.  Do you have to inflict this crap on readers of this blog to deal with some internal demons ?

    • #46
  17. aardo vozz Member
    aardo vozz
    @aardovozz

    double post. Sorry 😣

    • #47
  18. aardo vozz Member
    aardo vozz
    @aardovozz

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Time and again, I return to Madam Himmelfarb:

    As liberty of thought is absolute, so is liberty of speech, which is “inseparable” from liberty of thought. Liberty of speech, moreover, is essential not only for its own sake but for the sake of truth, which requires absolute liberty for the utterance of unpopular and even demonstrably false opinions. Indeed, false or unpopular opinions are so important to truth that they should be encouraged and disseminated by “devil’s advocates” if necessary, for only by the “collision of adverse opinions” can the most certain of truths survive as live truth rather than “dead dogma.” – Page 78 (from Liberty: “One Very Simple Principle”?)

    I. Love. This.

    Thank you.

    Did not mean to flag. Sorry 😳😳😳😳😳

    • #48
  19. D.A. Venters Inactive
    D.A. Venters
    @DAVenters

    Weeping (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I don’t think Trump intended to incite a riot, but I do believe his conduct is impeachable, and doing that would pose no threat to freedom of speech. I don’t really support it, only because he has such a short time left in office.

    A president does not have to commit an actual crime to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. That is an ancient term of art that encompasses a broad range of misconduct by officials, who have special oaths and obligations beyond those of non-office holding citizens.

    In this case, the President attempted to use a mass gathering to intimidate the VP and Congress into illegally keeping him in power, something to they could not lawfully do. And that’s not even a close legal question. That’s bad enough. That alone is a breach of public trust, a dangerous disregard for the rule of law that ought to disqualify him from office.

    If you add in what did happen, if you consider the recklessness made clear by what actually transpired, it only enhances the case. He misled people to the point they were willing to commit crimes on his behalf, to risk their own lives, and jeopardize the lives of others, and sure enough people did die. Died because of his absurd and shameful refusal to give up power. If he had conceded when his legal options were exhausted, those people would be alive today.

    If that’s not impeachable, God help us.

    My understanding is that the legal options hadn’t been exhausted yet. The House and Senate separating to discuss the issues (which would have been activated by the objections that were planned) would have been the last legal option available. Unfortunately before that could happen, the riot occurred and the objections were dropped. Am I misunderstanding the details there?

    Yes, I’m afraid so. This is what I mean by the president misleading everyone for weeks now.

    Objections can be made, but under the statute the only lawful reason to reject an electoral vote is if it wasn’t certified under 3 usc 6, or if more than one slate of electors was sent for that state. None of those circumstances existed. The counting of votes became a legal formality once the EC votes were certified.

    This is not complicated law, which leads many to conclude that the president and his team have, for weeks, known there was no legitimate legal claim left. Cruz surely knew that. The fact Trump didn’t admit that, and stirred his people on anyway is unconscionable.

    • #49
  20. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    StoughtonObserver (View Comment):

    philo (View Comment):

    Time and again, I return to Madam Himmelfarb:

    As liberty of thought is absolute, so is liberty of speech, which is “inseparable” from liberty of thought. Liberty of speech, moreover, is essential not only for its own sake but for the sake of truth, which requires absolute liberty for the utterance of unpopular and even demonstrably false opinions. Indeed, false or unpopular opinions are so important to truth that they should be encouraged and disseminated by “devil’s advocates” if necessary, for only by the “collision of adverse opinions” can the most certain of truths survive as live truth rather than “dead dogma.” – Page 78 (from Liberty: “One Very Simple Principle”?)

    The anti-liberty forces from both sides of the aisle are afoot. Truly despicable…every damn one of them.

    Thank you Philo. Just ordered it from Amazon.

    I always take lots of notes. Happy to discuss more when you’ve read it.  

    • #50
  21. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    Theodoric of Freiberg (View Comment):

    This all comes down to the fact that Trump has been lying about the election being stolen for the past two months. This is why character matters and he doesn’t have any. Pray for our country.

    There is abundant evidence that the election was stolen. Your not acknowledging that does not change the evidence.

    If there was such evidence, then in at least one of the 60 lawsuits, somebody would have introduced evidence of a stolen election. They did not. Over 90 judges and justices ruled against Trump.

    Oh, God ! Please spare us from the lunatic NTs who are obsessed and won’t shut up.

    I wouldn’t mind one more post to inform me how many of those decisions were on the merits of the claims.  But we probably won’t get that anyway.  This sounds like a Bulwark factoid so who knows what it’s worth.

    • #51
  22. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Henry Racette: If the most powerful man in the United States can receive the highest punishment which Congress can mete out for the non-crime of speaking in a way that offends many people, then what protection does anyone have to speak freely?

    I think they’re worried about the real life consequences of his speech (and possibly actions).

    He has the right to say whatever he wants.  Most Trump supporters didn’t take his words as a call to violence. But (predictably?) a small segment did, and they acted.

    It is not illegal for the President to speak intemperately or unwisely, but there are consequences when he does so.

    In this instance these consequences caused the members of Congress to feel actual physical fear – something they are not used to – and I think that’s influencing their responses.

    • #52
  23. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

     

    It is impeachable. If Trump is not removed via the 25th Amendment, and if Trump does not resign. Not only is it is impeachable, Trump should forever be disqualified from holding any position of honor and profit in our country forever.

    As I said above, a theoretical discussion of whether there’s impeachable conduct may be of some interest, but as a practical matter it should be moot given our proximity to Jan. 20. Unfortunately, it is not moot for the true haters among us, even if they purport to be Republicans. You’ve already got your needed pound of flesh. You’re not going to persuade a single soul. Let it rest.

    There are two reasons to impeach.

    First is to remove Trump from office. (He has 257 hours left. Heck, he could do a great deal of damage in one hour, let alone 257 hours.)

    Second is to disqualify Trump from ever seeking office in the future. This would formally put an end to Trumpism, and would be salutatory for the Republican Party and the Republic.

    Both are valid reasons.

    Those are reasons to want to impeach. Things that actually justify impeachment are bribery, treason, and high crimes and misdemeanors. Trump has done none of those things.

    So this is an unhealthy fantasy being entertained by people who are willing to torture the Constitution in order to remove a man they don’t like.

    • #53
  24. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Those are reasons to want to impeach. Things that actually justify impeachment are bribery, treason, and high crimes and misdemeanors. Trump has done none of those things.

    So this is an unhealthy fantasy being entertained by people who are willing to torture the Constitution in order to remove a man they don’t like.

    I’d say “unhealthy fantasy” is something of an understatement.  “Bloodlust” is something of an overstatement, but I believe that it’s closer.  This is revenge, pure and simple.

    • #54
  25. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Henry Racette: If the most powerful man in the United States can receive the highest punishment which Congress can mete out for the non-crime of speaking in a way that offends many people, then what protection does anyone have to speak freely?

    I think they’re worried about the real life consequences of his speech (and possibly actions).

    He has the right to say whatever he wants. Most Trump supporters didn’t take his words as a call to violence. But (predictably?) a small segment did, and they acted.

    It is not illegal for the President to speak intemperately or unwisely, but there are consequences when he does so.

    In this instance these consequences caused the members of Congress to feel actual physical fear – something they are not used to – and I think that’s influencing their responses.

    Is this a fact? Have you examined the time line of his speech and the activity at the Capital? (I’m not saying it isn’t true but it is conceivable that those who acted so poorly at the Capital didn’t hear a word Trump said.)

    • #55
  26. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    philo (View Comment):
    Is this a fact? Have you examined the time line of his speech and the activity at the Capital? (I’m not saying it isn’t true but it is conceivable that those who acted so poorly at the Capital didn’t hear a word Trump said.)

    On that day. Possible (though with smart phones it’s hard to say definitively).

    According to this the speech ended about 1 pm and some people were already at the capitol by then.  So at best they didn’t stay till the end.

    This article lists multiple speeches/comms since mid December – which is only relevant in that opinions are formed over a period of time.

    Clearly some people had planned for it, but most seem to have just been caught up when it happened.  That’s often the nature of mobs.

     

    • #56
  27. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    It is impeachable. If Trump is not removed via the 25th Amendment, and if Trump does not resign. Not only is it is impeachable, Trump should forever be disqualified from holding any position of honor and profit in our country forever.

    As I said above, a theoretical discussion of whether there’s impeachable conduct may be of some interest, but as a practical matter it should be moot given our proximity to Jan. 20. Unfortunately, it is not moot for the true haters among us, even if they purport to be Republicans. You’ve already got your needed pound of flesh. You’re not going to persuade a single soul. Let it rest.

    I think I would have gone with “give it a rest.”  Or better yet, “put a sock/cork in it.”

    Hey, “Stifle yourself, Edith!” is even better.

    • #57
  28. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I don’t think Trump intended to incite a riot, but I do believe his conduct is impeachable, and doing that would pose no threat to freedom of speech. I don’t really support it, only because he has such a short time left in office.

    A president does not have to commit an actual crime to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. That is an ancient term of art that encompasses a broad range of misconduct by officials, who have special oaths and obligations beyond those of non-office holding citizens.

    I suppose that, technically, what’s impeachable is what Congress concludes is impeachable. However, I don’t see how impeaching a President for expressing an opinion which is (1) not demonstrably false, (2) shared by tens or perhaps scores of millions of Americans, and (3) legal and constitutionally protected speech can not have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

    In this case, the President attempted to use a mass gathering to intimidate the VP and Congress into illegally keeping him in power, something to they could not lawfully do. And that’s not even a close legal question. That’s bad enough. That alone is a breach of public trust, a dangerous disregard for the rule of law that ought to disqualify him from office.

    I would say it like this:

    “In this case, the President attempted to use a peaceful gathering to persuade the VP and Congress into exercising its authority under 3 U.S.C. §15 to reject electoral votes it deems tainted by fraud, and to encourage the states to review their ballots and confirm or correct their slates of electors. While it was likely a hopeless effort, it was within his right to make it and something he might honesty have hoped would occur.”

    There is no such authority and 3 usc 15 is clear on that. Regardless of why the objection is made, the only lawful reasons to reject an electoral vote is if it wasn’t certified under 3’usc 6 (which clearly requires any controversies to have been resolved by the states), or if there are competing slates of electors. Neither of those circumstances existed. The counting was a pure formality.

    This is what I mean by misleading his people. They apparently believed there was some legal remedy and there wasn’t, and under that mistaken belief they died or caused people to die.

    I don’t know how this could fail to outrage anyone. Trump fans ought to be especially outraged.

    Except you’re still assuming it was really Trump supporters who did the damage, etc.  That’s an easy assumption for… some… to make, but it’s far from certain.  BLM/Antifa agitators at the events have been identified.

    • #58
  29. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    Theodoric of Freiberg (View Comment):

    This all comes down to the fact that Trump has been lying about the election being stolen for the past two months. This is why character matters and he doesn’t have any. Pray for our country.

    There is abundant evidence that the election was stolen. Your not acknowledging that does not change the evidence.

    If there was such evidence, then in at least one of the 60 lawsuits, somebody would have introduced evidence of a stolen election. They did not. Over 90 judges and justices ruled against Trump.

    This is so careless and inaccurate. I expect better of a lawyer.

    Maybe time for another reminder, he’s only a family law attorney.

     

    • #59
  30. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I don’t think Trump intended to incite a riot, but I do believe his conduct is impeachable, and doing that would pose no threat to freedom of speech. I don’t really support it, only because he has such a short time left in office.

    A president does not have to commit an actual crime to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. That is an ancient term of art that encompasses a broad range of misconduct by officials, who have special oaths and obligations beyond those of non-office holding citizens.

    In this case, the President attempted to use a mass gathering to intimidate the VP and Congress into illegally keeping him in power, something to they could not lawfully do. And that’s not even a close legal question. That’s bad enough. That alone is a breach of public trust, a dangerous disregard for the rule of law that ought to disqualify him from office.

    If you add in what did happen, if you consider the recklessness made clear by what actually transpired, it only enhances the case. He misled people to the point they were willing to commit crimes on his behalf, to risk their own lives, and jeopardize the lives of others, and sure enough people did die. Died because of his absurd and shameful refusal to give up power. If he had conceded when his legal options were exhausted, those people would be alive today.

    If that’s not impeachable, God help us.

    Yes, I hope God helps you NTs to get over your obsession and hate.

    I agree they need to get over it, but not without some punishment/suffering along the way for the damage already done.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.