Trump's Second Impeachment - A jump to conclusions

[AgnosticGuy]

This is more of a post to challenge those who believe that Trump should be impeached.

My position is not that Trump should be impeached. I believe he should only be impeached pending the outcome of an inquiry or investigation into the incident. It seems that many accept the interpretation that Trump caused the riots and they do so without question. But I see that there is room to question.

Here are some reasons:

- First, Trump used words like "fight like Hell". That can be taken both literally and non-literally. How do we know which sense he intended if we don't look into his intent? Plenty of politicians from both sides have used similar language, but then we don't impeach them nor automatically suggest that they are inciting or trying to incite violence. Also should Trump be blamed if he intended it to be non-literal but some protestors took it to be literal? That's certainly possible given the fact that not all protestors entered the US Capitol.
- There is growing evidence that the attack on the US Capitol was planned. If the attack was planned before Trump's rally then some of these pro-Trump protestors already had it in their mind to attack before listening to Trump's speech. Perhaps we can investigate if Trump played a role in that planning. We should know that before trying to impeach him.
- Another point that was brought up mostly by Democrats is that Trump did nothing to stop the attack. That should also be investigated. Trump released a video during the attack calling for protestors to stop their attack and leave. Perhaps he could've done more, Perhaps the FBI and US Capitol police could've done more given the fact they had some information on threats prior to the attack.

This impeachment was simply a rush to conclusions.

 

[Orbit]

There is no need for an investigation. These events occurred in plain sight.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have a feeling he didn't cause the riots just supported them. People take their own initiatives to do things and herd mentality enforces it. It's more likely less about trump himself and more about the benefit of his policies compared to democrats.

Trump isn't god so I can see it more he support the rally but didn't plan it. Of course people would make it seem like he did. I'm not sure how legal cases work but if this is correct a bench trial would be best. The jury would crucify him just for his politics.

"Does not liking this man strong enough to convict him of murder?"....if you know the movie reference.

 

[sun rise]

The reason for a fast impeachment is that many in the House felt their lives directly at risk from the insurrectionists and rioters.

The saw and heard Trump giving a literal rabble rousing speech exciting the mob and expressing a priori approval.

The rest is history including looking for Congresscritters who aided and abetted the criminal rioters.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

There is no need for an investigation. These events occurred in plain sight.

Sure, we all saw some events, but then we all may have different interpretations. You and I may have differing opinions, so how do we determine which one is correct? In a criminal case involving inciting violence, intent plays a role. How do you know intent without investigating it? How do you know if the events were planned before Trump's speech without investigating it? If so, that would speak to if Trump was the cause.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think that any single thing Trump said incited
insurrection. But the sum total of things he said,
& his refusal to back down on the core faux claim
of a stolen election had the effects we see.
This bespeaks extraordinary recklessness in
pursuit of a 2nd term. The conspiracy believing
MAGAs are still numerous, so impeachment &
conviction will be useful to prevent his seeking
a 2024 win. I don't think he would win, but his
attempt would be dangerous.
Conviction will fail though.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, we all saw some events, but then we all may have different interpretations. You and I may have differing opinions, so how do we determine which one is correct? In a criminal case involving inciting violence, intent plays a role. How do you know intent without investigating it? How do you know if the events were planned before Trump's speech without investigating it? If so, that would speak to if Trump was the cause.

You start by learning that impeachment is not a criminal trial. It is different than a criminal trial. Read the constitution.

 

[Windwalker]

There is no need for an investigation. These events occurred in plain sight.

Exactly. To quibble about these things is a weak distraction from the 600 lb. orange Gorilla behind the failed coup attempt. Everything said leading up to it, was a tacit call to arms. Mincing words, attempting to make them "safe" is meaningless when the entire context of that rally, the fact of that rally itself, and everything leading up to it had one simple goal. Overturn the election results. That the mob stormed the Capitol violently, is more than easily connected to the ring leaders of this insurrection.

Everyone, including all the major businesses of this country, clearly recognized the seditious actions of this Authoritarian and his deranged cadre of insurrectionists. I just saw this today as an announcement from Forbes: Forbes editor warns companies that might hire Trump press secretaries: Magazine will assume everything they say is a lie

Businesses that choose to hire Trump spokespeople will, the editor said, be held to close scrutiny.

"Forbes will assume that everything your company or firm talks about is a lie," the magazine's editor, Randall Lane, wrote. "We're going to scrutinize, double-check, investigate with the same skepticism we'd approach a Trump tweet."

In the article titled "A Truth Reckoning: Why We're Holding Those Who Lied For Trump Accountable," Lane reflected on the lies that spurred rioters to ransack the US Capitol.

The easiest way for American democracy to recover from the insurrection, he wrote, is to "create repercussions for those who don't follow the civic norms."

In the Forbes article, Lane called out by name Trump's press secretaries Sean Spicer, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Stephanie Grisham, and Kayleigh McEnany as well as Trump's former White House counselor, Kellyanne Conway, a group to which he referred as "Trump's fellow fabulists."
​

Was it a rush to impeach? Did we misunderstand everything? Apparently no one else is questioning that, but those who are trying to cover their asses.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is more of a post to challenge those who believe that Trump should be impeached.

My position is not that Trump should be impeached. I believe he should only be impeached pending the outcome of an inquiry or investigation into the incident. It seems that many accept the interpretation that Trump caused the riots and they do so without question. But I see that there is room to question.

Here are some reasons:

- First, Trump used words like "fight like Hell". That can be taken both literally and non-literally. How do we know which sense he intended if we don't look into his intent? Plenty of politicians from both sides have used similar language, but then we don't impeach them nor automatically suggest that they are inciting or trying to incite violence. Also should Trump be blamed if he intended it to be non-literal but some protestors took it to be literal? That's certainly possible given the fact that not all protestors entered the US Capitol.
- There is growing evidence that the attack on the US Capitol was planned. If the attack was planned before Trump's rally then some of these pro-Trump protestors already had it in their mind to attack before listening to Trump's speech. Perhaps we can investigate if Trump played a role in that planning. We should know that before trying to impeach him.
- Another point that was brought up mostly by Democrats is that Trump did nothing to stop the attack. That should also be investigated. Trump released a video during the attack calling for protestors to stop their attack and leave. Perhaps he could've done more, Perhaps the FBI and US Capitol police could've done more given the fact they had some information on threats prior to the attack.

This impeachment was simply a rush to conclusions.

It wasn't just an attack. The attackers behaved like malicious animals. An attack would be relatively nicer. This was not a sucker punch. They didn't even have any complaint. They went without any demands to make, to smash up the place, torment the police, submit the police to flash bombs, to destroy, to maim, to kill. Trump was behind it, and it had to be impugned. 10 flipped Republicans attests to this.

 

[Orbit]

Sure, we all saw some events, but then we all may have different interpretations. You and I may have differing opinions, so how do we determine which one is correct? In a criminal case involving inciting violence, intent plays a role. How do you know intent without investigating it? How do you know if the events were planned before Trump's speech without investigating it? If so, that would speak to if Trump was the cause.

How do you interpret a MAGA seditionist beating a Capitol police officer to death with a fire extinguisher?

 

[AgnosticGuy]

You start by learning that impeachment is not a criminal trial. It is different than a criminal trial. Read the constitution.

Sure, it's not a criminal trial technically, but an inquiry into impeachment can occur to determine if allegations are true or merit impeachment. To not do such is just a jump to conclusions, and that's true whether or not a trial or vetting is not required under the Constitution. However, it's not against the Constitution to wait until AFTER a criminal investigation which is what Congress was waiting for when they were considering impeaching Trump for colluding with Russia. We all know the result of that investigation and so the impeachment never took place.

The Senate process is like a trial in that you hear evidence for and against. That's more reasonable than just jumping to conclusions.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

How do you interpret a MAGA seditionist beating a Capitol police officer to death with a fire extinguisher?

The question is if Trump caused it. To not even be willing to consider if there's evidence that he did NOT cause it is troubling. It shows some close-mindedness. Anything should be open for debate or inquiry.

 

[Windwalker]

The Senate process is like a trial in that you hear evidence for and against. That's more reasonable than just jumping to conclusions.

There is no jumping to conclusions. We all heard and saw what was said and what happened, and everything leading up to it. Everyone, from Congress to Business leaders, to bank lenders, to every non-Trumpian watching the events unfold, saw the same thing.

Trump is losing all but the minority who believe in him, even if he shoots someone in the face on 5th Avenue, as he used to boast. Now, take that and go all the way down to inciting a mob to storm the Capitol and attempt to murder the Vice President and members of Congress. Yet, they still believe in him... as he knew they would, and manipulated them into a violent, murderous insurrection. And they still defend him. That is the power of a cult. That is cognitive dissonance, on steroids.

 

[Orbit]

The question is if Trump caused it. To not even be willing to consider if there's evidence that he did NOT cause it is troubling. It shows some close-mindedness. Anything should be open for debate or inquiry.

It is blindingly obvious that Trump's speech was incitement to riot and sedition.

ETA: "It was the final command of the party that you ignore the evidence before your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." --1984, George Orwell

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This nonsense of "oh he didn't mean that, this word doesn't mean what it means, he wasn't serious," that has been proven wrong again and again. It is pathetic. Like when he wanted less covid testing and did say wasn't joking. Or after he thanked insurrectionists for "fighting like hell" and declared to the world they are special.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I just saw this today as an announcement from Forbes: Forbes editor warns companies that might hire Trump press secretaries: Magazine will assume everything they say is a lie

Sweet!

 

[Audie]

This is more of a post to challenge those who believe that Trump should be impeached.

My position is not that Trump should be impeached. I believe he should only be impeached pending the outcome of an inquiry or investigation into the incident. It seems that many accept the interpretation that Trump caused the riots and they do so without question. But I see that there is room to question.

Here are some reasons:

- First, Trump used words like "fight like Hell". That can be taken both literally and non-literally. How do we know which sense he intended if we don't look into his intent? Plenty of politicians from both sides have used similar language, but then we don't impeach them nor automatically suggest that they are inciting or trying to incite violence. Also should Trump be blamed if he intended it to be non-literal but some protestors took it to be literal? That's certainly possible given the fact that not all protestors entered the US Capitol.
- There is growing evidence that the attack on the US Capitol was planned. If the attack was planned before Trump's rally then some of these pro-Trump protestors already had it in their mind to attack before listening to Trump's speech. Perhaps we can investigate if Trump played a role in that planning. We should know that before trying to impeach him.
- Another point that was brought up mostly by Democrats is that Trump did nothing to stop the attack. That should also be investigated. Trump released a video during the attack calling for protestors to stop their attack and leave. Perhaps he could've done more, Perhaps the FBI and US Capitol police could've done more given the fact they had some information on threats prior to the attack.

This impeachment was simply a rush to conclusions.

Didn't the headline read, " the impeachment begins " the day he was inaugurated?

 

[AgnosticGuy]

There is no jumping to conclusions. We all heard and saw what was said and what happened, and everything leading up to it. Everyone, from Congress to Business leaders, to bank lenders, to every non-Trumpian watching the events unfold, saw the same thing.

It is a jump to conclusions when you are unwilling to consider evidence for and against. Watching the events of that day does not tell me about Trump's intent. It does not tell me if this attack was planned before Trump's speech.

I also find this to be a double standard because many in the left have used similar language but yet we don't accuse them of trying to incite violence.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

The logic in my post is pretty simple. It wasn't meant to be partisan as I clearly said I am not against the impeachment but rather I'm against the process of doing it by jumping to conclusions.

If you go through an impeachment without considering evidence for and against your position, then it is a jump to conclusions.

 

[Windwalker]

This nonsense of "oh he didn't mean that, this word doesn't mean what it means, he wasn't serious," that has been proven wrong again and again. It is pathetic. Like when he wanted less covid testing and did say wasn't joking. Or after he thanked insurrectionists for "fighting like hell" and declared to the world they are special.

It's gaslighting when telling someone, "he was only joking" to some serious comment, insult, or injury. Gaslighting is when you try to make people doubt what they clearly saw and heard. It preys about your good will to manipulate you into not holding them to account. I think after 4 years of it, most people are not willing to go there with him anymore. The tides appear to have finally turned.