Trump is an insurrectionist

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 335
#301
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Impeachment is again, an inherently political process. It doesn't address criminality at all
Except for the "high crimes" and "conviction" part.
Criminal trials address whether and to what extent the individual charged can enjoy his or her freedom.
Or be fined, or own a gun, or hold other positions which are conviction restricted.


Just because you can point to a word that is used in both doesn't mean they are the same thing.
Just because you use the phrase "criminality at all" doesn't mean you're addressing all shades of meaning of "criminality"... oh wait that's exactly what it means.


Also, Impeachment was already in the constitution when the 14th amendment was written. If that was the official way to deal with this issue there would have been no need for it.
Except the impeachment clause is for POTUS and the 14th amendment disqualification is for senators, congressmen, electors, and rando bureaucrats....
The difference has nothing to do with who it's for. Impeachment is a process by which an office holder is removed from that office for their conduct.
You're confusing contexts. Full context restored above.

You implied that there would have been no need for the 14th amendment if the impeachment clause was a sufficient check on POTUS. This does not follow because the 14th amendment was not written to check POTUS and that is in fact only one of many applications and one of the few with reasonable doubt as to its constitutionality.

This is very clear (as GP laid out): The 14th amendment is one thing. The impeachment clause is another.

The 14th amendment provides constitutional justification for congress to create a crime which removes people from office. That could not have been normal legislation because normal legislation can't contradict the constitution.

The impeachment clause is the only way to remove a president for high crimes and misdemeanors, and it has been reasonably argued that it is a prerequisite for any charge against POTUS (or anyone else the impeachment clause applies to) where the accused claims to have been engaged in official acts (and when won't they claim that?).

The only reason these two things are interacting is because people are claiming that they can use the 14th amendment based on actions which an impeachable person claims were official duties.

You need impeachment to convict an impeachable person for purportedly official actions. You need a conviction (and a law) to trigger the 14th amendment's removal clause. Thus you need an impeachment, a conviction, and a law about insurrection to remove an impeachable person for insurrection where the so called insurrection is claimed to be official duty.


You cannot impeach someone who is not in office.
You can't impeach someone for things they didn't do in office. There is no clause precluding the impeachment for actions taken in office after the term ends nor would it make sense for such a rule to exist, otherwise an impeachable person could merely cram all of their high crimes and misdemeanors in the last day so there would not be time to hold a trial.


If Trump engaged in insurrection after he left office
Correct, because after he is out of office there can be no claim of official acts.


The legal bar is far higher and for good reason.
That is a theory, one with no constitutional merit.
#302
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Trump had not been found guilty in a legal proceeding then his conduct is essentially irrelevant to whether he should be considered by us to be disqualified from holding public office.
And as ADOL said, if this is truly the case, then ADOL can simply declare any Democrat as unfit to run for any political office. At will. Since when did the radical far-left become the now prevalent party of anarchy? This is what TDS does to people. TDS turns rational people into anarchist prigs.

You cannot impeach someone who is not in office.
Well you better inform the 2020 Congress that they cannot do what they actually did on Feb 13.....
#303
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
China has long been pushing to have its currency replace the dollar, but it's getting momentum now for a couple of possible reasons:
There is only one reason: Bidenomics.

The real issue is the U.S. government's increasing use of the dollar as a tool for financial sanctions.

The dollar is so powerful, if you can't use it, you are essentially iced out of being able to do most business anywhere in the world.
The U.S. has used this as a nonviolent way to put pressure on countries: North Korea, Iran and most recently Russia. After the invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. said, 'No dollar for you!'

Steil says the economic impacts of those sanctions have been massive and other countries have noticed.
"Sanctions are an effective tool, but we have to be careful," he says. "It's like over-prescribing an effective antibiotic. It encourages the development of new strains of bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotic."

If you are a country that has a complicated relationship with the U.S., watching the effect of American financial sanctions on Russia is scary. It's been enough to push China, Saudi Arabia and others to make deals that get around the dollar, trying to chip away at its power. With so much global turmoil, China and others have started to see a possible opening to grab that top spot – or at least start to chip away at the U.S. dollar's dominance.

As Russia and China continue to post strong growth numbers despite the sanctions, the US dollar is the real casualty with Biden's Donbas proxy war.


#304
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So when they said Donald Trump was guilty of a crime, that was inciting violence against the government?
No. Because as I have laid out repeatedly in this thread and as you have repeatedly ignored throughout this thread... You have to look at the full picture. 1 does not equal 3. Neither does 1 plus 1. You have to take all three 1's into account if you want to legitimately assess whether you have 3.

So when you look at the other examples, did these individuals charge an allegation for which there was no other remedy? Did they call for people to meet in a certain place? Did they imply (in totality) that they were for violence as a remedy? Did they provide the target for their violence? Did anyone actually commit violence in their name as a result of the above?

Assess the entire picture, when you have a picture that shows incitement by the same standards I've been explaining for weeks now, I will grab the pitchfork and torch along side you.

And no, this doesn't work by piecemeal. You don't get to charge "the democratic establishment" or even worse "the left" with incitement. You need to point to an individual or a coordinated group. That's how it works.
#305
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
As much as you guys insult the intelligence of Trump supporters, it's a real head-scratcher that you also consider the same people to be masters of nuance and are motivated by someone or something  other than the primal base motivations of poverty and loss of both liberty and security.
No one is claiming the "masters of nuance" are motivated by anything other than base primal instincts. The difference between intelligent people vs those who are unintelligent is an ability to assess what exactly are the threats to those base motivations, and how do we go about achieving the things we say we want.

This is where Trump supporters fascinate me. I've never seen a more blatantly obvious con in my life, but they love it, follow it off the cliff, and deny there ever was a cliff even as they are plummeting to the bottom of it.
#306
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
I've never seen a more blatantly obvious con in my life, but they love it, follow it off the cliff, and deny there ever was a cliff even as they are plummeting to the bottom of it.
That was before Bidenomics.
#307
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
Bandy X. Lee, a forensic psychiatrist and president of the World Mental Health Coalition says:
What attracts people to Trump? What is their animus or driving force?
The reasons are multiple and varied, but in my recent public-service book, Profile of a Nation, I have outlined two major emotional drives: narcissistic symbiosis and shared psychosis. Narcissistic symbiosis refers to the developmental wounds that make the leader-follower relationship magnetically attractive. The leader, hungry for adulation to compensate for an inner lack of self-worth, projects grandiose omnipotence—while the followers, rendered needy by societal stress or developmental injury, yearn for a parental figure. When such wounded individuals are given positions of power, they arouse similar pathology in the population that creates a “lock and key” relationship.
“Shared psychosis”—which is also called “folie à millions” [“madness for millions”] when occurring at the national level or “induced delusions”—refers to the infectiousness of severe symptoms that goes beyond ordinary group psychology. When a highly symptomatic individual is placed in an influential position, the person’s symptoms can spread through the population through emotional bonds, heightening existing pathologies and inducing delusions, paranoia and propensity for violence—even in previously healthy individuals. The treatment is removal of exposure.
#308
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Too bad Maga will be around long  after Trump is gone. Removal of 100 million people might be problematic.
#309
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot

It's actually 33 million and I don't find it very reassuring that 1/15th of the 220,000,000+ eligible voters in the US - 33 million people - think violence against the government is OK.
#310
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@FLRW
It's actually 33 million and I don't find it very reassuring that 1/15th of the 220,000,000+ eligible voters in the US - 33 million people - think violence against the government is OK.
I don't find it reassuring if that few think violence against the government can be justified.

#311
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well said.
#312
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Just because you use the phrase "criminality at all" doesn't mean you're addressing all shades of meaning of "criminality"... oh wait that's exactly what it means.
Impeachment doesn't address criminality at all because it is a purely political process. The fact that the allegations being put on trial can also be criminal is irrelevant to that fact.

Being convicted in a Senate impeachment trial does not make you a criminal in any sense of the word.

The legal bar is far higher and for good reason.
That is a theory, one with no constitutional merit.
It's common sense. When you're deciding whether one should be able to enjoy their most basic constitutional freedom, you need an extremely high bar proving wrongdoing to take it away. When you're trying to decide if an individual should be able to control the nuclear codes, not only does the bar proving wrongdoing not need to be anywhere near as high, but the burden of proof shifts onto them as well.



#313
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Being convicted in a Senate impeachment trial does not make you a criminal in any sense of the word.
It most certainly does. Removal from office is the punishment for a convicted crime.

It's common sense.
Apparently not. There are no appeals and the punishment is immediate and irreversible. Nowhere in the judicial system exists such a severe penalty with no hope of reprieve. Impeachment is the highest bar in our entire legal system of holding crime accountable. 
#314
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump had not been found guilty in a legal proceeding then his conduct is essentially irrelevant to whether he should be considered by us to be disqualified from holding public office.
And as ADOL said, if this is truly the case, then ADOL can simply declare any Democrat as unfit to run for any political office. At will.
Yeah, that's called being a voter.

Whether you decide to apply common sense, like the notion that a lack of conviction in a criminal trial should not be enough to earn your trust, is entirely up to you.

You cannot impeach someone who is not in office.
Well you better inform the 2020 Congress that they cannot do what they actually did on Feb 13.....
They impeached him while he was still in office. The trial is what took place afterward, which my position is that it's constitutional because the trial is a continuation of that process.

But whatever, you and ADOL seem to be going even further than I am here, someone go tell ILikePie5.
#315
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Yeah, that's called being a voter.
Okay, so now you are backpedaling hard on section 3. Welcome to the world of common sense.
#316
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Being convicted in a Senate impeachment trial does not make you a criminal in any sense of the word.
It most certainly does. Removal from office is the punishment for a convicted crime.
No, it's not. A crime is a violation of the law. You do not need to violate the law to be impeached and convicted.

A person can be convicted in an impeachment trial for violating the law, but that's irrelevant because that is not what the trial is set up to determine. As it is famously said, high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever Congress says it means.

There are no appeals and the punishment is immediate and irreversible. Nowhere in the judicial system has such a severe penalty with no hope of reprieve.
The penalty is that one loses the privilege of making huge decisions that will shape our society. That penalty does not compare to the penalty of losing your freedom or in some cases, being put to death.

The fact that there is no appeals process or hope of reprieve only further makes my point. Unlike politics, the rule of law can be misapplied. That's why we have these systems, to ensure the integrity of it.

Impeachment is the highest bar in our entire legal system of holding crime accountable. 
Complete nonsense. Conviction only requires a two thirds majority. Conviction in a criminal trial requires a unanimous verdict.

And if you really want to keep going down this path, there is a reason Trump's double Jeopardy claim was tossed out without argument, because it was absurd. It is not a legal process.
#317
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, that's called being a voter.
Okay, so now you are backpedaling hard on section 3. 
WTF?

This conversation is about the difference between a political trial vs a criminal trial. Sec 3 has nothing to do with that debate.

Voters can decide whatever they want. Application of the law has rules. Entirely different things.
#318
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
 As it is famously said, high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever Congress says it means.
Lol, you always have to fall back on your "context" when cornered. Of course it's whatever Congress says. Congress creates criminal law. Think of impeachment as having Zeus himself on Olympus actually convicting you instead of sending a servant to punish you. It's the highest form of dealing with a crime.

Unlike politics, the rule of law can be misapplied.
What a nonsense statement. No sane person would claim "politics" can't be misapplied. The fact that there is no check on impeachment by definition makes it De-Facto the highest form of criminal prosecution and punishment.

#319
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, you always have to fall back on your "context" when cornered.
These aren't fall backs, they are facts. Sorry, I know it's frustrating when you don't know what you're talking about.

The fact that high crimes and misdemeanors was never defined tells you everything you need to know. No criminal law is anywhere near that vague, because criminality is not up to the whims of 2/3rds of an inherently politically motivated group.

Of course it's whatever Congress says. Congress creates criminal law.
Yes, they create laws beforehand, and the only way to be a criminal is to violate those laws once they have already been written. An office holder can be impeached for anything. Unlike the rule of law, Congress has full constitutional reign to decide after the fact that your conduct is not acceptable.
#320
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
What a nonsense statement. No sane person would claim "politics" can't be misapplied.
To be misapplied is to be used the wrong way.

To be used the wrong way implies that there is a right way.

Politics is inherently about opposing sides determining what the right way is.

Politics is therefore definitionally excluded from misapplication (in a broad sense).
#321
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Fine, then by your definition, Impeachment is the ultimate and final judge of right and wrong. Case closed.
#322
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
When you're deciding whether one should be able to enjoy their most basic constitutional freedom, you need an extremely high bar proving wrongdoing to take it away.
but the right to vote is lesser?


Trump had not been found guilty in a legal proceeding then his conduct is essentially irrelevant to whether he should be considered by us to be disqualified from holding public office.
And as ADOL said, if this is truly the case, then ADOL can simply declare any Democrat as unfit to run for any political office. At will.
Yeah, that's called being a voter.
No, a voter decides what his vote will be. Not what other people's votes will be.

This is the same mistake you people make about taxes and the consent of the governed.


As it is famously said, high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever Congress says it means.
The law is also whatever congress says it is.


because criminality is not up to the whims of 2/3rds of an inherently politically motivated group.
Of course it is? Who do you think votes the laws into existence?


Congress has full constitutional reign to decide after the fact that your conduct is not acceptable.
That is a theory, one without constitutional merit. If they had wanted congress to be able to remove at will there was no need to say "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors".

Did they expect that there would be no laws against treason or bribery? Of course not. They were writing a mechanism to convict people entrusted by the constitution with authority for these crimes. This implies immunity for if there was no immunity (from conventional charging) then you wouldn't need impeachment. However you would have the absurd condition that people hold office from inside jail cells and every time a small town gets upset they trump up charges against the highest offices in the land.
#323
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No, a voter decides what his vote will be. Not what other people's votes will be.
I never suggested anything about deciding other people's votes for them.

This is the same mistake you people make about taxes and the consent of the governed.
And what mistake is that?

As it is famously said, high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever Congress says it means.
The law is also whatever congress says it is.
Yes... Before the conduct takes place, which means the question of whether one's actions violate it is objective. That's how the law works. Politics is inherently subjective, so the trigger if we're talking about a political trial (impeachment) is whatever Congress says. These are two different things.

Congress has full constitutional reign to decide after the fact that your conduct is not acceptable.
That is a theory, one without constitutional merit. If they had wanted congress to be able to remove at will there was no need to say "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors".
And yet they can. Some republicans tried to pass articles of impeachment on Biden's literal first day on office. Again, if they intended for the qualifications to be so strict they would have used more than 8 words to define it.
#324
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
No, a voter decides what his vote will be. Not what other people's votes will be.
I never suggested anything about deciding other people's votes for them.
Review the context.


This is the same mistake you people make about taxes and the consent of the governed.
And what mistake is that?
Individual vs collective moral variables.

Not voting for someone is an individual choice. Preventing others from voting for him because you've decided he's an insurrectionist is not.


Congress has full constitutional reign to decide after the fact that your conduct is not acceptable.
That is a theory, one without constitutional merit. If they had wanted congress to be able to remove at will there was no need to say "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors".
And yet they can.
and I can blow them up if I had a tactical nuclear missile, wouldn't be very constitutional though.


Again, if they intended for the qualifications to be so strict they would have used more than 8 words to define it.
8 words are better than the zero words used to justify abortion being a right or the privacy of one's bedroom being a justification for anything that may happen there.


#325
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I never suggested anything about deciding other people's votes for them.
Review the context.
Just did, same result.

Not voting for someone is an individual choice. Preventing others from voting for him because you've decided he's an insurrectionist is not.
The people who decided no one should be able to vote for him are the framers of the 14th amendment

Again, if they intended for the qualifications to be so strict they would have used more than 8 words to define it.
8 words are better than the zero words used to justify abortion being a right or the privacy of one's bedroom being a justification for anything that may happen there.
And it's still 8 words.
#326
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
I never suggested anything about deciding other people's votes for them.
Review the context.
Just did, same result.
Unfortunate, this is basic English after all.


Not voting for someone is an individual choice. Preventing others from voting for him because you've decided he's an insurrectionist is not.
The people who decided no one should be able to vote for him are the framers of the 14th amendment
They died a long time ago. If they left it up for you to decide who is disqualified, then they left it up to me as well; and that means the document resolves nothing between us.


Again, if they intended for the qualifications to be so strict they would have used more than 8 words to define it.
8 words are better than the zero words used to justify abortion being a right or the privacy of one's bedroom being a justification for anything that may happen there.
And it's still 8 words.
That you can't erase.

#327
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Just did, same result.
Unfortunate, this is basic English after all.
Yeah, which is why it's so unfortunate you don't understand the points I've made.

The people who decided no one should be able to vote for him are the framers of the 14th amendment
They died a long time ago. If they left it up for you to decide who is disqualified, then they left it up to me as well; and that means the document resolves nothing between us.
It's not supposed to resolve anything between us, that's the point.

What the framers decided is that anyone who engages in insurrection or rebellion is disqualified from holding office again. That by definition means it's not up to the "American people" which we are both a part of.

What has to be determined is whether he did in fact engage in the conduct the 14th describes, that's a question of fact and law which takes individuals who have the qualifications in both the facts and the law to determine. 

That aside, we will both have our own opinions on the matter. One would think we would be able to come together to resolve those differences but we seem to be working with completely different operating systems when it comes to how we determine what the facts are and how we connect the dots. So if we are trying to resolve those differences then it's our operating systems themselves which the conversation should focus on, yet everytime I try you avoid that conversation. That's what I find most telling.
#328
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
It's not supposed to resolve anything between us, that's the point.
Then it's not a social contract. Which means it's a useless piece of paper.


What has to be determined is whether he did in fact engage in the conduct the 14th describes, that's a question of fact and law which takes individuals who have the qualifications in both the facts and the law to determine. 
and a law


yet everytime I try you avoid that conversation
If you're talking about your recitation of basic english intermixed by (and unrelated to) raw arbitrary assertions which would lead to absurdities if equally applied there is nothing to respond to. It's either obvious or mere assertion.

Context matters, but you uttering the phrase "context" as magic pass phrase that allows you to makeup whatever convoluted standard you want and to apply it only to one man and those who support him does not matter.
#329
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's not supposed to resolve anything between us, that's the point.
Then it's not a social contract. Which means it's a useless piece of paper.
We're talking about laws, not social contracts.

yet everytime I try you avoid that conversation
If you're talking about your recitation of basic english intermixed by (and unrelated to) raw arbitrary assertions which would lead to absurdities if equally applied there is nothing to respond to.
Exactly my point.

If you were being consistent and were confident that your views ultimately would hold up to rational scrutiny you would be itching to have these deeper conversations, but you aren't so you don't.
#330
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
We're talking about laws, not social contracts.
That would apply in the case of martial law, where the public does not agree with the law. Your dystopia keeps getting better and better the more you talk about your vision for the future.