Why impeach Trump?

They will never be able to establish that by next week, because much of the analysis is yet to be done. FBI is look at exchanges on Parler, and it will take a lot of time to devise a timeline of how this developed.

I hadn't read about any of this. Can you give me a source?

 

The Lizard people won't allow it.

Wow, that's fun, saying any off-the-wall bs, but it doesn't make it any more real.

 

Maybe I misuderstood, but I thought you were saying that White House staff could testify about discussions they'd had with Trump. That's what I was referring to, and this would first require a subpoena - and only THEN would there would be in invocation of privilege.

I agree, but Senators are free to create their own standard of what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor", and of course they can (and many will) just fall back on the Constitutionality excuse.

It's possible, but I think a lot more investigation will be needed before criminal liability could be established. A possible avenue: I recall that Trump had retweeted various nonsense from conspiracy theory websites over the years. I wonder how he happens to have this information; and perhaps the same source might also have provided knowledge about the plans. Pure speculation on my part, but it could be.

 

National Park Service Permit 21-0278 was the permit issued for the Trump speech at the Ellipse. It was originally scheduled for later in January, but changed to January 6th. It states: "Women for America will not conduct an organized march from the Ellipse at the conclusion of the rally. Some participants may leave to attend rallies at the United States Capitol to hear the results of the Congressional certification of the Electoral College count."

IOW, the permit issued for the Trump speech did NOT include a march to the Capitol. Presumably, there are separate permits which were issued for the march and for a separate rally at the Capitol. Where are they? If none were ever issued, the only "permission given," was that of Trump, in his speech.

On the Source...it was "Consoriumnews." I am not familiar with it, but it claimed to have been based on NPS interviews and included a copy of the permit noted above.

If you are granted a "permit" to hold an event on public property, you assume a degree of responsibility for acting lawfully. My question is: "In this case, it would appear the only person calling for a march on the Capitol was President Donald Trump, who also said he would lead them.

 

I think I found the article in question, here: https://consortiumnews.com/2021/01/...ermitted-rally-organizers-warned-white-house/


Before Donald Trump exhorted the Jan. 6 rally to march on the Capitol, the White House had been warned by the rally sponsor that there was no permit for a march, that the Interior Department’s Park Police were promised there would be no march, and that such an unplanned march was dangerous. ...

Even more damning, the march Trump set in motion was led and promoted by ultra-right, violence-threatening extremist Ali Alexander, head of Stop the Steal. The Palast Investigative Team filmed Alexander, only weeks before the riot, exhorting a crowd: “Either they take Trump …[or] we’ll light the whole **** on fire!”

The first news that there would be, despite warnings, an illegal, uncontrolled march was at 12:15 pm when Trump himself surprised the protest organizers with his announcement. “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” Trump said.


The march on the Capitol was set in motion when the President announced he himself would join it. “The announcement that he was going to go was news to us,” the insider said. “But then [Trump] said he’s walking! It caught our team by surprise and unprepared.”

Alex Jones stated on his podcast that he and Alexander were called by the White House just before the president’s speech and were told to prepare to lead the crowd on a march.


If true, this adds to Trump's dereliction.

 

I think there might be witnesses who would come in voluntarily. And, in any case, the House can prove need.

What the House needs to do is prove that it's just an excuse. Which won't prevent them from using it, of course. But it will make them look bad.

Quite possible. His demeanor in the WH as the riots were happening could also be used against him. And I don't think he can claim that being all giddy is privileged information.

 

An actual "impartial jury" would laugh the so-called "evidence" out the door, precisely BECAUSE it's all on video tape.

 

True...but the task of the prosecution in a criminal prosecution would be to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, intent. Short of a direct confession by the defendant himself, it's a tough thing to do, although not impossible. Other ways are by indirect circumstantial evidence (other people who might have been involved) and "patterns" of similar behavior. Might want to start with the RICO laws established to go after mafia dons.

 

Or, worse. Depends on who may have been assigned to get a permit for the march?

 

It's been reported by the press that aides were trying in vain to get him to take action. Kellyanne Conway referenced this on the Bill Maher show. Given the resources at his disposal, I would argue that this constitutes giving aid and comfort - I suspect it's his primary criminal liability, but it seems a good argument for his impeachment trial, and would be bolstered by testimony.

BTW, I did some research on executive privilege, and this article suggests he may not be able to use it: https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-former-president-assert-executive-privilege-impeachment-trial

 

God Bless you, friend.

 

A good number of repub senators would love to impeach traitor Trump and get rid of him for good, if only it was a secret vote. But they are just too scared!

Same as what happened in the house for the Green vote (public) and the Liz Cheney vote (behind closed doors).

 

Fake news. Trump will win, again!

MOSTLY PEACEFUL RIOTS AND ARSON COMING BACK TO HAUNT LEFT: Trump impeachment lawyer says he’ll use video of Dems’ own remarks at trial.

“Will you then respond with Maxine Waters, a number of other Democrat officials not speaking out about the Antifa and other extremist rallies over the last summer?” Ingraham asked.

​

“there’s a lot of tape of cities burning and courthouses being attacked and federal agents being assaulted by rioters in the streets, cheered on by Democrats throughout the country,”

Castor, who will defend Trump alongside attorney David Schoen, continued: “Many of them in Washington are using really the most inflammatory rhetoric possible to use. And certainly there would be no suggestion that they did anything to incite any of the actions."

“But here, when you have the president of the United States give a speech and says that you should peacefully make your thinking known to the people in Congress, he's all of a sudden a villain.” he continued.

Rep. Waters (D-Calif.) in 2018 called on supporters at a rally to confront Trump officials in public to protest the Trump administration's child separation policy.

Castor told Ingraham that the “primary issue” will be the argument that the Senate can’t impeach Trump because he is no longer in office. Most Senate Republicans voted last week in favor of a motion saying that the Senate trial was unconstitutional because Trump is no longer president.

 

Childish revenge.

 

‘Mostly peaceful’ violence and dueling double standards. “As a law student, I worked in the mayor’s office in Detroit during the 1967 riot, and I can tell you what happens to major cities with sustained increases in violent crime: Very large parts of them are destroyed. That’s what I fear could happen again.”

 

Charles Manson never explicitly told his followers to kill anyone.

Derp.

 

Regarding the bold "marching to the Capitol."

There is video of people at the rally saying "Take the Capitol! Let's take the Capitol!" as Trump was telling them to march.

 

There you have it. Trump loyalists now hold that putting somebody on trial is "revenge". Charles Manson would have been thrilled with your legal doctrine..

 

Interesting analogy. See this article about Manson (link).

Manson: “I didn’t have nothing to do with killing those people,” he told Day[his interviewer] in a phone call. “They knew I didn’t have anything to do with it.”
...
[Day] thinks Manson’s version is more likely than not pretty close to the truth, but he doesn’t agree with the cult leader’s feeling that the drug-deal story is exculpatory....
while media outlets like TIME reported that Manson had ordered the murders, which was also the timeline that came out in the trial, Manson’s own version was that his followers orchestrated the whole thing, and he was only involved in a passive way...
“I think there’s no question Manson is culpable for those murders...The murders would not have happened without him.”

 

Just in case Trump loyalists believe that "He didn't participate in the riots" will keep him out of prison.

 

Did he drone a wedding? Did he use the IRS to persecute political enemies? Did he have 4 US citizens killed without Judicial process? (an impeachable offense BTW).

Did he give tax dollars to campaign contributors and lobbyists, and falsely claimed the money was for “green energy” (Solyndra anyone?)
Did he Illegally demand monetary payment for Freedom of Information Act request? (Goldwater institute anyone remember, remember that Golem?)

How short your memory...

 

To be accurate, his impeachment is for High Crimes and Misdemeanors which specifically includes Incitement of Insurrection in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It is a violation of his Oath of Office and it is dereliction of duty but those are extensions of what he's being charged with, not the actual charges.

 

They reason is unique to the democrat party: Power, paranoia, panic.

They are a disjointed basket of undoable things. Due to their diversity and refusal to say no to bad ideas, they are led to greatly overplay their hand.
As you read this Antifa is still stomping through cities, including Washington DC at the same time they are having a “venom party” over their ex prez Trump fetish.
This is compounded by media not pressuring them and not pointing out stupid ideas and calling stupid ideas what they are: stupid. Thus, they feel they have the wind at their backs and everyone in on their side.

 

To me its simple.

I want him impeached so that he may never hold office ever again.

Period.

If they can achieve that any other way ( censure possibly ) then I am fine with that.

Donald Trump, nor his horrible children, should ever be allowed to hold public office ever again.

 

If the bold highlighted part of the above sentence is yours it is known as cherrypicking to make a point.

Many protest events are referred to as marches. The most recent examples are those organized by BLM protests. The same ones that have been called by MSM as “Mostly peaceful protests.”

Divorcing the phrase “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” from the preceding phrase will not hold mustard in any reasonable court required to look at all the facts. Not just those isolated from the context.