re: Impeachment Trial-Sat 2/13-President Trump Acquitted 57-43

Just can’t. My BP redlines @ the sight of Dems so eagerly & effortlessly lying for the sole purpose of destroying this nation

Never mind Trump, they hate every freedom loving patriot and will stop at nothing to crush us.

This nation is over.

good grief what a bunch of babbling bullshite. These people just want other people to hear them speak. That's literally the gist of this entire thing so far.

he is saying Turley is for impeachment of a former President.

this is a lie.

quote:

---

The problem is free speech. Trump’s Jan. 6 speech would not satisfy the test in Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the Supreme Court said even “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation” is protected unless it is imminent. Trump did not call for the use of force but actually told people to protest “peacefully” and to “cheer on” their allies in Congress. He later — and too belatedly — repeated that after violence erupted, telling his supporters to respect and obey the Capitol Police.

Racine showed how disconnected these theories are from case law. He noted that Trump failed to “calm them down or at least emphasize the peaceful nature of what protests need to be.” Setting aside that Trump did tell them to protest peacefully, his failure to calm down a crowd is not criminal incitement by omission.

Trump does face ongoing liability — largely the same threats that existed before he became president, in the form of bank, tax and business investigations. But the litany of crimes breathlessly suggested over the last four years passed without charges. Nevertheless, experts have lined up to argue now that there are no free-speech or legal barriers to prosecuting Trump for incitement.

There is now a difference, however: There’s no longer an excuse that Trump cannot be indicted in office (which I do not believe is true), or that he would just pardon himself (which he didn’t do despite predictions he would). What was conveniently hypothetical can be an actual prosecution today. If criminal incitement is such a strong case, make it — charge him. Of course, such prosecutions could come at a cost. Unless there is evidence of direct intent, Trump is likely to prevail at trial or on appeal. He then could claim not just vindication on a federal charge but also on his second impeachment.

There is no crime of incitement for legal analysts who exaggerate or oversimplify criminal provisions; the public can be whipped into a frenzy with claims of easy prosecutions or slam-dunk charges. Many people are addicted to rage and these claims, even if illusory, feed that addiction. It is all entertainment until someone actually tries to bring a prosecution — and that is when reality sets in.

LINK

---

Best thing about this impeachment, it appears the dims finally skimmed or maybe even read The Constitution of the United States of America.

he should immediately be accepted into the a-hole club

Is Trump playing rope and dope to establish a precedent to go after past Presidents for trangressions that come to light???

quote:

---

Is Trump playing rope and dope to establish a precedent to go after past Presidents for trangressions that come to light???

---

It does open Pandora's box.

quote:

---

When it takes you all day to argue why you should be there it doesn't bode well for you.

---

Was thinking the same thing. Democrats come in and spend all this time arguing why they have a right to a trial instead of prosecuting the trial.

Amazing how hard ugly Dems are trying to prove that this process is even valid. Just by that reasoning you know this is a bogus circus show.