You keep insisting on him being a private citizen as if that matters. Don’t you think that if he is guilty of what he’s being accused of, which is to be determined at the trial, then letting him off scot-free just because his term ended would create a terrible precedent?
If a retired cop is tried for a crime committed on the job before retirement, does it matter that he’s retired? If convicted, could he lose his retirement benefits?
But he’s not guilty of the actual legal standards of incitement (Brandenburg, etc), at least according to most legal writeups I’ve read, nor is an impeachment a criminal jury trial that cares about facts, has a presumption of innocence, or a standard of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”. It’s just a bunch of politicians in the Senate with highly conflicted interests voting on whatever they think will be best for them personally. None of them would be allowed on a jury for a jury trial.
Although the consequences for impeachment matter more when still in office (and possibly the subsequent vote to bar from future office), the impeachment at this stage is not that different than the less serious censuring proposed against Greene mentioned recently, which basically is a majority vote saying “we don’t like you”.
Here are a couple legal reviews of actual incitement.
In short, telling people to walk an hour over to riot at the capitol wouldn’t count as incitement even if he said “walk over to the capitol and go in there and lynch those traitors Pelosi and Pence”, which of course he didn’t either despite how the left tries to spin it. There’s an “imminent in time” requirement for the action incited that is clearly not met at all.
You are indeed up to date on the latest legal stylings of Chet Americanman, pictured below.
1- The 25th amendment is inappropriate. Congress should impeach, Senate can convict. They can make their own rules, so for expediency this can all be done immediately when warranted.
2 - This impeachment was TOO FAST! It requires weeks of preparation! Senate refuses to take it up until after term is expired.
3 - Term has expired. Moot! Now we can’t have the senate trial! Trial only applies to “the president”, not “a president”. Should have used the 25th amendment. Oh, by the way, 14th amendment can’t apply – because “a president” can’t have that applied… What kind of precedent would that be setting? Are we going to start barring all former presidents who attempt to overthrow the government from running for office???
Nice circular get-out-of-jail-free “logic”
A classic discussion of What Still Works in America? - Kate reviews the government, the stock market, the vaccine rollout, social media, and Tom Brady:
Clearly no lib left the pipe bombs. Soros and the space jews wouldn’t secretly control the world if they were incompetent. No, those pipe bombs would have exploded.
/Marjorie Greene released this classified footage of the space jews and their lasers.
Listen Rep. Kinzinger:
They didn’t say you are the devil, just that you’re possessed by the devil. Why can’t you compromise with these people and their economic anxieties?
No bagel shaped spaceships? I call Fake Jews!
"… these officials say they no longer recognize the party they served. Some have ended their membership, others are letting it lapse while a few are newly registered as independents, according to a dozen former Bush officials who spoke with Reuters.
“The Republican Party as I knew it no longer exists. I’d call it the cult of Trump,” said Jimmy Gurulé, who was Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence in the Bush administration.
Kristopher Purcell, who worked in the Bush White House’s communications office for six years, said roughly 60 to 70 former Bush officials have decided to leave the party or are cutting ties with it, from conversations he has been having. “The number is growing every day,” Purcell said."
“The party is currently caught between disaffected moderate Republicans and independents disgusted by the hold Trump still has over elected officials, and Trump’s fervently loyal base. Without the enthusiastic support of both groups, the party will struggle to win national elections, according to polling, Republican officials and strategists.”
The saving grace for Republicans is that Democrats are in total control of our government. It is already becoming apparent that Democrats’ top priority is not Americans, but instead our enemies and so much adverse to our best interests. Current case in point:
With millions of us freezing our asses off and confronting snow and ice in significant measure, the Democrats are wildly pushing policies which, if they work, will make the climate COLDER STILL!!
When the inevitable next ice age commences, and glaciers roll south covering Canada and encroaching on the USA northland, Democrats will shriek with delight and cheer the bloody things on!
Democrats: WABOA
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,”
It looked imminent enough to me. Look at how much time passed between Trump advocating this and the onset of violent action?
Telling fanatical supporters whipped into a frenzy (trial by combat reference from Giuliani etc) that they have to fight harder or they’ll lose their country due to a fraudulent electoral vote on the day of the counting of electoral votes a mile from where they are counted seemed pretty imminent threat to me. The action was spelled out when Trump hinted that he expected them to walk to the Capitol soon after. That did not sound like an unspecified amount of time later.
Kinda like if a mafia boss told his underlings that the enemy gang who just took hold onto their turf by some outrageous action needs to be “dealt with” urgently or the family is finished doesn’t take a genius to see what that’d incite them to do. If the underlings then immediately after proceeded to grab their weapons and gun down the enemy gang, would it not count as incitement even if the boss did not spell out the exact actions required of his underlings?
Trump finished speaking at 1:10pm and the people breaking in didn’t happen until 2:10pm. That’s an hour later. Imminent means “now” not after you walk 45min down the road to the capitol.
Sure there were already people at the capitol and some were being rowdy but they weren’t at Trump’s speech so he couldn’t be inciting them under Brandenburg. Here’s more legal background on it.
No it doesn’t. It distinctly means not now. It means “ready to take place : happening soon”
You use the word when one expects something is about to happen, but it is not happening right
now.
I know you don’t care but here are more 1st amendment lawyers saying that a criminal case against Trump has no merits in incitement.
But of course they aren’t trying to prosecute him criminally because even Rudy could beat that case, but they’re trying him in the fact-free court of public opinion in the Senate.
Yes, You & 5 others right here think so…
But to me & a few others, no indeed not so.
I’m listening to the President talking & he’s telling me to protest peacefully by walking over to the capitol. So, about 45+ minutes or an hours walk over to the capitol is not “imminent enough to me.”
Those interested in a riot were already at the capitol. Not because of the Presidents speech. Could be riled up democrats.