snafu

You're reading these posts wrong. I'm saying that his failure to stop the riots are a problem, but not evidence of inciting the riots. And I didn't see yesterday anything from Trump that included violent chatter before the 5th of January. Maybe I missed it. There were lots of posts and articles and evidence from other groups. I get what you're saying, but then why did the D.C. Mayor ask for National Guard troops ahead of time AND direct that they be placed in places that were not obtrusive, or for security purposes? That happened. Apparently Trump, and those people who invaded the Capitol, believe this "Big Lie". He invited people to come to D.C., but can you point out where Trump invited anyone coming to D.C. to "be wild"? I saw him invite people to the Capitol, but I didn't see him tell anyone to be a complete animal and attach police and desecrate that Capitol. I don't condone what happened on the 6th, and I've said in this thread that Trump is his own worst enemy and he wouldn't be in this position if he were like anyone else. I'm trying to look at this impeachment dispassionately and I don't see where there's a connection to "inciting". I do see dereliction of duty AFTER the fact, but Trump isn't charged with that. Don't be so dramatic.

Or, if a person wanted to start a loud, exterior-only protest and it turned ugly then yes, a leap. Not stopping it is the problem. It isn't evidence of incitement.

It's a leap. Whatever evidence it is. Leaps don't get convictions.

But Trump wasn't charged with dereliction of duty for failing to quell anything. And to be honest,before yesterday's presentation, I had no idea how much very troubling chatter there was (not by Trump) before the 6th that should have made the hair stand up on the necks of anyone who had control over security, which includes the D.C. Mayor and whomever has authority over the Congressional Police, and the FBI. The fact is that with all this chatter, nobody saw fit to harden up the security at the Capitol beforehand. From what I've seen, the D.C. Mayor's request for National Guard was extremely limited to places in D.C. that were specifically NOT the Capitol Building How can they cite Trump with knowing that the rioters would breach the Capitol when they were privy to the same chatter he was, and they didn't do anything? Answer: they can't. Not with a straight face. Does my opinion on this make me a co-conspirator? No. I'm looking at the facts and the charge and the circumstantial evidence you point out isn't the full circumstantial picture. He was charged with inciting. You can't incite something that's already occurring. His statements made after the breach, while extremely unfortunate, are not part of the act of inciting. Perhaps Trump didn't know that the crowd would do anything more than stand on the steps and protest. You can't take his inaction after the fact as intent to incite. Perhaps for a different charge this would be proper. Perhaps the House should not have been so hasty to shove one article through, and then let the managers fit the facts in after Trump's been charged. I didn't say Republicans are co-conspirators at all. Clinton did and I disagree. Hawley and Cruz are not complicit in inciting anything on January 6th -- either show proof or stop spouting such a hokey conspiracy theory. Furthermore, they're not complicit in the riot even if they vote to acquit. Their opinion is clear so far. They don't think the trial should even be happening. Add to that the fact that there's no real "beyond a reasonable doubt" connection and I can see where minds would differ on Trump's guilt of the one article that's been passed. I realize that this is a political proceeding, but politicizing and criminalizing speech is a gigantic step that they're probably not ready to take; and politicizing any Senators' vote for future gain is an unfortunate (and to me, unseemly) byproduct of our system. Every Senator will have to answer for his or her vote in future political campaigns. The Courthouse to charge a private citizen is probably just up the road from Congress. I sense that's where Hawley and Cruz believe this grievance should be heard.

Trump's actions and statements while the riot was ongoing are shameful. But are those statements evidence of incitement once the Capitol was already breached? Honest questions, I don't know the timing of these things.

Do you agree with Clinton that the Republicans in the Senate who vote to acquit are co-conspirators? That's absolute nonsense.

Uh, his jury ALSO includes his alleged victims. If they don't feel so victimized to say that Trump incited the riot in their place of work, then that's just as valid. They're the jurors. They get to decide. This tweet is typical divisive vapid B.S. from Hillary Clinton. Typical attempt to smear and criminalize one entire party for the acts of few -- because with her and many in her party like her, it's party over anything else and any other party or voice should and must be snuffed out. You saying "bingo" lets everyone here know that you agree with this completely unjustified, unverified slander -- and it makes you out to be, like Hillary Clinton, a conspiracy nutjob. Thank God she's a worse candidate than Trump, and thank you for again showing everyone here what you are.

So...we need to throw them all out and replace them? Actually, I agree with you that the political class shouldn't be a separate or elevated class -- but that's the way they treat themselves.

Completely agree. D's can take it further, too, and claim that all the Senators who vote to acquit are domestic terrorists.

I've already said my peace about Trump in this thread. He's his own worst enemy and we're witnessing the impeachment because of him.

What? Bernie Bros pulled their support in 2016 because the D party rigged the primaries in favor of Clinton. Sorry, Bernie, no nomination for you, we've got our candidate with political clout and the party decisionmakers are behind her -- not you. Then in 2020, they pulled their support because Warren stayed in the race one day too long, killing Bernie's chances and reviving Biden's nearly dead campaign. Sorry, again, Bernie, we've got our candidate with political clout and the party decisionmakers are behind him -- not you. That's coercion via political clout.

Each party has its adherents to individuals. Trump has his style and the people who love him, love him. So does Bernie Sanders, whose supporters threatened, twice, to pull their support from the D party. And they came around.

The Republican Party was considered smashed in 2012 after Obama got re-elected. The Democrats were considered fragmented after 2016. The dust is still in the air and hasn't settled yet. The left has some far-left participants. The right has some far-right participants. The moderates of each party tolerate their votes. This isn't a one-party phenomenon.

They were paid to do a job that didn't include storming the Capitol, and when that happened, the payment was withheld -- meaning that may not have been foreseen by Trump.

Isn't that the opposite of damning?

Mitch doesn't control Pelosi. Different chambers. If she wanted to send the Article of Impeachment, Mitch couldn't stop her. And I've already shown you that Mitch and Chuck negotiated the start date of the trial before the Article was delivered.

You and I are picking nits here, but (1) where did that quote come from? (2) what that report doesn't say is that the Senate trial COULD NOT begin before January 19 unless the Senate unanimously voted to change their own recess schedule that they had previously unanimously voted to set. Why does the article say that McConnell blocked anything if the entire Senate would have had to unanimously approve the proposal? (3) you don't ever say why the House didn't deliver the Article until January 25th -- the timing of that step completely wipes out anything else you say. The Senate didn't have any jurisdiction over the proceeding until that time.

Read that memo in the tweet I linked. It says that on January 7, the Senate voted unanimously to set their calendar, and they would have had to vote unanimously to change the calendar. It seems that whatever McConnell said on the 13th had that in mind.

It isn't nearly as simple as you're making it out to be. There was a Senate memo describing the calendar restrictions and procedural issues And Schumer agreed on January 22 to a February proceeding, knowing that the House hadn't even delivered the Article to the Senate yet. There was no complaining at the time about the schedule. And even if there was, there wasn't much that could have or would have been done about it. This isn't simply a matter of McConnell being disingenuous. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/22/schumer-says-senate-will-receive-impeachment-article-on-monday-461305

The President is usually afforded time to make a defense. The only good argument made by his counsel yesterday was the fact that the House impeached him in 8 hours and didn’t have much debate, and didn’t afford the President an opportunity to participate. That’s the usual (due) process. If the House Managers are allowed to argue that “there’s precedent for this” then they can’t get away with how the process didn’t follow precedent up to this point. Impeachment is a political matter, but the accused needs at least a modicum of due diligence, otherwise everyone is left with a show trial. The ultimate political penalty was already laid on the President by his losing the election. On January 21 Trump became a private citizen — and there’s a Judicial branch to handle the matter at that point. I was was impressed by our checks and balances for the past 4 years when keeping the President in check. Now, checks and balances seem to be blurring and that’s not a good thing. Try him in court. If he’s a convicted felon, he can’t be President anyway. Is Congress afraid they can’t overcome the presumption of innocence and beyond reasonable doubt thresholds? Trump has done a ***** ton of things wrong. He’s his own worst enemy. That’s why he’s in this position now. Perhaps a court of law would like to hear about it.

The Senate didn’t receive the Article of Impeachment until January 25. Here’s a NYT article from 1/19 that says Pelosi was holding the Article to build a case. The issue yesterday was whether the Senate should hold a trial after the President left office. It isn’t that stupid. The Senate couldn’t hear anything or do anything until the Article was put into their hands. There’s arguments to be made both ways. Seems that Justice Roberts might agree, or he at least thinks it is a bit closer case than you make it out to be. In any event, the vote is over and the trial is proceeding.

Maybe they can replace the glass with chain link fencing, old school rink style.

My answer isn't what you presume it would be, but why should I bother? Would I change you mind?

When was the last one?

Yes, and he's gone. He could be out of your life, if you let him. But you won't let him out of your life. That's a you problem.