4 ms·

In no way I am shrugging my shoulders. We gain more ground holding to truths than these easily debunked falsehoods. > January 6th, where he was found guilty bu

• ModernMech 2y ago
  > We gain more ground holding to truths than these easily debunked falsehoods. Then you should display more candor in describing these situations rather than be reductionist about it. He was acquitted not because he was not guilty of those things, but because his political allies determined the things he was guilty of were not impeachable. Trump argued: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment" The "thing he did to help him get elected" in this case was holding up Congressionally appropriated money to gain leverage over a foreign nation (Ukraine), which he used to to attempt the extortion of a bribe (opening a pretextual investigation against his political opponent, Joe Biden). That they acquitted him does not mean he didn't do those things. It was conclusively proven he did that. It's just that Republicans think that's legitimate political behavior, and refused to remove him. As for the second impeachment, this is what Mitch McConnell said: "There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day... We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one... I believe the Senate was right not to grab power the Constitution does not give us." Many of the Senators had the same reasoning, which is that while they blamed Trump they didn't feel they had the power to impeach him at that time, so they left it up to the courts. So no, they did not really acquit him, and yes, they did lay the blame at his feet for what happened (found him guilty). As a final point, McConnell mentions that we have a criminal justice system to hold him accountable, but Trump argued that impeachment is the only tool that could, and indeed the SCOTUS agreed to a large extent. So if he can't be held accountable by impeachment, and not by the courts, he's above the law.
  • FollowingTheDao 2y ago
    "He was acquitted" and nothing else matters. That is how the law works. Do you now want to get rid of the rule of law? "practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day" does not make the thing he did illegal. "so they left it up to the courts", which again is the rule of law. "So if he can't be held accountable by impeachment, and not by the courts, he's above the law." If the laws does not find someone guilty then that is the rule of law working. Being above the law would be being found guilty and then not having any consequences. He was not found guilty. Period. Do you want mob rule? Vigilante justice? Or the rule of law? Let me make it clear, I do not like Trump in the smallest bit, but acting like an authoritarian does not make me a better person.
    • ModernMech 2y ago
      First, impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. He was proven to have committed extortion and bribery by the House prosecutors in the first impeachment, and his defense was he was allowed to do it, not that he didn't do it. That to me screams "above the law", because what he was proven to have done was extort a bribe, and that is in fact an enumerated impeachable offense. You can't square that circle without using his party affiliation to elevate him above that clause of the Constitution. If he were a Democrat he would have been impeached and removed, but then again he would never have been elected as a Democrat. As for the law, the legal process did not fully play out. We were promised courts would be the appropriate venue by McConnell when he voted to acquit despite saying that the evidence shows he is guilty. That's not really an acquittal in the way you're trying to portray because the only reason the acquittal happened was because McConnell felt the case deserved to be tried in court, not in the Senate. But where is that trial? It was curtailed due to Trump's election as POTUS, and it was stymied by people he appointed to the court. So how are you going to talk about the rule of law, when justice has been denied to the American people for the crimes committed against us? Where is our trial? It was cancelled because... what's that? He's above the law until he's actually demonstrably bound by it. So far that demonstration has been elusive. What I want is a trial, with evidence, a judge, and a jury. That's not mob rule.