That is the defense. The conditions of our freedom of speech are predicated on this. It’s safe to say that it’s a constitutional axiom.
I think the counter argument is that an elected official can’t say mutinous things as it is part of their oath. I’m no legal expert though. Just some guy on the internet.
I’ve already said that I think impeachment is a mistake just from a strategy stand point for the Dems as I think Trump is harmful to the party long term.
So am I, but we’re all citizens.
But this is exactly where and why the legal standard for what constitutes fighting words was developed.
Harper? He and his cabinet did a relatively good job of steering through the 2008 financial crisis. The current Canadian Conservatives have just been co-opted by the religious nuts, not unlike the GOP down south.
Aren’t fighting words about inciting violence from the target of those words? In this case the target was the politicians at the Capitol whereas the words were relayed to those who would target them.
“The fighting words doctrine allows government to limit speech when it is likely to incite immediate violence or retaliation by the recipients of the words.”
It goes either way. Either to elicit violence from the recipient or as an indication of intention from the person saying them.
Yep.
And with trade, immigration, and domestic economics. I had heard he was on the short list for becoming the U.K. trade envoy and I could have wept with joy.
It turned out to be Tony Abott, who is about as good.
The nicest thing I could say about Trudeau is that he proves you don’t need to be competent to be a prime minister.
Edit: he also proves that the media care about popular vote totals in first past the post elections precisely until one of their chosen morons squeaks in while losing the popular vote.
1 Like
Agreed, his name likely ensures voter engagement/turnout simply to oppose him.
And yet only him in particular, if the overall 2020 results are a reliable indicator.
1 Like
A line that should go down in History:
“We didn’t need more witnesses…we needed more Republican Senators with spines”.
Stacey Plaskett
2 Likes
Would you rather use an instrument like impeachment for something like this, or have a new one that is specific to this type of circumstance?
Watching it and seeing the question of due process come up time and time again has me wondering about this.
In simple terms is kind of like people yelling “You Suck!” at somebody who absolutely does not care what they think.
No justice was or could have been served because it was an inappropriate application of a tool that wasn’t designed for this use.
1 Like
At this point, @SkyzykS …I’m fine with Trump being exposed and it all being documented as part of a Historical Record.
At least in my Life, I’ve seen over and over again that people like Trump end up destroying themselves (and a lot of people around them). It’s all a matter of time.
I kind of feel that this was the tool that was supposed to be used. But it depends on legislators not being… Well, themselves. I don’t know, what do you see as the problem here with the tool itself?
If impeachment is appropriate for a former President, is it also appropriate for potential Presidents?
1 Like
It lacks teeth, and it becomes a popularity contest.
In fact, after watching the managers present, which was just a parade of branding, virtue signaling, and making sure they got their digs in on the record, I’d say it is almost a complete waste, other than that some can point to it for their constituents and fans and say “See! We tried but the fix was in, partisan blah blah…” And continue to foment anger and division.
It was purely political theater.
But at the same time, he is now a private citizen and subject to criminal prosecution-but after getting a good look at his defense it’s easy to see that nothing he said meets the standard for incitement.
It was a weak sloppy parting shot put together by a bunch of spiteful, vain, shallow idiots. That’s the biggest flaw in this process as a tool. User error at all levels.
These same people want to put on their theatrics about “these hallowed halls” while they act like well dressed monkeys flinging poop.
If they’re so hallowed and held in such high regard, then why do these same people use those halls so weakly and innefectually?
It’s not a partisan fix or a bunch of people voting against principal in favor of party. It was a weak attempt by democrats to get their final petty digs in and brand “The Big Lie!”. That’s why it failed.
3 Likes
[Facepalm]
The impeachment was for charges for crimes while he was president. Crimes committed beforehand would be prosecuted the way crimes normally are. Crimes the President are otherwise immune from, thus the impeachment bit.
Wait. Am I explaining this shit to an adult?
Jesus Tapdancing Cheesecake.
1 Like
Don’t think so. Leaving aside the fact that Trump was still in office when they initiated the process, former POTUS have already performed “high crimes” while potential presidents have not. Completely different concepts from a legal standpoint. Future crime is still not a thing.
Also, there are provisions for impeachment of senators and removal of others, not just POTUS
I wouldn’t be opposed to add to the list of qualifications a candidate needs to meet to be POTUS. I don’t think a felony bars one from being POTUS, but makes it very difficult to get a factory job. I think that would be a thing we can agree on? Perhaps we exclude certain felonies from the list that prevents one from being POTUS. Stuff that could be politically motivated (see current Russia stuff with Navalny).
No argument that it is a popularity contest. Essentially everything in politics is one now sadly. Not sure what you mean by lacking teeth though, if we were to assume that charges were true for the sake of argument. The teeth would be removal of ability to stand for any office ever again.
I don’t honestly think that we can apply the popularity contest argument however, because to do so would make almost everything in politics completely infeasible, since it’s universal.
Sadly this is the state of American politics today. Same as Trump accusing the election of widespread fraud, but with much more evidence than Trump’s crazy brand.
I wouldn’t disagree that it was political theater, and I wouldn’t disagree that there was a lot of marketing going on. I find both terrible, and agree. But to me personally that is a separate issue from the appropriateness of impeachment as a process. Right?
No argument there either. Or on the poop flinging monkeys lol. But again I don’t see an alternative to use your error in our system of government. Like, everything is vulnerable to it.
Here’s my issue. I agree with a lot of the things you said, but I don’t think a perfect process exists to replace impeachment as a tool. I think it’s the best we got frankly.
More to the point in this particular instance, I don’t necessarily know that criminal incitement is the right standard when speaking of impeachment. I am not a legal scholar, and confess that there’s plenty of room for me to just completely miss the boat on these things. But the way I see it is that for representatives in general and the president in particular the umbrella term high crimes and misdemeanors does not necessarily have to meet the same standard as a criminal proceeding.
I’m sure I’m going to blunder my articulation of this but going to try… I believe personally at least that there are things that constitute impeachable offenses that would not necessarily be criminal charges in a private individual. So while fully admitting I Don’t grasp the specifics of legal arguments in this area, I am not sure that a criminal standard of proof is the correct one to apply with impeachment. After all the process does not send someone to jail, it merely removes them from office and the possibility of holding future office. As well as many of the privileges holding office would entitle someone to.
Does that make sense?
Yeah.
What I mean by lacking teeth is that removing someone from office and/or ability to hold office is no punishment at all, especially for someone like Trump.
He simply went from being someone who manipulates politicians and laws from the outside to someone who manipulates them from the inside (holding office), and back to outside again.
I see it this way too, and therein lies the rub. To give this process some teeth there has to be more clearly defined boundaries of its application and standards. This is exactly why it has become a joke, a formal and official name calling contest, a tempest in a teacup.
1 Like
@SkyzykS …
RESPECTFULLY (and you know I really mean it…)…I disagree with your complete premise…and especially this one.
The impeachment managers were skilled and meticulous in their presentation.
They are far from being a bunch of spiteful, vain, shallow idiots…nor do I think that their motivation was spite.
If anyone spit on a process that the Founders intended it to be, it was the Trumpublicans. If what Trump did…from setting up a lie and perpetrating that lie…and still perpetrating a lie of massive voter fraud and a “stolen” election…to all of his actions before, during and after the attack on the Capitol…
If these are not reasons for impeachment as envisioned by the Founders…then I agree with Senator Murkowski…nothing is.
We’ll agree to disagree on this one, @SkyzykS .