Trumped

[Taylor]

8 minutes ago, st1ckboy said:

Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."^[4]

The argument is shifting anyway.

Step 1: The impeachment of a former president is unconstitutional.
Response: But hey look, here are a bunch of constitutional lawyers, including conservative ones, who say it's constitutional.

Step 2: Okay, maybe it's constitutional, but it's a waste of time.
Response: There has to be some kind of consequence for presidents who do illegal and harmful things during their lame duck periods.

Step 3: Well, in any case, Trump never specifically told his legion to storm the Capitol, destroy property, cause deaths, etc.
Response: Based on everything he's been saying for the past year about election fraud, and how he doubled down after he clearly lost the election, and how he called people to show up to protest on the day of, and stoked their unfounded passion to "save the democracy" and "stop the steal," a very reasonable argument could be made that he incited the insurrection.

Step 4: Well, even if he incited it, he was just exercising his free speech! 

 

Now that you've pointed out that "incitement of violence" is not a protected form of speech, I wonder what the next step in the shifting argument will be?

[Taylor]

3 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Look, I don't like what Trump did for his re-election campaign and his actions stemming from the loss.  His brash, I don't give one fuck what you think, approach doesn't bode well in politics and it does run afoul with what you can and cannot do, even as a president , when addressing officials. I do think he crossed the line in Georgia but was it against the law or protocol? That is a courts decision. 

What he said before the capitol riot, was it against the law? Actually, no. Any citizen can make the same speech and not be held accountable for the ensuing events simply because of the ambiguity of the speech using tired rhetorical statements like, you must fight like hell, and then a call for a peaceful assembly at the end of it. 

Larry H. Parker (another great shyster) made a living using the catch phrase, I will fight for you! His tag wouldn't hold any power if he said, I will litigate for you! But in truth that is all he can and will do. He's not going to the insurance agency and punching out a claims adjuster for a better settlement. 

His speech was not a demand to overthrow the government with troops lead by a guy with cow horns and face paint. It was just stupid posturing. 

[Blarg]

What law did his speech break?

[Amazing Larry]

26 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I'm sure Ashli Babbits family was Loling as well.

That’s an actual legit death that was caused by the raid. The rest is strokes and heart attacks. Probably says covid on their death certs. 

[St1ck]

11 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

That’s an actual legit death that was caused by the raid. The rest is strokes and heart attacks. Probably says covid on their death certs. 

Police Confirm Death Of Officer Injured During Attack On Capitol : Capitol Insurrection Updates : NPR
https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrection-at-the-capitol/2021/01/07/954333542/police-confirm-death-of-officer-injured-during-attack-on-capitol

[Amazing Larry]

2 minutes ago, st1ckboy said:

Police Confirm Death Of Officer Injured During Attack On Capitol : Capitol Insurrection Updates : NPR
https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrection-at-the-capitol/2021/01/07/954333542/police-confirm-death-of-officer-injured-during-attack-on-capitol

Fake news. That story was printed the next day and it was later revealed that he hadn’t died from injuries at the Capitol. 

[St1ck]

3 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

Fake news. That story was printed the next day and it was later revealed that he hadn’t died from injuries at the Capitol. 

What are you talking about? 

Loss of USCP Officer Brian D. Sicknick | United States Capitol Police
https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/loss-uscp-colleague-brian-d-sicknick

[AngelsLakersFan]

35 minutes ago, Blarg said:

What law did his speech break?

I think if you bring the argument down into the weeds of trying to pin point when and where exactly Trump specifically broke laws you can make a defense of it. That said, taken as a whole, in context it's hard to to look at the things he's said since before the election all the way up to Jan 6th, the events of that day and the comments of those who participated afterwards, and not see a high level of culpability all aimed at maintaining power or at the very least stroking his massive ego.

[Amazing Larry]

14 minutes ago, st1ckboy said:

What are you talking about? 

Loss of USCP Officer Brian D. Sicknick | United States Capitol Police
https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/loss-uscp-colleague-brian-d-sicknick

Stroke buddy. I know “Fox News” and all but his brother is the one who said it. 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/capitol-riot-brian-sicknick-death-investigation-no-charges-autopsy-results-pending

Edited February 10, 2021 by Lhalo

[Rico]

3 hours ago, Jason said:

You guys can blame Trump all you want and that is fine. My only point is that this impeachment is being used as a political weapon and the evidence to convict of what they are accusing him of isn't there. Simple political rhetoric isn't going to hold water as evidence. 

This isn't a criminal case.  The standards are lower.

[St1ck]

10 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

Stroke buddy. I know “Fox News” and all but his brother is the one who said it. 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/capitol-riot-brian-sicknick-death-investigation-no-charges-autopsy-results-pending

A month after Capitol riot, autopsy results pending in Officer Brian Sicknick death investigation

So you don't know if it was a stroke. 

[Amazing Larry]

1 minute ago, st1ckboy said:

A month after Capitol riot, autopsy results pending in Officer Brian Sicknick death investigation

So you don't know if it was a stroke. 

Of course. They’ve got 90 days to finally admit it was just a stroke. For now they’re blaming orange man as per standard procedure. 

[Rico]

 

[St1ck]

4 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

Of course. They’ve got 90 days to finally admit it was just a stroke. For now they’re blaming orange man as per standard procedure. 

Probably would have died the January 7th anyway and the whole thing was just a coincidence. 

[Amazing Larry]

20 minutes ago, st1ckboy said:

Probably would have died the January 7th anyway and the whole thing was just a coincidence. 

That's the thing about strokes. You never know.

[mtangelsfan]

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

So the president should be able to say whatever the hell he wants without consequence?

You would have to prove his intent was a riot on that day.

by the way, I never even implied, let alone stated he should be able to say “anything “

[Rico]

44 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

You would have to prove his intent was a riot on that day.

 

Is intent necessary?  Again, this is not a criminal case.  

Intent doesn't need to be proven, only that his actions lead to the events to unfold.

[RallyMo]

54 minutes ago, st1ckboy said:

What are you talking about? 

Loss of USCP Officer Brian D. Sicknick | United States Capitol Police
https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/loss-uscp-colleague-brian-d-sicknick

 

40 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

Stroke buddy. I know “Fox News” and all but his brother is the one who said it. 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/capitol-riot-brian-sicknick-death-investigation-no-charges-autopsy-results-pending

 

28 minutes ago, st1ckboy said:

A month after Capitol riot, autopsy results pending in Officer Brian Sicknick death investigation

So you don't know if it was a stroke. 

 

26 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

Of course. They’ve got 90 days to finally admit it was just a stroke. For now they’re blaming orange man as per standard procedure. 

Neither of you know. Most strokes don't occur in a vacuum.

[Lou]

Just now, fishbulb said:

 

 

 

Neither of you know. Most strokes don't occur in a vacuum.

tdawg?

[RallyMo]

Just now, Lou said:

tdawg?

Shut it down.

[RallyMo]

1 hour ago, Lhalo said:

That's the thing about strokes. You never know.

lol ok

Actually, you often know.

[Amazing Larry]

Just now, fishbulb said:

lol ok

Actually, you often know.

Your mom knows.

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I think if you bring the argument down into the weeds of trying to pin point when and where exactly Trump specifically broke laws you can make a defense of it. That said, taken as a whole, in context it's hard to to look at the things he's said since before the election all the way up to Jan 6th, the events of that day and the comments of those who participated afterwards, and not see a high level of culpability all aimed at maintaining power or at the very least stroking his massive ego.

I think we are on the same page. However you can really only try him on the basis of what exactly did or did not incite the crowd to act as they did or if it wasn't already pre planned (sources say some of it was) and was not motivated or would have been defused by what Trump said. 

Not even in a made for television dystopian world does a government get overthrown by a guy in makeup and steer horns along with a parade of selfie takers with their feet up on the furniture. So that angle really goes in the shitter unless it is politically advantages to push that narrative hiding under your desk a couple blocks away. 

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, Rico said:

This isn't a criminal case is politics.  The standards are lower.

 

[St1ck]

9 minutes ago, Blarg said:

I think we are on the same page. However you can really only try him on the basis of what exactly did or did not incite the crowd to act as they did or if it wasn't already pre planned (sources say some of it was) and was not motivated or would have been defused by what Trump said. 

Not even in a made for television dystopian world does a government get overthrown by a guy in makeup and steer horns along with a parade of selfie takers with their feet up on the furniture. So that angle really goes in the shitter unless it is politically advantages to push that narrative hiding under your desk a couple blocks away. 

Were the selfie takers the sames ones that were crushing a police officer against a door while he screamed out in pain?