Blue78 wrote:Trump had every right to challenge results - even CNN acknowledged that. But his approach to it, his stirring up, his rhetoric was not right from a ‘leader’ of a government.
He had the courts open to challenge - they all threw the cases out though due to a lack of evidence. Yet still he continued to claim fraud.
As I said in an earlier post, people like Trump and Farage call ‘foul play in the system’ when they think something isn’t going their way...but suddenly the system is robust when they won...until they lose again and once again they call the system into question. In 2016 despite losing the popular vote, he won a number of previously democratic states by Uber slim margins allowing him the electoral college victory - where was his claim of ‘rigged votes’ then?
It’s inconceivable to think that the rhetoric, language and aggression of Trump and his team (Rudy especially) over months, didn’t do anything to encourage the actions of Jan 6th. The pictures, the interviews with rioters and frankly his complete inaction on the day should be enough to show this. Even McConnell said he was guilty of incitement last night.
Why did they push the protest for Jan 6th, why was Rudy caught on tape saying they need the confirmation slowed down, why was Trump calling out Pence before and during the riot?
Hypothetically, the protest was on Jan 6th as they were to peacefully march on the Capital while the senate was in session to make a powerful, non-violent political demonstration. You could also argue it was an evil plan to storm the capital - but there's no proof of that, it is until proven, by its very definition, a conspiracy theory.
Rudy wanted the confirmation slowed down because the judicial system ran out of time, in many cases the judiciary didn't actually review the evidence because of time constraints so cases were rejected as they couldn't' be completed in time, rather than dismissed because of a lack of evidence. Again not really that contentious
Trump called, I think unfairly on Pence, to do something I don't think he could have done and reject the votes, but it was as the American like to say a final hail Mary pass. Dick move, but again not incitement to insurrection.
None of these or anything else listed in the thread so far is more than circumstantial evidence though. The American judicial system, just like our own, is based around proof of guilt not proof of innocence being required.
Just because you and a lot of other people, feel the way he behaved and
'his rhetoric was not right from a ‘leader’ of a government.' doesn't make it an impeachable offence.
It is not incitement to insurrection to talk like an arrogant prick or even a whiny little bitch, it's just being a dick.
Being a dick is not an impeachable offence (they'd have had him when he was actually president if it were).
People can hate him and his style all they want, but it doesn't change the fact Trump never in a million years came anywhere close to anything that could be viewed as incitement to insurrection which again has
a very, very specific legal definition. Whatsmore, the burden of proof was on the democrats to prove Trump willfully incited an insurrection and just to say it one more time - the evidence that proves his guilt under
the parameters of the US legal definition of incitement just doesn't exist, it never has.
Like I said in an earlier post, perhaps Trump is just a bombastic buffoon who got lucky by not saying the right words. Perhaps he is an evil mastermind and knew exactly how to sail close enough to the wind without setting himself up.
Either way,
it really doesn't matter. There was
no solid evidence for incitement and without that, there was ZERO chance of impeachment going through as not enough Republicans would cross the aisle without an obvious smoking gun.
The bigger question that people seem to keep overlooking is why was the whole charade put on in the first place when it was obvious from the start that impeachment would never go through?
Was it a distraction to look the other way while Biden ushers in record numbers of first month Executive orders? possibly. Perhaps to keep the anger focused in one direction so it isn't turned on themselves? possibly. Was it just petty vengeance? Again possibly.
It was always an empty gesture so why go through the whole expensive charade? That is the only point I'm making here.