Jump to content

Trump Impeachment 2: Insurrection Boogaloo


Sawbonz

Recommended Posts

It's not strictly relevant, but 18 USC 2101 defines the federal crime of inciting a riot.

Quote

(a)Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—

(1)
to incite a riot; or
(2)
to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
(3)
to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4)
to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;
and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— [1]
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Note that you don't have to be the sole proximate cause of a riot, just contribute to it in the enumerated ways. So this notion that certain groups were planning to riot anyway is bullshit.  Moreover, receiving encouragement from the POTUS insured that those turds would go through with it and think that they would be protected from their crimes.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DigglerontheHoof said:

There isn't a spine to be had in the Rep Senate.  You might get 4 or 5 to convict but no more.  Can't piss off the morons.   

A lot (all?) of these R senators are already extremely wealthy. They don't NEED to be reelected. Think long term about the precedent. Fear of violence against their families is about the only reason I can come up with not to convict. But it's short sighted and selfish. Trump shit on all of them and their families from day 1. Stop humiliating yourself and the few principled conservatives left and turn on the mother fucker already. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

dmes are doing a good job showing how the actual framers exercised impeachment of former officials. i can't see a way around that. these are some of the same men who put pen to paper for the constitution. 

Well not only that, but like I said, the Walter Nixon case definitively refuted the GOP argument fully 27 years before it was advanced. As Rehnquist put it, “we hold that the word "try" in the Impeachment Clause does not provide an identifiable textual limit on the authority which is committed to the Senate.” 

In order for this trial to lack constitutionality, there has to be a textual limit on that exact authority, and that limit has to have been demonstrated to have been exceeded.

There isn’t. It doesn’t exist. It’s make believe. Pretend. All this shit the GOP is pumping out about this amounts to bells and whistles, colors and lights, smoke and mirrors, partisan feelings and emotions...and pretty much everything else that just simply doesn’t matter when examining the constitution, law and order, and really anything meaningful in life itself.

They are waving their hands around, stomping their feet and yelling as loudly as they can, in the words of Tom Tucker, “Pay attention to me! I'm trying to ruin you!”

Edited by hpslugga
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, B00M said:

A lot (all?) of these R senators are already extremely wealthy. They don't NEED to be reelected. Think long term about the precedent. Fear of violence against their families is about the only reason I can come up with not to convict. But it's short sighted and selfish. Trump shit on all of them and their families from day 1. Stop humiliating yourself and the few principled conservatives left and turn on the mother fucker already. 

The fact that the "jury" is composed of the co-conspirators makes the whole thing bizarre. Trying to imagine a prosecutor asking a jury of 12 to convict the defendant when the getaway driver and 2 accomplices are sitting in the jury.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

Yeah Castor, I do kind of want retribution.

I reject his contention. He’s trying to frame the issue as being “oh these hysterical democrats are just out for blood.” This is textbook gaslighting 

Edited by hpslugga
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

 As Rehnquist put it, “we hold that the word "try" in the Impeachment Clause does not provide an identifiable textual limit on the authority which is committed to the Senate.” 

 


Rehnquist was a liberal, deep state plant who was nominated by the deep state to serve at its discretion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

This is the other side is obviously right and I have no cogent legal argument so I’ll ramble and suck up so as not to just concede we have no argument that doesn’t involve me lying.

This is the best explanation.  Or, this guy is a moron.  Tough to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...