I mean the senators who have commented and aren’t interested in following. Hell I’m just a regular dude I’m not being paid to be the jury. But I do believe in most jury trials the jury doesn’t privately meet with the defense?
Did you just see the video montage comparing Trump saying Law and Order, peaceful protestors okay, violence bad etc compared to Schumer, Biden, Waters et al commanding violence in the streets.
Just put up at the Impeachment
Impossible to ignore the hate of the Dems
Well…
That’s all for me for a while.
Think lll crank this up while l continue to sift thru the paperwork of a client that thinks a shoebox is an accounting system.
2 Likes
I didn’t hear all of it, but to me it seemed obvious that in one case it was figurative in the way they use the words like “fight”, and one seemed to have a lot higher probability that it was meant to be taken literally, and was taken literally by some.
There certainly is a problem with what is obvious in a court setting. It seems like a good defense IMO, because even though it is obvious which was literal and which was figurative, it isn’t obvious in this context. It doesn’t really matter though. I think how the “jurors” are going to vote is independent of the evidence.
So the defense is whataboutism? Trump has a long record of calling for violence and this trial is specific to him and the capitol day. I won’t argue that those people shouldn’t also be talked down to for their words.
Trump calls for violence, us against them, etc for four years. Then he pushed a baseless conspiracy theory to the point of frenzy by his supporters. In the meantime pressured election officials in numerous states to influence the counting of votes. In a rally funded by his campaign this happened. That’s what the impeachment is about. Talking about Black Lives Matter or something is fine and dandy but doesn’t have anything to do with impeachment.
Listen carefully on the whataboutism
That is a bullshit reply, unless you no longer believe words matter. Even after writing it a thousand times.
If you believe calling for violence is only real if Reps do it, then we have zero common ground for a discussion on this.
2 Likes
Being guilty or not guilty of a crime is independent of how many other people have committed the crime (even if they were acquitted).
“Your honor, OJ Simpson got away with murder, why should I be convicted of murder” is a terrible defense strategy. I think it is obvious why.
3 Likes
Th trial is a foregone conclusion so i honestly havent paid attention. Was any of the prosecutions case/charges related to trumps well documented dereliction of duty or plain incompetency) once congress was stormed?
Where did I say words don’t matter?
Where did I say this?
Of course it’s whataboutism. Can I murder one guy and as defense say what about Ted Bundy? It’s not a defense to say Trump didn’t do anything to be able to point out “hey other people have said stuff before!”
TBH, I am almost glad he won’t be impeached. If the GoP won’t convict, then IMO, they deserve the larger stain he will leave on their party (not that he hasn’t IMO hurt their party long term). Hopefully he runs again (I think he almost for sure wins the primary). I don’t think he can win another election. I think 2016 was a fluke that occurred because many people assumed Clinton would win and didn’t show up.
Bottom line is the 3 of you who replied are the most diligent anti Trumpers on TN, and you can’t stand it that the Democrats are cut out of the exact same cloth as Trump.
Their rabble rousing for 5 years and still counting is plainly documented.
1 Like
I don’t think you have read my posts correctly. I am saying whataboutism is not a good defense in something resembling a criminal trial. I am not sure where you are getting the idea that we think it is okay to do if Democrats do it? I would want them to be held accountable as well (it would be inconsistent thinking in the form of special pleading to want otherwise).
No.
It’s on what constitutes fighting words.
There is actually a formal set of criteria and thorough judicial ruling on the subject.
Nothing that he said meets the criteria. Not even close.
1 Like
But this is not a criminal trial. He is being judged as the president, not some douche in a bar.
Fighting words actually has a formal legal defenition and applies directly and specifically to this and situations like this.
The “prosecution” or hearing managers are lucky it isn’t an actual court procedure or they would be looking like a bunch of complete chumps at this point.
Scratch that. They look like a bunch of pearl clutching hypocrites anyways. Especially after the assembly of examples of democrats using violent language for the past couple of years that was presented.
I’m surprised there hasn’t been convoys of trucks loaded with fainting couches pouring into the beltway for the past couple of weeks.
1 Like
From what I understand this is more about inciting violence which is not the same as fighting words.
That is the real argument IMO.
Yours, the SCOTUS, various state Supreme courts.
It’s legit. I had a case thrown out on exactly that.
Yeah, I think they should stick to that defense. The whataboutism is irrevelent, but that actually could stand up.