democrats are such hypocrites

This Just In: There is no crime for which a President can be impeached, according to Trump Supporters.

Just taking a gander at your meme here. Oh, it's critical of the Democratic Initiative to Impeach Trump. Then, we can look back to the 2018 impeachment. Apparently, getting a B.J. in the white house and lying about your sexual affairs is ground for impeachment. But soliciting aid from another country is not. Obstructing justice is not. (That's what they pinned on Clinton.)

Regarding the speeches of the alleged voter fraud at his rally, we know he was talking about issues that haven't yet been proven in a court of law as of yet. He portrayed his allegations to be factual, further fomenting the unrest in his rally. This resulted in the incitement of social discourse and civil unrest leading to a riot upon the very building where our government is housed. Now, it is true that Trump didn't pull the trigger. In an analogy, he simply loaded the gun and handed it to his rally and expected them to behave themselves after reminding them for nearly two hours about why they're mad.

One could argue by saying "Let's walk to the Capitol" is as suggestive as one can get before outwardly saying "Let's march on the Capitol." If it was intended to be a walk, why didn't he go with them? I'll answer for you. He knew what was going to happen. He knew if he was there, he'd have to stand there and tell them to stop - losing his fanatic base. If he stood by and did nothing, he'd be a direct accessory to crime. If he egged them on, he would be just as guilty. Instead, he met with his allies and watch the events unfold. Reportedly, he was confused why other people weren't excited about the result that happened.

Only three hours after the violence began, did he release any statement suggesting that the violence should stop - telling them to go home in peace. Which, they didn't. The trigger had been pulled and people stayed past curfew.

That makes less sense than The Rise of Skywalker.

Love it! (The roast, not the movie.)

If your only takeaway from what I wrote is that my assertion of Trump's part in what happened is that he didn't walk, then you're not paying attention or willing to look at the facts of what happened. I am very clear on making the distinctions between fact, assertion, and conjecture. What you're citing is my conjecture of why he didn't walk. It's entirely because the man is out of shape and has trouble walking. I will concede that there are numerous potential reasons.

That’s not all I took away. That was just all I was going to reply to. And notice I didn’t say anywhere that you said that. I’m addressing that argument. Not you.

But anyone who seriously thinks that is an idiot.

I think our terms of taking a theory seriously could be different. Simply entertaining the idea as a possibility not taking it seriously. It' is considering possible motive. Seriously considering it is claiming it as factual, which I never did. I did say "One could argue..." denoting that it is a possibility.

Your meme suggests that it was that it was indeed my argument as you stated in your meme "you." You also suggest was the sole reason for my argument or at least the main argument as you used the operative word "just."

I recognize you never called me an idiot, but I felt the need to clear the air so that there is no confusion.

If Kamala Harris aided and abetted rioting by (raising money to) bail rioters out of jail in order that they could go back to the riots, will you support her impeachment as well? and all the other dem politicians that encouraged the protests that then became violent?

In practice yes, but I am 100% sure it is more nuanced than what you're suggesting. So, you would need to provide further context to what you're discussing.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/07/28-times-media-and-democrats-excused-or-endorsed-violence-committed-by-left-wing-activists/?fbclid=IwAR04dhCuYXrdqhoqGlJharvr_9zdXbif_l3vqyQ4g2HXkx9O-rxBVF_lbOs

Mind you, I am taking a very neutral, objective approach to this

1.) The image preceding number 1 in the article can be a bit misleading as it suggests (if you're not paying attention) that Kamela wants to post bail for those engaged in the image above: the burning on the capitol building. Also, the language is very nuanced as the claim in #1 states: provided bail money to the militant anarchists facing charges for setting fire to Minneapolis. Where the tweet depicted clearly talks about protesters, not rioters. Per our constitutional law, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. There is nothing illegal in posting bail money. It follows that posting bail for suspects is not the crime "aiding and abetting." Why? Because the bail money goes to the city. Money that can be used for repairs. So I find #1 a bit... I don't see issue with it. If you have a bias, I could understand your issue.

#2 Cuomo says "Where does it say that protesters are supposed to be polite, and peaceful? While depicting images of peaceful protesters, some yelling. Again, this is nuanced politics. You can still be non-violent protester and still not be aggressive. You cannot be aggressive and peaceful at the same time. What he is suggesting by pairing "polite and peaceful" he is asking "why do protesters have to be calm and quiet? They're allowed to be angry." He is not suggesting that protesters are allowed to by physically violent.

I notice that there are 26 more points to go. While exhaustive, I could go through each of them and that would take a considerable amount of time.

At this point, I am willing to assume that other such points are the same in their nuanced perspective. I find the article questionable and misleading.

Are there any points you would like me to address specifically?

Beyond that I've refuted your claim as to the notion that Kamela Harris "aided and abetted" through means of legal precedence and definitions.

Thank you.. I'm reading it now...

"soliciting aid from another country is not"

What the hell are you talking about owmb?

And where is your proof that Trump obstructed justice? Did it ever occur to your mustard seed sized brain, that if he had obstructed justice, there would be some proof?

And btw, Clinton was impeached for not only lying, but trying to get others to lie for him. I don't agree that he should have been impeached over what he did, but in the blessed name of Elvis, if you don't start getting your facts straight, there's no reason for anyone to take you seriously.

Regarding the proof in a court of law, none of the cases got to the evidentiary stage. Most were dismissed on non-related grounds... particularly in PA, where the suits were dismissed based on the fine legal point of "you're bringing this up too late". That sure spells confidence in our elections.

You weave a fine tale of how Trump 'fomented' unrest, but that's a far cry from insurrection. Besides the people were already not at rest. It didn't take Trump for them to know that something was likely up with the election (allegedly...)

What about Nadler prompting Clinton to commute the sentences of the M19 terrorists that blew up the capitol in 1983? Come on owmb, if your side is going to get your panties in a bunch over what happened on 1/6/21, you should at least be consistent. Of course, consistency and actually having a moral compass is not your strong suit. You're much better at fake moral outrage, when it suits your current purposes.

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Donald J. Trump, 1/6/21

1/And where is your proof that Trump obstructed justice? Did it ever occur to your mustard seed sized brain, that if he had obstructed justice, there would be some proof?
- The notion that he blocked every subpoena made by the House of Representatives.

And btw, Clinton was impeached for not only lying, but trying to get others to lie for him. I don't agree that he should have been impeached over what he did, but in the blessed name of Elvis, if you don't start getting your facts straight, there's no reason for anyone to take you seriously.
- So, I left out the facts regarding him asking others to lie for him. That's not a case of "not having your facts straight" that's simply an omission. There *is* a difference, albeit a very nuanced one. That said, are you alleging Trump never had anyone lie for him?

Regarding the proof in a court of law, none of the cases got to the evidentiary stage. Most were dismissed on non-related grounds... particularly in PA, where the suits were dismissed based on the fine legal point of "you're bringing this up too late". That sure spells confidence in our elections.
- Indeed, if you do not raise the concerns that you have and employ the "wait and see" method of bringing your complaint when you could have brought it up sooner, that shows a bad faith accusation. I don't even know really what you're specifically referring to. It's the same argument as women who were protesting Kavanaugh's hearing. The same argument was made "you're bringing this up too late." Are you suggesting that we apply a double standard to our statutes of limitations and all laws relating to that concept?

You weave a fine tale of how Trump 'fomented' unrest, but that's a far cry from insurrection. Besides the people were already not at rest. It didn't take Trump for them to know that something was likely up with the election (allegedly...)
- Then perhaps he should have taken a more peaceful tone. Messages of calm and peace. No, instead he asserted his claims as factual when as I have stated, it hasn't been proven. In my parallel, are you suggesting that a man who sells a loaded gun to a very angry and potentially disturbed man is not liable for his action? Of course the vendor did not pull the trigger. He simply enabled them. Only after the violence did he call for peace. Only after the message was sent. That would be my case if I were to prosecute him. However, I recognize your argument and understand what you're saying. If I were in your shoes I would

1. What did he do that was outside the law? Both sides pulled every legal maneuver they could to make their case. Your side lost. Just as my side lost the election, and I accept that, you should accept the fact that your side lost the impeachment.

2. Yes, it is. Just as a lie of omission is still a lie, a factual omission (and I believe it was intentional... unless you're truly ignorant, which I doubt you are...) is not having your facts straight. Get them straight, or people won't take you seriously. Based on every interaction I've had with you, I think they should not.

Regarding Trump and people lying for him, I can't say that he hasn't done that. But without proof, I'm sort of stuck on that crazy ol' American concept of innocent until proven guilty. You do recall that, I hope? And if he did it, I'm going to say that it was far more likely to have happened *before* he became president. I could be wrong, but I don't believe he can be impeached for that.

3. Whoa, when you miss a point, you really miss it. Or maybe it's just that you attempt to make comparisons between apples and dump trucks? How in the world you can compare unconstitutional voting rule changes rammed through the same year as an election, with the Kavanaugh case, in which some twenty years (was it more or less, I don't recall... probably more) had passed, just proves that the liberal mind will go to any extremes to justify its crazy ass thinking.

4. Perhaps he should have. That's a judgment call. Or, perhaps it would have been better if he had not spoken at all? That's the beauty of 20/20 hindsight. Although I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to grasp the obvious, which is that that crowd was not happy to start with.

Plus, the Capitol police had requested that the National Guard be put on standby, but as I understand it, that request was refused. Whose fault is that? Go ahead, blame Trump. You blame him for everything else that's not his fault, so no need to change that tactic now.

Don't give me this "only after..." crap, because that's not true. You've ignored my Trump quote, and I'm sure you'll ignore it again.

And the selling of the loaded gun analogy is just another extreme comparison that is not in any way equivalent. It's amazing how the liberal mind cannot operate logically...

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Donald J. Trump, 1/6/21

Okay, it doesn't change what happens.
In parallel:
Trump loads gun // Get's them riled up talking about strength in his base, weakness in the capitol. Talks about taking the country back. Talking about how people are going to have a bad day.
Trump gives gun to angry, lunatic buyer. // Let's go protest and walk to the capitol.
Trump winks saying don't kill anyone. // "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." *wink* *wink*

Wondering now how deep this goes since someone in the FBI's custody admits to having 3 legislators on the inside feeding them information.

2/make the same argument. I am unsure if I have said "No, he wasn't trying to tell them to assault the Capitol." So I will confirm that here. It is clear in what he said, that at no point did he tell them to do what they do. But that is not what it means to incite violence.

Let me make my case plain:
Donald Trump fails the Brandenburg test. That being:
"The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

Citing his transcript of his rally: https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/7Nw_aFgSCwkywakGftVXzVw6NTJEvtBTeS6rNigOo221hgTCjvDEnf_zvai7Hv5hmGYuImOca6TjcP2GuV0K1i_9pOY?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=164.39

04:39 "You do not concede when there is* theft involved. [Donald Trump is asserting this as fact when it has not been proven in a court of law. Suggesting that one is to continue to fight against the ruling. Standalone, this is a fine statement. Continue your legal options. The issue is how he sets the stage that this is fact, when it isn't at least not legally.]

04:42 "Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore." [Here, he is suggesting that "we" will not accept the rulings anymore. He is done with judges.]

04:42-6:08 His evidence does not represent that you won. Only that there was a higher turn out.

07:11 Fight for Trump. [Uhm, guys, what do you mean by fighting? You do mean support, right?]

09:49 Using fear tactics, appeals to extremes. In so doing, placing urgency in the need to act. "Fight for Trump?" Then you put fear in them? Not a good mix.

11:25 "our country will be destroyed." Coupling this with "we're going to save our nation." "Fight for Trump." I could form a loose case on this.. Let me get to the point, I've listened to his whole speech, but I am not going to analyze every word he says - though I could.

13:45 I ask "Is Nationalism Extremism?" as he cites "America First" I give you https://www.sv.uio.no/c-rex/english/groups/compendium/what-is-nationalism.html See also: Cultural Nationalism.

14:39 So long as a ballot is post marked before election day, it is still a legal vote. Any government agency will tell you so that as you have a deadline, even if it doesn't come in on time, it can still be accepted once it is delivered to the US Governmental custody vis a vis post mark.

16:25 "Press is the enemy of the people." You cannot attack the press in this manner, it is unconstitutional. If you imply that the constitution is being

3/ sabotaged against the decision of the judges, the Senate and the House, what other recourse would people have to take action? If you insist, factually, that your government has completely to function within a constitutional manner, what course of action remains? Sit down and accept the loss? Or, are you going to fight? Pretty sure I heard them calling to fight.

16:25 Sure, he puts emphasis on "cheer." Understandably. So let's ask the why. Why would you put emphasis on cheer? Liability. You know -exactly- what you're doing. CYA. He later concludes this train of thought with "We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong." He is implying this obviously to the senators. These are our leaders - people we look up to (regardless of party) and follow. Since we follow them, we want to follow their examples. Given the two actions, which is stronger, which is weaker? Standing and yelling and protesting? Or assaulting the capitol? Maybe he should have said "Our leaders will stay strong by following the law."

As I said, I could go on.

Just look at the Brandenburg test:
The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

Other noteable quotes: "Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans for our movement, for our children and for our beloved country and I say this, despite all that's happened, the best is yet to come." If you have exerted all legal options, what's left?

"So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we're going to the Capitol and we're going to try and give... The Democrats are hopeless. They're never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don't need any of our help, we're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country."

Typically ignorant, hell, even incredibly stupid comment, owmb.

When you say things like this, it again proves that nobody should take you seriously.

How can a comment be incredibly stupid, and ignorant when it isn't meant to be taken seriously? Perhaps, you were the one in ignorance?

Let me ask you:
Are you unfamiliar with satire? I would hope you wouldn't take it seriously.

So, you're now attempting to claim that this statement was not meant to be taken seriously?

"This Just In: There is no crime for which a President can be impeached, according to Trump Supporters."

Given your very clear political beliefs, and your clear distaste for Trump and his supporters, if you post that as a standalone statement, then try to claim that it's not meant to be taken seriously, it more than proves my point that nothing you say can be taken seriously.

It is an absolution statement.
Absolution is a logical fallacy.
My favorite thing is to point out logical fallacy.
Satire: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
If people want to take a stand alone statement seriously, let them. If they want to meme back, let them. I'll meme right back. If you want to engage in serious discussion, do so.
I don't deny it is a provocative statement.
I do acknowledge that Republicans believe there are grounds for impeachment. Just look at Obama's legacy, Clinton Legacy. Numerous impeachment attempts.
The statement in itself, after a quick look at history is self-defeating.
Do you satirical humor as trolling?

It's funny that you mention this. Because one person may mean one thing, doesn't mean that it's what they're actually saying.

Like Trump.

:o

Come on yolo. At least pretend to have some consistency in what you believe and who you listen to.

Come on Elvis. At least pretend to have some consistency in what you believe and who you listen to.

Chris Christie
Mike Pence
McConnell
Liz Cheney
Adam Kinzinger

Plenty of room in the ocean for more little swimming RINOs.

;P

Regardless of political alignment, the continual waste of tax dollars on this crap should be enough BS that no one should support it. Let the man leave office, and then pursue legal action if you want through private enterprise but don't waste my money on a principal that half the country doesn't support. It's a straight insult and waste that will do absolutely no good at all by law.