I know I'm repeating myself, but I need to repeat:

If intention can be proven - which is admittedly hard to do, even though it should be cristally obvious - we would talk about sedition, never,
@el_Whacko about treason, because that would need an overt act of levying war: "[...]on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

At this point, the accusation is "incitement of insurrection." Intent is a bonus for a criminal trial (which should be held separately). And fact is:
Had Trump not lied for weeks about a stolen landslide victory, had he not held a rally in Washington / had he held it at a different date, had he not used martial language in front of a crowd partly in combat gear, would he not, after protesters breached the capitol, accused pence of cowardice etc. - it would not have happened. And it would have been his *sworn* in *duty* as president and commander in chief to protect and prevent this events from happening.

The question is - at this point - moot however, as the first vote, wether the impeachment was constitutional or not, has shown that most republican senators vote politically/ in their best interest and not according to law.

And how is this different from the two previous impeachment trials in the Senate? Were all 45 Democrat Senators who voted to acquit Bill Clinton not voting in their own political interests? Those Senators included the current President, Joe Biden and still serving Senators Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Jack Reed, Patty Murray. They also include the current Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer and the guy who is presiding over the trial, Patrick Leahy. Despite compelling evidence that Clinton commited purjury and obstruction of justice these Democrats voted to acquit Clinton. The hypocrisy is stunning.

Yea I know what you mean. The current impeachment of Donald Trump is an abuse of the impeachment process. If you don't have the votes going in then it is a futile and highly partisan farce. What Democrats are doing here is campaigning for the 2022 mid term elections on the public dime. The same thing they were doing with Trump impeachment number one.

The real way and the only way to hold Trump accountable is in the court of public opinion.

"Whataboutwhattheothersdidbeforethat"?

Wrong. read again.
Not anywhere near the point, but fine; Trump never even reached 50% approval. and plummeted since then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:G...nald_Trump.svg

If you think Trump broke the law indict him, if not, call it a day and find something productive to do.

Umm no, you don't need to repeat yourself. In fact your repetitious arguments are quite old and hammering away at the same thing over and over may not be healthy. I'd suggest you seek professional help, find a friend or learn something new.

One element of the people who repeat themselves is loneliness and they are eager to prolong the conversation. Another may be the excessive need for attention also stemming from loneliness. The repeater craves connection and fears if they stop talking, the conversation will come to an end. Unfortunately, this is a self defeating tactic as people tend to avoid or limit conversations with people who repeat themselves as it can be exhausting to be the listener in such a conversation. Repeaters who are avoided, and who aren’t aware of their repeating, may double down on repeating when they are avoided thus causing people to be all the more determined to avoid them.

You clearly don't have kids.

You can write that as many times as you like. But I notice no actual comment on my point. So how about it? No comment because why?

Politics does not take place in a vacuum. Everything that has happened in the past is relative. How these Senators will vote in Trump's trial is directly related to how they chose to ignore evidence and acquit one of their own when it was politically expedient. They should be called out on it. And I'm not surprised by that behavior because when it comes to politics I like to be a realist. Politicians of any stripe only act in their and their party's best interest. And that is exactly what is going to happen in the current case. You should prepare yourself for that.

Exactly right. And I would suspect that it won't happen because there is no actual evidence to proceed with.

Really all this is - is breathlessly virtue-signaling and dog-whistling to the MSM and low-info voters. Low info not just in the sense of politics, but low info about *everything*.

They watch tv news and believe the newsreader or the grandstanding politician. They don't question whether or not video was edited (and how and why it was edited). They read print news only one paragraph in when the real information that contradicts the headline is in the last paragraph.

Not one single news story claiming Trump's alleged racism, sexism, or violence is true.

What it really calls into question is the ability of anyone working in media to parse anything in the English language beyind the 3rd grade if the MSM truly believes these claims they make.

*Anyone* who has had a proper basic education with those old-fashioned ideas of using phonics, reading comprehension, proper spelling, and grammar, to learn the bare minimum of properly reading and parsing the English language and who has seen Trump's full speeches and conversations or read the full transcript of them would agree that there is nothing there that would rise to the level of immoral or unethical, let alone unlawful.

That it hurts the left's feelings and that it threatened their attempts to push us further into communism instead of playing the political game with them is why they are foaming at the mouth about him. No more, no less.

You're saying one party can commit an act and be called out for it but no one can point out precedents? Sounds like an easy out for hypocrisy.

Well, I would argue there has been plenty to say about Trump's sexism.

I got nothing.... :har:

I think Trump's sexism runs much deeper than we will ever know.

Are you referring his well-known love of pursuit of women? Doesn't make him sexist, but yeah, not keeping it in your pants is a character flaw.

Are you referring to his "grab 'em by the..." tape?

When you look at the entire tape, it's clear he was illustrating the difference in reaction from certain kinds of women who gravitate towards a career in entertainment to such a forward move by some random regular guy and if it comes from the rich and famous who have the ability to improve the financial and social standing if they let them.

Unfortunately when the MSM and political opponents take the video and edit it down to just "...and I grab them by the..." without the context of the words trying to illustrate the double standard in entertainment, that's the only thing most people ever see and hear and naturally assume that's what he said and he's a sexist pig.

I don't think anyone thinks he's squeaky clean - decades in real estate in NYC pretty much guarantees that he's done some less than aboveboard things, but I think that what most everyone is most upset about him is that he wasn't able to be bought off or silenced by political enemies or by so-called allies - that he didn't fit the typical mold of a politician or public figure where they think they've got some dirt that ends his run and instead of a grovelling apology, he just ignored it or worse (for them), he returned fire (and it was usually an on-target, fire-for-effect response).

No, I'm saying whataboutism is wrong. always. Voting against impeaching Clinton for lying under oath & obstructing justice was wrong. If there was a "Whataboutwhattherepublicansdidbefore" (I don't remember, but I'm also too young to have been overly interested back then) - that was *more wrong*.

It's an easy argument to not do the right thing now (voting against the constitution wether the senate should resolve this impeachment or not - because there really isn't anything to decide) because of what the oponent did 22 years ago.

I have a theory that these senators are afraid, which would be a natural thing to be - think Whittmer, think family Raffensperger.

The question you have to answer for yourself: is this still a country you want to live in? Where any official no longer has take care of what (s)he says, can *unintentionally* bring a violent mob, that, without any connection to the officials words, goes after the officials enemies. Where they takes no responsibility for the actions of their followers.
Basically the reign of those with the most violent followers. Do you want this to happen again, or should you do everything possible to prevent it?

Here's the problem. He didn't bring a violent mob. The *vast* majority of those in attendance at his speech on Jan 6th were entirely peaceful, listened to his speech, and went back to their hotels, grabbed lunch, etc. We have video of that. Of those that went to the Capitol, the majority of them went there peacefully.

You have the 1% of the 1% who entered into the Capitol. And the majority of *them* also did so peacefully, even if unlawfully. We have video of this also.

We *also* have video and social media evidence of left-wing agitators who planned and executed efforts to cause chaos at the Capitol - and the resultant escalation to include Trump supporters committing violence as a result - since most people would willingly follow leader-type personalities in such a situation.

If I were intent on engaging in shenanigans to make my political opponent look bad, this is a textbook example of how to do it successfully.

Nobody being in knowleldge about the psychology and inner functionality patterns of sectarian cults can be surprised by this. Its almost a textbook example.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/12/t...nes/index.html

You keep posting this link in multiple threads. No one is talking about The qanon craziness.