Author Topic: Pre-planned Second Impeachment  (Read 983 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« on: January 14, 2021, 02:07:08 PM »
It seems pretty clear that the Democrats were planning a second impeachment for Trump before they got gifted with the capital riots.  The media has all but forgotten it (or has been directed to stop bringing it up) but there were clear calls and plenty of chatter being pushed through friendly media sources to build a call for a second impeachment of Trump based on the call with the GA secretary of state.  Congress didn't forget it (even though they're downplaying it atm) and they put it in their articles of impeachment.

We talked about that extensively earlier.  The call was deliberately being misconstrued to make it sound like a crime, and honestly I don't care about your personal opinions on that, there is no legitimate basis other than animus to ascribe the "worst case" version that the media was hard selling and some of you bought into over the far more natural interpretation. 

But with a hard enough hard sell in the media a partisan second impeachment on that call was a win-win scenario for Pelosi.  It creates a circumstance where her base gets to claim Trump is the "only President impeached twice," by which they mean he must be guilty (ignoring the actual reality that the  Democrats broke historical norms and cheapened the process into nothing more than a political condemnation).  For the Senate it forces Republicans to commit themselves to defending Trump again and lets every Democrat in Congress run against Trump in the next election because they get to run against people who refused to remove Trump or voted against his impeachment.  Delude yourself all you want, as much as Republican politicians are panicked about retaining Trump voters, Democrats are concerned about losing anti-Trump sentiment. 

As a basis for impeachment its also brilliant, it lets the House Democrats control the media narrative on whether election interference occurred with an iron fist.  No matter how much Trump claims, or even proves in the future, that the election results were illegitimate, Congress's made for tv impeachment would have already proceeded with House Dems and later House Managers hammering the big lie that there was no fraud and stating their conclusion that "Trump is lying" as if it were a fact rather than an opinion.  With the media water carriers already behind them, maybe even true believers themselves, the Big Lie strategy would overwhelm and Republicans would be "held to account" for doing even legitimate things like demanding audits or requiring reforms of election laws to ensure security - all of which legitimate activity would be (and will be) characterized as support of "Trump's seditious lies."

However, here they got gifted with a much better basis for the impeachment than they already had planned.  This one became a Super win-win-win for Pelosi.    Now not only did she get the chance to gain all the benefits she thought she'd get, including the media support on a fake moral high ground to further corrupt voting laws and to make political hay in Democrat vs. Republican elections,  she also gets an opportunity to divide and maybe permanently fracture the Republican party, both its base and  from each other.  If she gets Trump "removed" with a ban on holding office it's a massive win with her base validating their TDS, which otherwise is eventually going to cause them cognitive dissonance and a fairly minor cost - she won't get to run directly against Trump in the future only against the "party of Trump."  She's literally poisoning the well on all kinds of legitimate policy positions. 

No matter what happens in the Senate Pelosi wins again.  If Trump is removed, the Republican party fractures completely.  The Republican voters don't want him removed and frankly don't accept the left narrative on anything that's happened here.  They do believe in punishing the violent rioters (harshly), and in punishing anyone found to have entered the capital (but proportionately to the rather minor level of offense of following the crowd on the spur of the moment - they know that charging sedition or insurrection is unwarranted), but they also listened to or read Trump's speech and already know there's nothing in there that is a call for an incitement to violence (and the more well educated are also aware of the SC's position on how even clarion calls for violence, which is well beyond what happened here, are frequently not enough for liability).  The entire premise of the charges is that "questioning" the legitimacy of an election that Democrats won is itself criminal, and that message isn't missed.  So if Republicans remove him they lose their base.  If on the other hand, they don't remove him, it's guaranteed they lose the media narrative and are tied to Trump.  Pelosi is quite accurately predicting that Trump haters will still come out in 2 years to hold them to account by that Trump supporters are likely not to be so passionate about protecting an ally of Trump's 2 years out.

But don't fool yourself, she knows that Trump didn't incite insurrection - the law despite what you're hearing is clear on that - and she knows he didn't advocate for voter fraud.  I'd be surprised if she doesn't believe her own party did engage in fraud (she already knows they took efforts to make it easier to commit fraud).  She doesn't want a legitimate investigation of the election and using impeachment in this way allows her to taint any actual investigation in the future.

While I know Trump has lived rent free in the heads of half the country, Pelosi is really the one that has  demonstrated how a masterful politician can devastate the opposition.  If she cared country even half as much as power I'd be far more hopeful.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2021, 02:19:33 PM »
A lot of words to convince yourself of a counter narrative so you can ignore Trump's culpability in the riots on the 6th.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2021, 02:59:05 PM »
Must be nice to be able to read minds and know with certainty why everyone does was they do. 

You should have given trump the heads up before he gifted with them the capital riots. Such a great leader to fall into that trap...  (Good to know you agree he holds some responsibility here)

I suspect the impeachment will be a win-win for Mitch Mcconnell who I bet wants to get rid of Trump. 
I'd be surprised if Pelosi doesn't retire within the next 2 years, she has misplayed to many hands.

One wonders if your attempt to spin the issues at had and blame Pelosi for all the evil's isn't a your way of avoiding looking within at your own enabling capability... but I can't read you mind   

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2021, 03:01:48 PM »

Must be nice to be able to read minds and know with certainty why everyone does was they do. 

You should have given trump the heads up before he gifted with them the capital riots. Such a great leader to fall into that trap...  (Good to know you agree he holds some responsibility here)

I suspect the impeachment will be a win-win for Mitch Mcconnell who I bet wants to get rid of Trump. 
I'd be surprised if Pelosi doesn't retire within the next 2 years. She has misplayed to many hands IMO

One wonders if your attempt to spin the issues at had and blame Pelosi isn't your way of avoiding looking within, at your own enabling capability... but I can't read you mind   

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2021, 03:10:51 PM »
Again,  what type of sheeple are Trump's followers to be led so easily into these crimes by a few Antifa agitators (not that any of the agitators have been found yet).  I mean there is no way there were any bad apples in the Trump crowd.  I mean they are all such good law abiding citizens.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2021, 03:14:58 PM »
No matter how much Trump claims, or even proves in the future, that the election results were illegitimate,

He claims he's already proven it: So there's no further evidence or 'proof' coming. Here are his exact words: "It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side."

Got that? Everyone who says that they don't believe Trump won by a landslide is just a liar, and thus complicit in the election theft. Even the Republicans who now refused to impeach him, but are acknowledging Biden won -- they're also liars. Trump claims he's proven the theft conclusively. Anyone who says otherwise is a traitor -- according to him and his rhetoric.

But of course no court and no legislature was actually convinced by the quality of 'evidence' he provided, that's why Trump's final play was just that Pence should throw out the votes from all the swing states Trump lost. So basically just do an unconstitutional coup, no evidence or proof needed.

Quote
stating their conclusion that "Trump is lying" as if it were a fact rather than an opinion.

In another thread yossarian already gave a simple quote from the 6th, and asked Trumpists to explain how it wasn't a lie. As always you ignored it, as you ignore every single time we give you a Trump lie and ask you to explain how it wasn't one. In this case, here it was, from a tweet and also (the second quote) his speech in the 6th.
Quote
The States want to redo their votes. They found out they voted on a FRAUD.  Legislatures never approved.
Quote
States want to revote, the states got defrauded. They were given false information, they voted on it. Now they want to recertify; they want it back.

Do please explain to us how these statements by Trump aren't a lie. Which are these states that want to "redo their votes" or to recertify? Which states "want it back"?

None of them actually. Trump's just a blatant liar, who doesn't even care how blatant his lies are -- because people like you don't care.

So, yeah -- Trump lied and as a result people did an insurrection, and as a result people died. He can go *censored* himself.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 03:18:26 PM by Aris Katsaris »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2021, 03:27:22 PM »
If anything, the chatter over the phone call was lining Trump up to get indicted after inauguration. The idea that Pelosi, who didn't even want to impeach Trump the first time, was gearing up for a second impeachment is risible.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2021, 03:47:30 PM »
Trumps use of words like, 'them' and 'everyone' as justifications or proof ought to have had you stop and question what he was saying. 'Everyone' thinks so. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2021, 04:41:24 PM »
That's right, it's only Trump that wants a do over.

Quote
All the states have certified their results as fair and accurate, a judgment made by Republican and Democratic officials alike. There is no prospect for a do-over. Nor has there been a sudden revelation of fraud.

State and federal election officials and Trump’s own attorney general said no systematic fraud was found in the election and no errors of a scale that could possibly change the result.

But again, he's so untethered to reality, I'm not sure you can assert he is lying, ever. He probably saw a quote on 8kun that said so and ran with it. To call it a lie, as opposed to willful ignorance, you'd have to catch him saying the opposite to someone else. He's certainly done that before, but it is a much smaller number of statements.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2021, 05:20:12 PM »
That's right, it's only Trump that wants a do over.

Quote
All the states have certified their results as fair and accurate, a judgment made by Republican and Democratic officials alike. There is no prospect for a do-over. Nor has there been a sudden revelation of fraud.

State and federal election officials and Trump’s own attorney general said no systematic fraud was found in the election and no errors of a scale that could possibly change the result.

But again, he's so untethered to reality, I'm not sure you can assert he is lying, ever. He probably saw a quote on 8kun that said so and ran with it. To call it a lie, as opposed to willful ignorance, you'd have to catch him saying the opposite to someone else. He's certainly done that before, but it is a much smaller number of statements.

I've read it somewhere, and even if I can't back up the statement, I can repeat it as a truth. I never lie and most certainly can't be held accountable for what i say or how I say it even if I'm in a leadership position to which more is asked of me.  Catch me if you can, I cannot tell a lie... everyone says so.

Trump lie's. He refuses to do the work and verify his statements before he makes them. 
The election is a fraud because he lost is not poof of fraud, it is a lie!
A lie that he knows is a lie.

You can argue about the system changing rules to disenfranchise voters or make it easier to vote as wrong. However changing the system via the process of the system is not fraud. Cheery picking which states system fraudulent because my guy lost is dishonest.

 If I lose this argument its because you cheated. Everyone says so. I win

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2021, 05:27:15 PM »
Trumps use of words like, 'them' and 'everyone' as justifications or proof ought to have had you stop and question what he was saying. 'Everyone' thinks so.

What you don't realize is that Trump has several imaginary friends - Everybody, Many People, and Everyone - to whom he talks and who also talk back to him.  That's why he has (had) all that weird capitalization in his tweets.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2021, 05:33:17 PM »
Trumps use of words like, 'them' and 'everyone' as justifications or proof ought to have had you stop and question what he was saying. 'Everyone' thinks so.

What you don't realize is that Trump has several imaginary friends - Everybody, Many People, and Everyone - to whom he talks and who also talk back to him.  That's why he has (had) all that weird capitalization in his tweets.

Just remember that Who's on first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2021, 06:16:30 PM »

Must be nice to be able to read minds and know with certainty why everyone does was they do.

It'd be awesome if I could.  However, you seem to think that deducing what people are doing and why they are doing it requires some kind of mythical powers.  Anticipation is part of all facets of business, politics and life.  Have you never watched a game, where one coach so out thought the other that nothing the losing team tried worked?  That's not an accident that's the result of analysis and deduction.  Or had a friend that could always tell why someone was spreading a rumor and what they were indirectly trying to achieve?  Every bit of analysis and commentary involves deductions.

There's little but my informed opinion up above.  Certainly possible its wrong, certainly possible there are other reasons.  I'm not a national level politician, they're in a class of their own about reading momentum and getting in front of issues, at creating problems that their opponents will take the blame for, and Pelosi?  It's not an accident that she's Speaker now, and that she was Speaker before.  She's never had any problem undercutting and marginalizing inside her own caucus, why would you think she'd be less effective against the other side?

Trump has his own skill set in this regard, and that is what allowed him to get where he was.  But he can't use that without winning, and without a platform to speak.  Pelosi had this planned for this time period.

But I also explained the reasoning.  It sounds like you can't or won't address the reasoning, but you could start with 2 simple things.  First, assume she was going to impeach Trump again, with or without cause, and walk through what that would look like.   Second, if you think there is some far more likely explanation, think out how that would look and then match up reality to what you would have expected.

The hardest parts to explain - about reality, if you believe this is really an emergency about Trump's role in riot - are the inclusion of the strained reading of election fraud from the phone call with the secretary of state in the actual articles of Impeachment and the idea that this impeachment is so vital to proceed on without thought, debate or consideration because Trump is an immediate threat for the week he's still in office, but no need to rush it over to the Senate for consideration before he leaves office, or possible until after Biden's managed to get through his early agenda.

Quote
You should have given trump the heads up before he gifted with them the capital riots. Such a great leader to fall into that trap...  (Good to know you agree he holds some responsibility here)

His speech was as well designed as always.  Enough there to convey a message that triggers his opponents without anything there to support a factual or logical conclusion that he'd done something wrong.  There's express calls for peaceful protest and nothing calling for violence (other than a strained reading of the hyperbolic phrase about fighting - which is used in 10 million contexts without meaning actual violence), yet all of you seem to have "heard" him demanding that the Capitol be burned and the entire Congress (and apparently the VP) be killed so Trump could seize power.

Its a narrative that isn't really there, it's just in your heads.

But yes, he should have known better, and he should have acted immediately when it got out of control.  No matter how much vicarious glee he was getting (assuming that was what was going on) from seeing the "defund the police" and "political violence is justified because the people are angry" crowd at the other end of the stick, he should have known that no American is going to feel positively inclined after seeing those images.  He should have realized that he was handing over an excuse to Mitt Romney and the other never Trumpers to denounce him with impunity and to pay far less consequences for doing so.  He lost the election, whether fairly or by artifice doesn't matter, because reality is less important than optics when the media hates you.  His power was going to be in being a sympathetic character, never yielding but doing the honorable thing and letting the cheaters take office.  He undercut that message by letting himself be tied to the riot.

Quote
I suspect the impeachment will be a win-win for Mitch Mcconnell who I bet wants to get rid of Trump. 
I'd be surprised if Pelosi doesn't retire within the next 2 years. She has misplayed to many hands IMO

One wonders if your attempt to spin the issues at had and blame Pelosi isn't your way of avoiding looking within, at your own enabling capability... but I can't read you mind

Lol.  Anyone who thinks Pelosi has run the two impeachments in the way they were intended is delusional.  The first was purely politics and totally invalid and it's funny that you think I'm the one that is somehow misinterpreting things when you have someone who still believes that Pelosi's reluctance was anything other than posturing.  This one has been rushed because of it's problems - there's no way this case can be built with actual hearings (the relevant "witnesses" in respect of Trump are the rioters themselves, putting them in front of Congress would be a real crap shoot).   

Pelosi has lowered the impeachment standards so far that while Trump is the first President "impeached twice," there's no chance he's going to be the last to be impeached twice.  In fact, it's probably more likely than not that every President from now on that has to deal with a Congress of the opposite party is going to face impeachment, certainly and without question or fail, every Republican President from here forward is going to be impeached by any Democrat controlled House.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2021, 06:27:56 PM »
Note that again Seriati merrily and totally ignores when he's asked to explain how a specific statement by Trump is somehow not a lie. And then in some next post, he'll of course again totally dispute the idea that Trump lies, since he merrily chooses to forget every time we've highlighted specific lies.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2021, 06:37:16 PM »
So just to clarify.

any reasonable person would conclude that a boxer with both arms tied behind his back and then ceasing such - implies starting a peaceful protest?

Also when you tell people they have been cheated and are no longer restrained by ordinary laws - then obviously you intend people to peacefully protest?

I really had no idea that Republicans found peaceful protests to be an extraordinary measure to only be resulted to in the extremes of when they believe they have been defrauded and cheated out of the Presidency.

Indeed I'd no idea people would think it would have the power to alter the outcome of the election.

I'm sure the chants of 'Hang Mike Pence' were misheard - probably they were saying 'Dang' to express their disappointment.  Also the gallows are a mere coincidence.

Similarly the Parler post by L. Lin Wood during that Thursday that Pence was to be shot and who shared the stage with Trump.  Total coincidence.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 06:44:51 PM by LetterRip »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2021, 07:16:02 PM »
No matter how much Trump claims, or even proves in the future, that the election results were illegitimate,

He claims he's already proven it: So there's no further evidence or 'proof' coming. Here are his exact words: "It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side."

Got that? Everyone who says that they don't believe Trump won by a landslide is just a liar, and thus complicit in the election theft. Even the Republicans who now refused to impeach him, but are acknowledging Biden won -- they're also liars. Trump claims he's proven the theft conclusively. Anyone who says otherwise is a traitor -- according to him and his rhetoric.

I suspect, and you have no knowledge that's relevant here, that Trump is partially correct and I don't think there's any doubt he believes it.  Again, I can't imagine that Pelosi believes that fraud was non-existant, and I'd be shocked if she doesn't believe that fraud possibly (if not certainly) gave Biden the win, but the truth she doesn't care.  She's never cared.  As long as her team wins and it can't be proven that's good enough.

I also guarantee that Trump has hired pollsters, and data compilers, and other statistical experts that are in fact telling him that his loss is not possible based on their data.  Every possibility they're just telling him what he wants to hear, or mistaken, but there's also every possibility they are correct and the vote result is the impossibility.  I mean who do you trust?  Trump literally watched the media pollsters predicting that a Blue Wave was not only a certainty, but an overwhelming certainty, in an election where his own pollsters were telling him he was close or winning.  His pollsters were far more correct than the media pollsters.  Why would he believe the media ones now if his own are still giving him a conflicting account?

But as far as "all the evidence" coming out, that remains to be seen.  I suspect that what Trump has in his hands (which is more than a suspicion based on the GA SOS call transcript) are largely deep statistical analysis based on available data that show events with a statistically liklihood so far off as to be impossible.  Whether or not there are reasonable explanations requires access to information that isn't in Trump's hands.  We know he has sworn statements, some of which are not super damning of election intergrity (and these the media loves to focus on) but others of which look like pretty clear proof of fraud.  Those claims may be litigated in the future, and it's entirely possible Trump will be able to prove in six months that Biden stole the election.  It's also possible he'll never get to see the data or that he'll see it and it will prove he lost (I mean after all when the media did their super duper comprehensive recount in FL of Bush-Gore, Gore still lost).

Quote
But of course no court and no legislature was actually convinced by the quality of 'evidence' he provided, that's why Trump's final play was just that Pence should throw out the votes from all the swing states Trump lost. So basically just do an unconstitutional coup, no evidence or proof needed.

I never looked into whether Pence could do that.  Seems like beyond a long shot, hard to imagine how it would even stand.  There's even a pretty good argument that the law that Congress passed that allows them to debate seating a state's electors is not Constitutional (or would not be if they refused to seat the electors).  I don't view the idea as having legal merit with out overwhelmingly popular support that a fraud occurred.

I didn't sit through the legislative sessions, but again I'm not surprised they went no where.  Hard to see many politicians wanting to piss off their own voters by overruling an election without rock solid proof or public support no matter the outcome.  I thought the best that could be expected there would be for one of them to order an investigation or commission.

As far as the courts, we've discussed them repeatedly, they abdicated their responsibilities.  It's unfortunate because in large part we are where we are because state courts have violated the Constitution repeatedly in the run up to elections.  Sometimes the lower federal courts have done the same, sometimes not.  But a long string of dismissals on standing grounds, on laches grounds and in some cases on the grounds that the court would be unwilling to provide a remedy are not remotely what you imply they are.  They are a conclusion that the courts will have nothing to do with protecting an election from fraud unless you can already "prove" without any ability to look at the actual data and records that fraud occurred. 

Quite literally, the courts have endorsed the position that if you get away with fraud it's none of their concern, even if there's proof of fraud that you happen to be in control of.

I think the  conclusion from Trump's legal team was that a state legislature would not act on its own but that they would do the right thing if a court ordered them to consider the vote because of voting irregularities.  It's stupid, but the cover of the court made me do it so I had to do it right would be enough.  It still seems like a long shot, but there would be no hiding the actual data from a state legislature ordered to consider the vote by the courts, whereas it's been demonstrated to be trivially easy to refuse share data with Trump's legal team.  That was one of the clear take aways from the GA SOS call, that the SOS refused any access to the ability to validate by Trump's team and instead just said you'll have to take our word that we didn't facilitate voter fraud in the situations that you have identified as appearing to be voter fraud.

Quote
In another thread yossarian already gave a simple quote from the 6th, and asked Trumpists to explain how it wasn't a lie. As always you ignored it, as you ignore every single time we give you a Trump lie and ask you to explain how it wasn't one. In this case, here it was, from a tweet and also (the second quote) his speech in the 6th.

Well Aris you're lying.  I've investigated more fake claims of Trump telling lies than anyone on this board.  I have done many documented and cited walk throughs of exactly why various "Trump lies" are in fact not lies.  But it's not possible for one guy to do the work of 10,000 media professionals when the 10,000 media professionals are intent on making plausible false claims. 

Quote
The States want to redo their votes. They found out they voted on a FRAUD.  Legislatures never approved.
Quote
States want to revote, the states got defrauded. They were given false information, they voted on it. Now they want to recertify; they want it back.

I don't know exactly what you are asking for.  I take the first is a tweet?  3 statements in there, the last is clearly true.  The states he's challenging all had administrative or judicial actions that were never approved by the state legislatures.

The first is hyperbole, there's no doubt that some people in those states want a redo, its even likely that people in their government have told them they're angry and want a redo.  Is your complaint that its a lie because it's not an "official state position"?  My good, every single politician speaks "for the people" or for the people of their great state without it literally being true.

Or is it the second?  That they found out they voted on a fraud?  Not clear what that means.  Maybe you can explain it and why it's a lie.

Do please explain to us how these statements by Trump aren't a lie. Which are these states that want to "redo their votes" or to recertify? Which states "want it back"?

The part from the speech seems pretty similar.  The argument seems to be solely that it's not the official position of a state? 

Why could I not just as correctly call everyone who claims there was no fraud a liar?  It's literally 100% false, we factually know there was fraud.

Quote
None of them actually. Trump's just a blatant liar, who doesn't even care how blatant his lies are -- because people like you don't care.

I do care.  I have not seen one speck of integrity in the position of those who make the claims you're making.  You don't prove lies.  You don't speak to their impact.  You don't care if the media lies about what Trump said, or even if they lie to you about him lying.  You don't care if other politicians lie.  You shut down your brain because you have a hate on, and no new information can be allowed to penetrate, cause if you looked at things honestly, you'd have to consider if you really are at fault for letting people who've done nothing but manipulate you into power.

Quote
So, yeah -- Trump lied and as a result people did an insurrection, and as a result people died. He can go *censored* himself.

No part of this is true.  Trump's words didn't kill people.  Trump isn't lying about election regularities and he isn't lying to believe he was cheated.  Oops I'm sorry, technically your obscene phrase isn't untrue, he's totally capable of doing that if he's so inclined.

I know it's causing severe cognitive dissonance for you, but you really need to start thinking again and evaluating actual facts not just running with Orange man bad shutting down thought and reason.

kidv

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2021, 07:22:56 PM »

His speech was as well designed as always.  Enough there to convey a message that triggers his opponents without anything there to support a factual or logical conclusion that he'd done something wrong.  There's express calls for peaceful protest and nothing calling for violence (other than a strained reading of the hyperbolic phrase about fighting - which is used in 10 million contexts without meaning actual violence), yet all of you seem to have "heard" him demanding that the Capitol be burned and the entire Congress (and apparently the VP) be killed so Trump could seize power.



Seriati, please advise.  You accurately describe Trump's ability to walk up to rhetorical lines and make people think he's crossed them when in fact he has not. 

In this case Trump committed a fatal error in that he directly commanded the crowd to march with him to the capitol.  This was a black and white illegal act.

None of the protests planned for 1/6 had obtained a permit to march or a permit to be at the Capitol.

By definition when the mass at the white house ellipse marched to the Capitol, it became a de facto and de jure illegal gathering.

Trump may have been confused [by ... hubris?] that the event "March for America" did not have a permit for a march.

President directly commanded the mass to engage in an illegal activity.  That is undisputed.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/01/05/heres-what-we-know-about-the-pro-trump-rallies-that-have-permits/




Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2021, 07:37:36 PM »
Quote
The States want to redo their votes. They found out they voted on a FRAUD.  Legislatures never approved.
Quote
States want to revote, the states got defrauded. They were given false information, they voted on it. Now they want to recertify; they want it back.

I don't know exactly what you are asking for.  I take the first is a tweet?  3 statements in there, the last is clearly true.  The states he's challenging all had administrative or judicial actions that were never approved by the state legislatures.

The first is hyperbole, there's no doubt that some people in those states want a redo, its even likely that people in their government have told them they're angry and want a redo.  Is your complaint that its a lie because it's not an "official state position"?  My good, every single politician speaks "for the people" or for the people of their great state without it literally being true.

So, your argument is that when he says that the states want to recertify and that they want to take their certifications back, he *actually* meant that there are individual people within each state that want the state governments to take their certifications back.

So, yeah, basically a complete and utter liar, and you just don't give a *censored*.

Thanks for proving it, but since I don't believe you believe a word you yourself are saying, I won't waste my time trying to convince you of something you already fully well know.

Your charade isn't actually about convincing us that Trump didn't lie (nobody actually sane and informed believes that), your charade is one level further -- merely an attempt to convince us that informed people can honestly believe Trump's not a liar, thus making us waste time in nonsensicalities about how to 'convince' you, when you know that's not possible because you're already well convinced.

Quote
Why could I not just as correctly call everyone who claims there was no fraud a liar?  It's literally 100% false, we factually know there was fraud.

Because the meaning of "There was no fraud." tends to be "There was no significant fraud."

It doesn't actually significantly change the *relevant communicated meaning* you see. It's being imprecise, not being a liar.

It's as when a person says "I'm perfectly healthy" when talking to their parents over the phone, not mentioning a papercut they recently had. Because it's not actually significant.

While you instead brutally violate the meaning of language, in order to have Trump mean the exact opposite of the meaning he was communicating.

And that's the difference between a lie, and a truth.

If you need to twist language to explain why something isn't a lie, well, it's a lie.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 07:46:00 PM by Aris Katsaris »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2021, 07:53:09 PM »
Serati

Time and time again members of this site have said that there very well might have been small localized fraud. The only proven case was in PA where a Republican voted for his dead mother. The system caught him.

You keep saying that we are saying there was no fraud.  No one is saying that.

Your side is the one that keep saying there was massive voter fraud in several states, but have still not provided any evidence. That is arguing in bad faith.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #19 on: January 15, 2021, 10:15:12 AM »
As far as the courts, we've discussed them repeatedly, they abdicated their responsibilities.  It's unfortunate because in large part we are where we are because state courts have violated the Constitution repeatedly in the run up to elections.  Sometimes the lower federal courts have done the same, sometimes not.
... 

So according to you the executive and the courts violated state election laws, therefore the constitution, and the SC didn't rule the way you wanted on each of the cases they heard (or refused to hear) and therefore the election is invalid?

As a request to rational discourse can you please begin to separate the issue of an election held with rules the courts and executive agreed on, usually without objection of the legislature, and fraudulent votes. Conflating these two arguments is how Republicans claim to have a leg to stand on and do so to purposely confuse the debates around the election, voting rules, and fraud.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #20 on: January 15, 2021, 10:34:49 AM »
Quote
The States want to redo their votes. They found out they voted on a FRAUD.  Legislatures never approved.
Quote
States want to revote, the states got defrauded. They were given false information, they voted on it. Now they want to recertify; they want it back.

I don't know exactly what you are asking for.  I take the first is a tweet?  3 statements in there, the last is clearly true.  The states he's challenging all had administrative or judicial actions that were never approved by the state legislatures.

The first is hyperbole, there's no doubt that some people in those states want a redo, its even likely that people in their government have told them they're angry and want a redo.  Is your complaint that its a lie because it's not an "official state position"?  My good, every single politician speaks "for the people" or for the people of their great state without it literally being true.

Or is it the second?  That they found out they voted on a fraud?  Not clear what that means.  Maybe you can explain it and why it's a lie.

Do please explain to us how these statements by Trump aren't a lie. Which are these states that want to "redo their votes" or to recertify? Which states "want it back"?

The part from the speech seems pretty similar.  The argument seems to be solely that it's not the official position of a state? 

1) The States want to redo their votes.
If he just meant Trump voters want a redo then stating that in a way that makes it sound like state governments want a redo is a lie. If it isn't a lie, link me to the statement from a resolution passed by a single state legislature or a single governor who is saying the election was so flawed that they want a redo. If you can't meet that bar then "the States" want to redo their votes is a big freaking lie that makes it sound like the governments at the state level agree the election was very flawed and deserves a redo.

2) They found out they voted on a FRAUD.
As you said this statement is almost meaningless to analyze but puts voting and fraud next to each other in a sentence to confuse and rile up his crowd.

3) Legislatures never approved.
Each state legislature approved of the election from their state, sometimes by directly certifying, others by simply letting the certification process of their state continue without objection.

Trump's intent of those three statements together to me is clear. State's want to redo their votes because of fraud or a flawed election. And that is a lie. Using "state's want" to mean some of my supporters want (because I'm a sore loser) is to distort words beyond any meaning. I'm sure you'll disagree, Orwell could have taken lessons from you on the meaning of a lie.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2021, 04:39:59 PM »
...he should have known better, and he should have acted immediately when it got out of control.  No matter how much vicarious glee he was getting (assuming that was what was going on) from seeing the "defund the police" and "political violence is justified because the people are angry" crowd at the other end of the stick, he should have known that no American is going to feel positively inclined after seeing those images.  He should have realized that he was handing over an excuse to Mitt Romney and the other never Trumpers to denounce him with impunity and to pay far less consequences for doing so.

...He undercut that message by letting himself be tied to the riot.

Even CNN is confirming that the riot was preplanned and prestaged by actors and not the Trump supporters. “Evidence uncovered so far, including weapons and tactics seen on surveillance video, suggests a level of planning that has led investigators to believe the attack on the U.S. Capitol was not just a protest that spiraled out of control,” CNN reported.

Pelosi may have been complicit. She denied the Sergeant at Arms to get help, and he resigned over it. How dialed in was she? The impeachment was rushed through even before the investigations showed Trump was innocent.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2021, 04:47:03 PM »
You are correct, of course - Trump has been winding up his supporters for months, and they've been planning this attack for weeks.  His speech on January 6th was just the final marching orders for an attack his supporters had come prepared to execute.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #23 on: January 15, 2021, 04:51:44 PM »
Wm can you link to where CNN says it was actors and not Trump supporters?  Your quote listed below makes no mention of actors (I assume you mean Antifa and BLM type actors, and not QAnon and white supremacists' or Proud Boy's type actors).

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #24 on: January 15, 2021, 05:09:37 PM »
Wm can you link to where CNN says it was actors and not Trump supporters?  Your quote listed below makes no mention of actors (I assume you mean Antifa and BLM type actors, and not QAnon and white supremacists' or Proud Boy's type actors).

I'm putting my money on no, CNN did not call them "actors". But notice he "CNN reported". Obviously Lambert never read the CNN article in question, just some tweet burp or blog post trying to use that quote to confirm that secret Antifa planned this all out, using tactics that they've never used before, and playing the long con by joining the proud boys years ago.

This is the article

Quote
On Tuesday, federal authorities in New York City arrested Eduard Florea, 40, on at least one weapons charge after law enforcement, including the FBI and NYPD, responded to a Queens home in response to online postings about an armed caravan heading to the US Capitol, two law enforcement officials with knowledge of the investigation tells CNN.
Law enforcement sources told CNN that the man claims to be a Proud Boy and was arrested with live ammunition in the home.

Must've been a method actor.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #25 on: January 15, 2021, 05:16:07 PM »
This is the dirty little secret that William doesn't want to admit:

All the violent protesters are actually Antifa and BLM actors because all Trump supporters are actually Antifa and BLM actors.  Trump and those actors have driven away all the other Republicans, so now all that are left of his supporters are actors trying to bring him down. 

It's the perfect disguise!  ;) ;D

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #26 on: January 15, 2021, 05:18:40 PM »
I see. These were not Trump followers at the Trump rally that latter marched but  all 'actors'.
The proof is that Trump followers are not capable of planning action's as real Trump followers are only re-actors, reactors capable of only following and easily misled.

If their was planning it had to be someone else.

Trampers have to blame anyone else but themselves otherwise they might have to questing the source of their information. We see the would as we are not as it is, the shock of seeing thing as they are may be to much for Trampers.   

Quote
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he has accepted the resignation of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger a day after a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol.
The Kentucky Republican said Thursday in a statement that he had earlier requested the resignation and later received it. He says Stenger’s resignation is effective immediately.
Mitch makes no mention of Pelosi???? Odd for a man who will do anything to score pollical points
« Last Edit: January 15, 2021, 05:21:43 PM by rightleft22 »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2021, 08:56:09 PM »
Seriati, please advise.  You accurately describe Trump's ability to walk up to rhetorical lines and make people think he's crossed them when in fact he has not. 

In this case Trump committed a fatal error in that he directly commanded the crowd to march with him to the capitol.  This was a black and white illegal act.

So you're asking me to explain the failure to obtain a permit and implying this is some kind of big issue?  Can you show me where the rioting, looting and burning permits were issued this summer?  Or how about the permit to try and burn down a federal court house or to besiege it for over 3 months?

Seriously, I have no information relevant to whether a marching permit is "required."  I do know that no one has ever made much of an issue over any other large protests marching even spontaneously.  Heck, how many arrests (before today) from people that actually block interstates (for which there can be no permits)?

Come on, kidv, was a serious question?

Quote
President directly commanded the mass to engage in an illegal activity.  That is undisputed.

And?  Where did that show up in the actual articles of impeachment?  As far as I'm aware no President has or probably ever will be impeached for "commanding" a protest to go on an "illegal" march. 

That's an embarrassing argument.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #28 on: January 19, 2021, 09:24:40 PM »
Aris,

You are increasingly unhinged and impolite.  I've gotten quite sick of your rudeness.  If you can't limit yourself to arguments on substance maybe you should consider stepping away for a while.  I'm disappointed that your fellow travelers haven't commented on it, but that seems to be where we are these days.

So, your argument is that when he says that the states want to recertify and that they want to take their certifications back, he *actually* meant that there are individual people within each state that want the state governments to take their certifications back.

So, yeah, basically a complete and utter liar, and you just don't give a *censored*.

My "argument" is that he probably has people from each of those states (maybe even elected officials) telling him they'd like to take the certifications back, even that it was legally required to take the certification back, or at least he did at the time.  Does that surprise you?  I've heard people say the same thing, you can see them yourself if you go look.  I think if you spent time honestly and dlliigently looking for evidence of fraud and impropriety that you'd find it, and you'd convince yourself that it was the tip of the ice berg.  That's the number one reason the media doesn't want it discussed, there's enough there that more and more people would be convinced over time (in fact, I'm wiling bet 30 years from now, history writes it that the election was stolen, but we'll see).

What NO ONE ACTUALLY KNOWS is whether there really was an iceberg, or whether it was an ice cube.

And by the way, your claim to "utter liar" needs proof or evidence if you are trying to make an argument.  Do you have any?  (I'm guessing not)

Quote
Thanks for proving it, but since I don't believe you believe a word you yourself are saying, I won't waste my time trying to convince you of something you already fully well know.

Sounds like you have cognitive dissonance.  You have a rock solid belief, but don't seem to have based it on any actual facts, far easier to pretend other people's claims don't exist than to examine your beliefs.

Quote
Your charade isn't actually about convincing us that Trump didn't lie (nobody actually sane and informed believes that), your charade is one level further -- merely an attempt to convince us that informed people can honestly believe Trump's not a liar, thus making us waste time in nonsensicalities about how to 'convince' you, when you know that's not possible because you're already well convinced.

My position is that if you call someone a liar YOU should be able to prove it.  You obviously can not prove it.  Unlike you, I have no reason to make claims about your beliefs, I take you at face value that you really do believe things that have no logical underpinnings and it makes me sad for you.

Quote
Why could I not just as correctly call everyone who claims there was no fraud a liar?  It's literally 100% false, we factually know there was fraud.

Because the meaning of "There was no fraud." tends to be "There was no significant fraud."[/quote]

Sure, in reasonably conversation, we all recognize the hyperbolic.  Yet when you discuss Trump you seem incapable of applying the same rule.  Why do you think that is?  It's not because of something magic or diablolic about Trump, it's because the media has run propaganda 24/7 to hammer those misconceptions into your brain.

I am 100% certain that you'd call Trump a liar if he said there was no fraud.

Quote
It doesn't actually significantly change the *relevant communicated meaning* you see. It's being imprecise, not being a liar.

Yes, I get it, when you and yours lie you deserve the benefit of the doubt and its not a lie, when Trump states his beliefs that's a lie even if it's actually true.

Quote
It's as when a person says "I'm perfectly healthy" when talking to their parents over the phone, not mentioning a papercut they recently had. Because it's not actually significant.

And if Trump said it, you'd post a diatribe about how he's a liar because he's not perfect and by claiming he's perfect he's the biggest liar in history (and you'd get support in the 200 headlines that run with Trump claim's "I'm perfect" in major speech).  And if Biden said it, even though he's got dementia, you'd post an diatribe about how its  true because everyone knows that means he's in perfect physical health and there's never been any question about his physical health.

This is exactly why our world is having trouble, there is no objective truth, only completely subjective partisan "truth."

Quote
While you instead brutally violate the meaning of language, in order to have Trump mean the exact opposite of the meaning he was communicating.

You mean like how a "mostly peaceful protest" involves arson, looting and death?  Or how Trump let 300k people die?  Or how a "racist" President increased his numbers and percentages of minority voters?

Quote
And that's the difference between a lie, and a truth.

Yes, I get it, a lie is something the other team believes, and a truth is something your team believes.

Quote
If you need to twist language to explain why something isn't a lie, well, it's a lie.

Remarkably, I didn't twist any language.  I just did exactly what you claimed you were doing.  I opened up my empathy and tried to guess at what Trump meant, or could have meant, by some remarkably opaque little sound bites.  What you saw is literally what seems most likely to me.  It's happened before that I've been completely wrong, but it's hardly ever happened that the media has been correct about what they say he means.

If you really cared to prove it was a lie, you could have done even a half ass job and looked up a speech in which he used the phrases.  I'm willing to bet they were in his lengthy remarks from Jan. 6, for example.  You could have looked at the context and seen if he explained what he meant and then you'd know for yourself if the remarks made sense in context.  That's exactly what I did in respect of the GA Secretary of State call, which is exactly how I reached the conclusion that the media was misrepresenting what he said.  It's inescapable if you read the entire transcript.  Yet, once again, the sound bite culture picks the phrase it needs to send the message it wants, whether "true" or a "lie" and you buy into it completely.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #29 on: January 19, 2021, 09:50:58 PM »
Serati

Time and time again members of this site have said that there very well might have been small localized fraud. The only proven case was in PA where a Republican voted for his dead mother. The system caught him.

You keep saying that we are saying there was no fraud.  No one is saying that.

With apologies msquared, I probably have over generalized on that point.  I read it every day in multiple places and publications and it seems to have influence even where people are sometimes more reasonably inclined.

You'll have to forgive me for laughing though, that you believe there's only one proven case.  You can look at the situation in GA where  the Secretary of State has been working overtime to debunk the claims and see that even there he's found multiple instances.  Granted, he's going to help the claim that there wasn't massive fraud even more because, if you trust him, he's eliminating big categories of people at a time. 

So for example, Trump's team had identified over 5k people they claimed voted even though they died before election day.  The SOS issued a statement that upon investigation only 2 such cases appeared to have occurred.  The problem is that it's completely a "trust me" situation.  GA won't release or grant access to the records to let anyone else verify that fact, they won't describe the process they used (e.g., did they just vet the 5k names or did they do a larger analysis?).  2 people doesn't move the needle, 5k may get closer, but what if the number would be higher if they checked all names?  Who knows.

And that's before you get into even "crazier" categories.  Trump's team identified "2,423" voters that appeared to have voted without being registered (don't ask me how).  The response from the GA SoS was effectively a tautology, as they said it's not possible to be issued a ballot without being registered therefore this didn't happen.  Could they explain why it appeared to have happened?  Maybe, but it doesn't appear they did.

Quote
Your side is the one that keep saying there was massive voter fraud in several states, but have still not provided any evidence. That is arguing in bad faith.

And now, I'm going to put back your first claim on you.  I've been saying there was illegal voting at a massive scale (dependent on how the Constitution is interpreted).  I've been saying we have no ability to detect fraud in a provable manner and that we had a massive successful effort to make it easier to commit fraud.  The court cases were often about the first, and personally I think wrongly decided, we can't have fair elections if the rules are always changed at the last minute by mostly judges and state executives to favor their own party's interests.  The second is a background against which statistical anomalies and improbabilities are the particularly on point.  I mean honestly, you guys believe in all kinds of implied bad faith and bad intentions because of statistical anomalies in results, isn't it a little inconsistent to even consider them here?

I've said every single time that there is NO WAY TO PROVE voter fraud at a massive scale.  That literally means that if you commit fraud to win you win in reality.  It also means that if the standard is proving voter fraud at a massive scale it can never be met.  There never will be and never could be proven fraud at a massive scale.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #30 on: January 19, 2021, 09:57:21 PM »
I've said every single time that there is NO WAY TO PROVE voter fraud at a massive scale.  That literally means that if you commit fraud to win you win in reality.

No. Notwithstanding the belief that all caps makes something more real, what that literally means is that you are claiming that if someone commits fraud to win you win in reality.

Of course, there are numerous ways to prove fraud at a massive scale.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #31 on: January 20, 2021, 12:59:08 AM »
I've said every single time that there is NO WAY TO PROVE voter fraud at a massive scale.  That literally means that if you commit fraud to win you win in reality.  It also means that if the standard is proving voter fraud at a massive scale it can never be met.  There never will be and never could be proven fraud at a massive scale.

Part of this is a language problem, a fair bit of what we suspect may have been going on technically qualifies as fraud, but would more accurately fall under "abuse" instead. The person voting the ballot was the person who voted the ballot, but they only voted the way they did because someone else was "assisting" them in a manner which was not in compliance with the law.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2021, 02:46:03 AM »
I've said every single time that there is NO WAY TO PROVE voter fraud at a massive scale.  That literally means that if you commit fraud to win you win in reality.  It also means that if the standard is proving voter fraud at a massive scale it can never be met.  There never will be and never could be proven fraud at a massive scale.

Part of this is a language problem, a fair bit of what we suspect may have been going on technically qualifies as fraud, but would more accurately fall under "abuse" instead. The person voting the ballot was the person who voted the ballot, but they only voted the way they did because someone else was "assisting" them in a manner which was not in compliance with the law.

Explain please. It is not illegal for someone to convince a voter how to vote.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #33 on: January 20, 2021, 03:22:32 AM »
Part of this is a language problem, a fair bit of what we suspect may have been going on technically qualifies as fraud, but would more accurately fall under "abuse" instead. The person voting the ballot was the person who voted the ballot, but they only voted the way they did because someone else was "assisting" them in a manner which was not in compliance with the law.

Explain please. It is not illegal for someone to convince a voter how to vote.

It is if the voter is in the process of filling out their ballot while they're doing so.

They can "Assist" be helping explain the "what" and "how" part of the balloting process. Providing guidance on the "who" or "yes/no" decision is campaigning, and campaigning is verboten near a polling location.

Or did you forget about the media freakout over some of the evidence of absentee ballots being filled out at a Republican Campaign office in California? They were naturally "concerned" about the campaign staff influencing the voters...

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #34 on: January 20, 2021, 07:10:02 AM »
Or did you forget about the media freakout over some of the evidence of absentee ballots being filled out at a Republican Campaign office in California? They were naturally "concerned" about the campaign staff influencing the voters...

I do believe you are misremembering. Unless you are talking about a much less reported issue, that had to do with mislabeled drop boxes and 'xhain of custody' issues.

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #35 on: January 20, 2021, 09:27:11 AM »
Seriati:
Quote
Trump's team identified "2,423" voters that appeared to have voted without being registered (don't ask me how). 

Shouldn't you be asking Trump's team how?  Before assuming they have an issue that the state of GA needs to address, shouldn't you be asking for even a shred of proof that there IS an issue?

If Trump pulled this claim out of his ass, and the GA SoS dismissed it with a 'thats not even possible, go away', the situation would look exactly the same.  Yet you are insisting that only GA needs to prove their defense.  You are not even questioning whether the original accusation makes sense, even though you yourself can't figure out how they could have come up with it. 

That would be the Kool-Aid doing your thinking for you.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #36 on: January 20, 2021, 09:43:25 AM »
So for example, Trump's team had identified over 5k people they claimed voted even though they died before election day.  The SOS issued a statement that upon investigation only 2 such cases appeared to have occurred.  The problem is that it's completely a "trust me" situation. 
...

Last time Trump released some names from this list to Tucker Carlson he immediately had to issue a retraction because of the 5 or 10 names he listed out all of them were eligible voters. Maybe Trump should put the evidence out in public. There is a reason he and everyone who supports him quit making specific claims. Each specific claim he made was shown to be false. General claims like "there were 5k dead people who voted" are nearly impossible to disprove. It requires showing all of the millions of voters in Georgia voted in a valid way instead of taking the list of 5,000 ineligible voters Trump supposedly has is valid. Ask yourself why he isn't making specific claims?

The only reason is that specific claims are subject to fact checks and falsification. Instead he makes general claims, like 5k dead people voted, 20k ineligible ballots were cast, etc. There is nothing to look into in those claims. Ask yourself why Trump would hide all the evidence from the public.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2021, 09:51:37 AM »
Seriously, I have no information relevant to whether a marching permit is "required."  I do know that no one has ever made much of an issue over any other large protests marching even spontaneously.  Heck, how many arrests (before today) from people that actually block interstates (for which there can be no permits)?

Those people are almost already arrested. How about this march to the polls rally in NC? The organizers had a permit for the rally, including marching but the whole thing got shut down with pepper spray and 8 people were arrested because the group spilled into a street for a couple minutes.

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/31/929940404/police-in-n-c-arrest-pepper-spray-protesters-during-march-to-polls-event

Quote
Reporter Rusty Jacobs with member station WUNC tweeted that at one point, police had said the permitted march was an unlawful assembly and ordered people out of the streets. Jacobs noted that officers began making arrests.
...
The Graham Police Department says it arrested eight people. One of those arrested was Drumwright, who says he was charged with failure to disperse on command.
...
In a statement issued Saturday evening, Graham police say organizers hadn't gotten clearance for a temporary road closure.
...
Drumwright contends participants were not in the road but on the sidewalk when police began using pepper spray.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #38 on: January 20, 2021, 12:36:11 PM »
It requires showing all of the millions of voters in Georgia voted in a valid way instead of taking the list of 5,000 ineligible voters Trump supposedly has is valid. Ask yourself why he isn't making specific claims?

He's not making specific claims because all he has access to are publicly available documents and the staff he pays.  You're absolutely correct that if he releases 5000 names, 10,000 reporters are going to jump on falsifying every name on that list.  He had dozens of staff to compile a list, they have a thousand times more manpower to falsify it.  If those 10,000 reporters went looking for fraud they'd find that too.

Again, this goes exactly to what was discussed on the GA SoS call, Trump's lawyers expressly asked to have access to the process by which the cases they identified were falsified - denied - to records that would allow them to produce an accurate list - denied - to have access to the methodology that the SoS would use - denied.  Some of that is tied into quazi-legitimate privacy concerns but most of it is tied in to preventing the Trump lawyers from identifying where the process is designed to avoid finding the truth.

DonaldD is just lying above when he claims there are "numerous ways" to identify fraud at scale, there aren't, there are barely any ways for an outsider to identify fraud at all.  There is no way, other than affadavits -that are promptly ignored- to establish voter manipulation that occurs in mail in voting, despite it occurring in every election (go ahead and deny it, say you don't believe any husband forces his wife's vote on a mail-in ballot, and that's before you get into vote harvesting). 

Quote
The only reason is that specific claims are subject to fact checks and falsification. Instead he makes general claims, like 5k dead people voted, 20k ineligible ballots were cast, etc. There is nothing to look into in those claims. Ask yourself why Trump would hide all the evidence from the public.

It's funny, the people who have the evidence are not Trump and his team.  So I challenge you back, why do the people that do have the evidence hide it and refuse transparency?  Trump is an interested party trying to find fraud in a secret ballot election from publicly available records, he doesn't have access to any part of the actual relevant data.  This exactly why his arguments are about establishing possible categories with enough evidence to hope that the court orders disclosure of the actual data.  With that data proving fraud becomes possible.

Why are you guys so willing to believe that in every other context when the government is investigating itself and claims its innocent that is proof of nefarious intent, but here accept it blindly and believe they are totally on the up and up, despite in some cases facing criminal charges?  Politics.  Your team won, and that's the whole explanation for your incuriousity.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2021, 12:38:46 PM by Seriati »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #39 on: January 20, 2021, 01:10:37 PM »
He's not making specific claims because all he has access to are publicly available documents and the staff he pays.  You're absolutely correct that if he releases 5000 names, 10,000 reporters are going to jump on falsifying every name on that list.  He had dozens of staff to compile a list, they have a thousand times more manpower to falsify it.  If those 10,000 reporters went looking for fraud they'd find that too.

What's sad is you have no idea what's wrong with this statement.

Quote
Why are you guys so willing to believe that in every other context when the government is investigating itself and claims its innocent that is proof of nefarious intent

Again, I'm beginning to suspect you truly don't understand the logic failure here...

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #40 on: January 20, 2021, 01:14:58 PM »
Quote
He's not making specific claims because all he has access to are publicly available documents and the staff he pays.  You're absolutely correct that if he releases 5000 names, 10,000 reporters are going to jump on falsifying every name on that list.  He had dozens of staff to compile a list, they have a thousand times more manpower to falsify it.  If those 10,000 reporters went looking for fraud they'd find that too.

So your argument is that providing and validating the list of names isn't a valid approach to prove anything because you won't believe the results. The same reasoning as behind the idea that If I lose you cheated. How does anyone make a case against such absurd reasoning.

How can such reasoning not end in the end of the rule of law?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #41 on: January 20, 2021, 01:15:29 PM »
What is Trump doing with the 700 million he raised to stop the steal?  He is not able to hire people to do this research?  I thought that was what the money was for?  That is what he told donors the money was for.  I wonder what happened to all of that money, if Trump did not spend it on people trying to find all of the fraud he says he already has evidence of.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #42 on: January 20, 2021, 01:27:24 PM »
It requires showing all of the millions of voters in Georgia voted in a valid way instead of taking the list of 5,000 ineligible voters Trump supposedly has is valid. Ask yourself why he isn't making specific claims?

He's not making specific claims because all he has access to are publicly available documents and the staff he pays.  You're absolutely correct that if he releases 5000 names, 10,000 reporters are going to jump on falsifying every name on that list.  He had dozens of staff to compile a list, they have a thousand times more manpower to falsify it.  If those 10,000 reporters went looking for fraud they'd find that too.

Trump has half a billion dollars. I think that swamps the budget of any newsroom.

But here's the thing if he releases the names and a bunch of local reporters go interview all the people on the list then his list of 5,000 "dead voters" is a list of voters. If Trump had a real list of 5,000 dead voters then he could document it then release it for public scrutiny. If his evidence can't survive being made public then why should we believe he has anything other than unfounded false claims or more simply lies.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #43 on: January 20, 2021, 01:37:49 PM »
It's funny, the people who have the evidence are not Trump and his team.  So I challenge you back, why do the people that do have the evidence hide it and refuse transparency?  Trump is an interested party trying to find fraud in a secret ballot election from publicly available records, he doesn't have access to any part of the actual relevant data.  This exactly why his arguments are about establishing possible categories with enough evidence to hope that the court orders disclosure of the actual data.  With that data proving fraud becomes possible.

Hey Seriati. I heard Trump murdered someone. I won't tell you who or when but I'll repeat the claim ad nauseam until you prove to me that Trump has never murdered anyone. You just need to look into everyone who has died in the last 60 years. There are some really suspicious deaths in there. Trump has the facts on his crime why isn't he releasing them?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #44 on: January 24, 2021, 06:03:12 AM »
As I was discussing this elsewhere I was reminded of a post from Seratil over here about the 1st Trump impeachment.

And it further cements the view that the second impeachment is smoke and mirrors, and more about the political theater than anything else.

The Watergate investigations established a mechanism for Congress(and DoJ) to gain access to "Executive Privilege" information. They make the request, it goes to a judge, PotUS turns over the documents, the Judge then reviews the documents, and the judge sends on any documents he deems relevant.

Only in the first impeachment, the Democrats tried to make Trump's efforts to make them adhere to that process an impeachable offense as well, and likewise didn't wait to see what such a discovery process could find. They just rammed the process through.

Now we're on Trump Impeachment 2.0 where they're ramming another impeachment proceeding through the system with virtually no investigation of the facts, or any other real effort put into it. While also raising all kind of constitutional questions about if it is even possible to do what they're now trying to do.

While everyone else has to realize something else:
The Watergate rulings still apply to Trump's "privileged information" so those records CAN be obtained by investigators.
He also is no longer PotUS so the court can pursue it more aggressively as he is no longer "busy with the nation's business."

If they can prove Trump did what they accuse him of doing, there will be federal criminal charges filed. He will be very likely to be convicted. He will be likely to die in prison. He is very unlikely to win a Presidential election bid from Prison. So why the mad dash to disqualify him from running for future office again?

Logically, it only makes sense if the Democrats are simply not thinking at present and are being stupid(that's not worrying at all  ::) ), or the Democrats know they don't have a case, so they need to get it through the Senate before everything falls apart. (That's worrying for other reasons)

If they cannot prove Trump did any of the things they accused him of doing in a court of law, then they are the ones trying to interfere in the democratic process in a huge way by trying to eliminate someone(Trump) from the pool of potential future political opposition.

But in either scenario, what exactly is this impeachment proceeding accomplishing by being held now of all times? If they're asserting that they have the authority to impeach someone for conduct while holding a public office, even after they left it. Then they could bring the impeachment proceedings up later if they felt the court proceedings had some kind of critical failure happen. But really?

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #45 on: January 24, 2021, 07:12:44 AM »
Trump was impeached while in office.

The point of impeaching Trump is, that gee, we'd like peaceful transitions of power to remain a thing in the USA, and so we want to punish the politician who violated his oath of office, shat all over the constitution, and with lies and deceptions tried to use a mob against the legislature in a blatant coup attempt, in a first for American history.

You want the courts to handle it because as has been stated repeatedly the courts have a far higher bar for conviction. So basically you just want that to happen so that your beloved dictator-wannabe gets off scot-free with his coup attempt.

If Trump isn't convicted for what he did, you may just remove the impeachment process altogether. What would be worthy of impeachment if not this?
« Last Edit: January 24, 2021, 07:15:53 AM by Aris Katsaris »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pre-planned Second Impeachment
« Reply #46 on: January 24, 2021, 07:17:44 AM »
No former president of the United States has ever been indicted for actions taken during their tenure. There are many reasons for this.

Also, is it really your contention that presidents cannot be impeached, nor convicted, by Congress and held to account, just so long as they wait sufficiently late in their mandates? That's neither in the wording nor the intent of the Constitution.