slug.com slug.com

3 1

LINK McConnell unloads on Trump: 'Morally responsible' for provoking mob | TheHill

I'm actually ok with this.

I do understand how many feel that impeachment is only for a sitting president. Don't agree. But understand.

But it's important that the leader of the GOP make the distinction that Trump is not faultless, far from it. That had the trial been held while he was a sitting president, he would have 100% been convicted. At least that what he is saying now... though let's not forget, he is at his core a politician, skilled at double-speak.

Regardless of "what if's", it's important to note moving forward that the leader of the GOP is publicly joining those of us that find Trump responsible for the Jan 6 attacks, that he publicly denounced his tactics, and thus... and this is the important part for me... that Trump's chances to re-enter the political arena with GOP support are nil and the chance that he will be held civilly or criminally responsible outside of impeachment are not nil.

#GOP
TheMiddleWay 8 Feb 14
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

*I'm actually ok with this**

Big surprise

0

Moral responsibility ( and I don't think he was or is) is not the basis for our laws. It is a dangerous proposition. X begets Z ignores Y does not work. And making an exception because of high office, or because of a related act, creates inconsistent applications.

The other side: none of the people arrested were charged with insurrection. So, if Trump were a private citizen, neither would he have been, right?

Speech can incite, but the criteria is pretty specific - Trump didn't meet those criteria.

So, it was unConstitutional because he was no longer in office, but even his terms failed to meet the criteria. We had dozens of lawsuits about the election dismissed in the same way as 'unConstitutional', never reaching the merits. Assuming therefore there were merits is incorrect. If he were still in office, the same acquittal because his free speech was not, did not, meet the requirements of the term 'incite'.

As the old saying goes: a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich; anyone can be sued. Neither means, of themselves, anything.

Moral culpability is a dangerous legal claim. Go, and sin no more.

@TheMiddleWay That was his opinion. There was no proof offered of such:

The people that stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president,

@TheMiddleWay And what was it based on? That Trump believed, as millions of others do, that there were serious, unexplained events during the election that raised serious doubts as to it's validity? Because McConnell, nor the story, offered EVIDENCE....just opinion and belief. And no where that I am aware of has ANYONE offered evidence that the INTENT of either Trump OR the protesters was the toppling of the US government, ie insurrection.

@TheMiddleWay What about you? You said you 'were with this'.

0

Fuck Mitch!

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:186322
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.