Trump should be convicted, forthwith.

[vnatale]

Coach Tuberville blew the whistle on Donald Trump

by Quin Hillyer, Commentary Writer | | February 11, 2021 03:15 PM


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... nald-trump


Whether watching on TV as the entire Senate was evacuated, as numerous third-hand reports say Trump was doing, or because of his phone call with Tuberville, the president absolutely knew by the time of his anti-Pence tweet that the Capitol, which had by then been under assault for more than an hour, was being not just attacked but overrun. Even after that, Trump refused entreaties from House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy to condemn the rioters and tell them to desist.

The House impeachment managers already have built a strong and massive case. They convincingly have argued that Trump bore significant blame for recklessly riling up an angrily chanting mob to make a show of “force” to intimidate Congress into refusing to complete the electoral vote count. Not even they, though, had closed the loop of responsibility entirely. Trump’s defenders still could have offered excuses, extremely thin yet sounding at least plausible, why Trump’s culpability was limited enough to avoid Senate conviction.

Tuberville’s report takes away those excuses. Trump knew then Pence was in danger, but he kept inciting the mob against his own loyal lieutenant. The mob came within a minute of reaching its target.

Trump should be convicted, forthwith.

[sophie]

Fortunately for Trump and also for the rest of us, you can't convict someone because you don't like their personality.

It kind of goes along with the free speech thing. There's nothing in the first amendment that says your freedom to say what you think is limited by what other people might find offensive. It also doesn't say that people who are widely disliked don't get to enjoy free speech rights. I know liberals disagree, but....tough. Overturning the Bill of Rights is not an option. Perhaps you would prefer to go live in a country that isn't burdened by anything like that? China for instance.

[Tortoise]

The framers of the Constitution clearly didn't intend for it to apply to someone with a personality as ugly, egotistical, and deplorable as Trump's.

They didn't explicitly include a Trump exemption because they didn't think it was possible for someone that orange and bad to actually exist. It was implied.

[glennds]

The test for 1st Amendment applicability has nothing to do with Trump's personality or whether the speech is offensive to anyone, let alone liberals.

The test comes out of the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio case which held that speech is NOT protected under the First Amendment if it is directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action. Whether Trump's speech and actions meet that test or not is the issue at hand.
That's the current Supreme Court law anyway.
Although it seems to me that this is probably a political proceeding more than a legal proceeding, and if the voting will be along party lines, the law on the issues is irrelevant.

[Mountaineer]

Coach Tuberville blew the whistle on Donald Trump

by Quin Hillyer, Commentary Writer | | February 11, 2021 03:15 PM


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... nald-trump


Whether watching on TV as the entire Senate was evacuated, as numerous third-hand reports say Trump was doing, or because of his phone call with Tuberville, the president absolutely knew by the time of his anti-Pence tweet that the Capitol, which had by then been under assault for more than an hour, was being not just attacked but overrun. Even after that, Trump refused entreaties from House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy to condemn the rioters and tell them to desist.

The House impeachment managers already have built a strong and massive case. They convincingly have argued that Trump bore significant blame for recklessly riling up an angrily chanting mob to make a show of “force” to intimidate Congress into refusing to complete the electoral vote count. Not even they, though, had closed the loop of responsibility entirely. Trump’s defenders still could have offered excuses, extremely thin yet sounding at least plausible, why Trump’s culpability was limited enough to avoid Senate conviction.

Tuberville’s report takes away those excuses. Trump knew then Pence was in danger, but he kept inciting the mob against his own loyal lieutenant. The mob came within a minute of reaching its target.

Trump should be convicted, forthwith.

BS. Don't drink the cool aid.

[vnatale]

Coach Tuberville blew the whistle on Donald Trump

by Quin Hillyer, Commentary Writer | | February 11, 2021 03:15 PM


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... nald-trump


Whether watching on TV as the entire Senate was evacuated, as numerous third-hand reports say Trump was doing, or because of his phone call with Tuberville, the president absolutely knew by the time of his anti-Pence tweet that the Capitol, which had by then been under assault for more than an hour, was being not just attacked but overrun. Even after that, Trump refused entreaties from House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy to condemn the rioters and tell them to desist.

The House impeachment managers already have built a strong and massive case. They convincingly have argued that Trump bore significant blame for recklessly riling up an angrily chanting mob to make a show of “force” to intimidate Congress into refusing to complete the electoral vote count. Not even they, though, had closed the loop of responsibility entirely. Trump’s defenders still could have offered excuses, extremely thin yet sounding at least plausible, why Trump’s culpability was limited enough to avoid Senate conviction.

Tuberville’s report takes away those excuses. Trump knew then Pence was in danger, but he kept inciting the mob against his own loyal lieutenant. The mob came within a minute of reaching its target.

Trump should be convicted, forthwith.

BS. Don't drink the cool aid.

Note the above came from a widely acknowledged conservative source...

Vinny

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Examiner


Content and editorial stance
The Examiner has been described as and is widely regarded as conservative.[21] When Anschutz first started the Examiner in its daily newspaper format, he envisioned creating a competitor to The Washington Post with a conservative editorial line. According to Politico: "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz's instructions were explicit – he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee."[3]

According to the Columbia Journalism Review, among the conservative media landscape, the Examiner "is structured more or less like a mainstream newspaper—complete with clear distinctions between news reporting and commentary roles. The outlet has one of the largest newsrooms in online conservative media, with dedicated breaking news reporters and more specialized beat reporters, and a full editorial hierarchy." According to Editor in Chief Hugo Gurdon, the paper's conservatism on the news side was largely based on story selection, citing The Daily Telegraph as an inspiration.[22]

The Examiner endorsed John McCain in the 2008 presidential election[23] and Adrian Fenty in the Democratic primary for mayor in 2010.[24] On December 14, 2011, the newspaper endorsed Mitt Romney for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, publishing an editorial saying he was the only Republican who could beat Barack Obama in the general election.[25]

[Mountaineer]

Coach Tuberville blew the whistle on Donald Trump

by Quin Hillyer, Commentary Writer | | February 11, 2021 03:15 PM


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... nald-trump


Whether watching on TV as the entire Senate was evacuated, as numerous third-hand reports say Trump was doing, or because of his phone call with Tuberville, the president absolutely knew by the time of his anti-Pence tweet that the Capitol, which had by then been under assault for more than an hour, was being not just attacked but overrun. Even after that, Trump refused entreaties from House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy to condemn the rioters and tell them to desist.

The House impeachment managers already have built a strong and massive case. They convincingly have argued that Trump bore significant blame for recklessly riling up an angrily chanting mob to make a show of “force” to intimidate Congress into refusing to complete the electoral vote count. Not even they, though, had closed the loop of responsibility entirely. Trump’s defenders still could have offered excuses, extremely thin yet sounding at least plausible, why Trump’s culpability was limited enough to avoid Senate conviction.

Tuberville’s report takes away those excuses. Trump knew then Pence was in danger, but he kept inciting the mob against his own loyal lieutenant. The mob came within a minute of reaching its target.

Trump should be convicted, forthwith.

BS. Don't drink the cool aid.

Note the above came from a widely acknowledged conservative source...

Vinny

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Examiner


Content and editorial stance
The Examiner has been described as and is widely regarded as conservative.[21] When Anschutz first started the Examiner in its daily newspaper format, he envisioned creating a competitor to The Washington Post with a conservative editorial line. According to Politico: "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz's instructions were explicit – he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee."[3]

According to the Columbia Journalism Review, among the conservative media landscape, the Examiner "is structured more or less like a mainstream newspaper—complete with clear distinctions between news reporting and commentary roles. The outlet has one of the largest newsrooms in online conservative media, with dedicated breaking news reporters and more specialized beat reporters, and a full editorial hierarchy." According to Editor in Chief Hugo Gurdon, the paper's conservatism on the news side was largely based on story selection, citing The Daily Telegraph as an inspiration.[22]

The Examiner endorsed John McCain in the 2008 presidential election[23] and Adrian Fenty in the Democratic primary for mayor in 2010.[24] On December 14, 2011, the newspaper endorsed Mitt Romney for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, publishing an editorial saying he was the only Republican who could beat Barack Obama in the general election.[25]

Are you saying his opinion is worth more than my opinion? (That is, in your opinion).

[pp4me]

Dilbert on how to plan an insurrection......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRxpvJ6VgQY

[sophie]

"The Republican members of Congress said the exchange showed Trump had no intention of calling off the rioters even as lawmakers were pleading with him to intervene. Several said it amounted to a dereliction of his presidential duty."

https://www.theamericanconservative.com ... peachment/

Wait a second.....

Can you really be convicted for NOT saying something? This is the exact opposite of what has been argued, that Trump did the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. This would be the equivalent of convicting someone for not shouting "fire" when there is in fact a fire in the crowded theater. That would be quite a precedent.

There are some mandatory reporting laws out there, but they have to do with child abuse or sexual assault of a minor. Don't think those can be stretched to cover this situation.

Let's just chalk this up to an over-eager, TDS-soaked journalist who is not familiar with the law. I would also bet that the story painted above has been significantly embellished (otherwise I would agree that Trump showed poor judgment). In which case, why do I give a fig about this person's opinion?