-
PureDiablo has been given a makeover. Read about what's changed.
Election 2020
- Thread starter superdave
- Start date
I believe you are confusing quotes, and events, or perhaps trying to misrepresent something. Iirc, that was his supposed 'signal' to the Proud Boys, who vehemently denied any direct link to Trump, outside of supporting him as president.
I'll remind you of the pertinent quotes from the pertinent day.
So, now that we have that straight, please explain to me how telling people to "Go home in peace" many times over is incitement.
Or you could post your own clips, instead of just pulling things from the air, that would be cool...
Meanwhile, you could also explain your thought process on implying the use of drone strikes against citizens being something to just be brushed off so lightly. That would be cool too.
Last edited:
So you can provide examples then? More, and directly related to the actual event tied to his supposed 'incitement'?
I'm not the most keen to dwell on what Trump said when, so if you could post links, or better, video clips of these multiple incidents, that would help me understand your point much better. Then maybe we can move forward with the facts that are the basis of your opinion, since I assume facts are the basis of your opinion, not the reverse.
So you are awaiting that to provide you with facts to support your opinion? But in the meantime you express an opinion while devoid of facts. This is a dangerous road you are walking
But I am aware... and think it's ridiculous they intend to do so against someone who is no longer in office. Imagine, for a second, a country where the lawmaking body can censure a private citizen. Well, its happening, and I'm not liking how many people are totally fine with this concept. Terribly disturbed, would in fact be a more accurate term.
But I am aware... and think it's ridiculous they intend to do so against someone who is no longer in office. Imagine, for a second, a country where the lawmaking body can censure a private citizen. Well, its happening, and I'm not liking how many people are totally fine with this concept. Terribly disturbed, would in fact be a more accurate term.
No. In 3 days many of the things that I would spend hours typing out will be introduced in the Senate. I'm sure that many of them will be linked and discussed here.
Don't get your panties in a bunch.
To your second point. There were war trials for Nazi's after the end of the war. In fact there was one charged with several thousand counts of complicity to murder concentration camp victims just 2 days ago. War criminals and Ex Presidents don't deserve get out of jail free cards just because some time has elapsed.
Trump was CHARGED while he still held office. Just because a few weeks have passed doesn't mean the trial should be called off.
Article I, Section 2, grants the Senate “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” The word "all" here is very important. This clause contains no limitations or reservations. It doesn't say that the Senate has the power to try sitting officers. The Senate must try ALL Impeachments. Trump was legally impeached by the House. The Senate will try him. There is historical precedent for this. It has happened 3 times in the past. None were Presidents but that doesn't matter. There is only one impeachment process. There isn't a separate one for the President.
This will be a constitionally valid trial.
Don't get your panties in a bunch.
To your second point. There were war trials for Nazi's after the end of the war. In fact there was one charged with several thousand counts of complicity to murder concentration camp victims just 2 days ago. War criminals and Ex Presidents don't deserve get out of jail free cards just because some time has elapsed.
Trump was CHARGED while he still held office. Just because a few weeks have passed doesn't mean the trial should be called off.
Article I, Section 2, grants the Senate “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” The word "all" here is very important. This clause contains no limitations or reservations. It doesn't say that the Senate has the power to try sitting officers. The Senate must try ALL Impeachments. Trump was legally impeached by the House. The Senate will try him. There is historical precedent for this. It has happened 3 times in the past. None were Presidents but that doesn't matter. There is only one impeachment process. There isn't a separate one for the President.
This will be a constitionally valid trial.