Poll of the Day > Trump acquitted

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jornavyr posted...

Can it though? Surely the Twitter mob will just be angry at something else tomorrow. You don't actually think that all this ends just because Trump is off twitter, do you?

Twitter mob? Maybe I'm not following the relevance?

keyblader1985 posted...

Shouldn't that be 2 and 0?

According to LW, yes.

Sarcasthma posted...

No, that Pup poster.

Ohhhh.

Kare mo.

Got it.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Twitter mob? Maybe I'm not following the relevance?

Folks like him thrive on portraying themselves as a victim so they fixate on outraged people on social media and act like theyre gonna come after everyone if they arent stopped

When in reality most of the time nobody really cares what thing people are mad about because some people are just always gonna be mad about stuff

Most Americans arent even on twitter

---

Twitter mob may have been a bad term of phrase, since the mob isn't just on the Twitter. It's more of an analogy for social outrage as a whole.

---

darkknight109 posted...

If a mob boss says, "You need to take that guy out," he doesn't escape conspiracy charges by saying, "I meant take him out to dinner. I never directly said to kill him. It's not my fault those goons misunderstood."

Pretty sure they need alot more evidence than a single line of dialogue to actually get a conviction. There actually needs to be further evidence to be able to get a conviction such as payment or preparation between conspirators that proves they are planning on going through with the act. Beyond a reasonable doubt is still a standard, and I'm pretty damn sure in modern day standards and legal precedent that has been built up that nobody can been convicted of on words alone.

The problem with incitement charges is that unless there's hard evidence to prove intention, it's not going to hold.

For all the "fire in a crowded theater" arguments, you just need to google "free speech fire" to get legal and historical precedent on the analogy.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ (Article from 2012)
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/627134/is-it-illegal-to-shout-fire-in-crowded-theater (August 2020)

However impeachment trials are not criminal trials and are not held to the standard of typical courts. Which is why the impeachment happened in the first place. The nature of an impeachment (having biased parties as jury) make the trial a theatre for signaling to their respective constituents.

He can still be charged criminally with no worries about double jeopardy because impeachment trial isn't him being charged with a crime, just stripping him of office powers. However if Trump were to be tried for incitement to be held liable in a criminal setting, he'd have legal precedent on his side and if he were convicted could appeal easily to his advantage (also SC stacked in his favor, so lol).

Jornavyr posted...

Twitter mob may have been a bad term of phrase, since the mob isn't just on the Twitter. It's more of an analogy for social outrage as a whole.

Yeah youre clearly very oppressed

---

darkknight109 posted...

If that was true, nobody with an iota of intelligence would ever be convicted of conspiracy or incitement charges, because simply by implying what they mean instead of directly saying it, they could fall back on the defence of "I never actually said anything about a crime."

However, here in the real world, jurisprudence has shown that what you're saying isn't how the law works.

This is why they should teach the constitution and laws relating to it in high school due to idiotic posts like this.
---

Mead posted...

Yeah youre clearly very oppressed

That's just how it goes, when you love freedom as much as I do.

Hey, did Pedro Pascal really quit Mando? If so, that's pretty funny.

---

Revelation34 posted...

This is why they should teach the constitution and laws relating to it in high school due to idiotic posts like this.

It's cute how you think I'm American. Wrong and ignorant, but cute.

The_Pup posted...

Pretty sure they need alot more evidence than a single line of dialogue to actually get a conviction.

And, in this case, they have plenty. Trump spent two months fomenting a conspiracy theory that the election was rigged, despite being unable to turn up any evidence of it and going roughly 0-for-60 in his court cases. There's no dearth of evidence that he wanted to maintain his hold on power by any means necessary, even going so far as to advise the vice-president to illegally refuse to certify the votes, something he did not have constitutional authority to do.

The_Pup posted...

However impeachment trials are not criminal trials and are not held to the standard of typical courts.

And this is, of course, the other issue at play. Something is impeachable if congress says it is - it's a political question, not a criminal one. Even if you think reasonable doubt exists, political officials can (and should) be held to a higher standard.

---

Lets GO!

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/16/naacp-trump-giuliani-capitol-riots-469077

On the heels of the Senate's acquittal of Donald Trump, the NAACP, Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson and civil rights law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll filed a lawsuit against the former president, Rudy Giuliani and two white supremacist groups, citing their role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday morning in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that Trump and Giuliani, in collaboration with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, conspired to incite the riots to keep Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. It claims they did so in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act, a Reconstruction-era statute designed to protect both formerly enslaved African Americans and lawmakers in Congress from white supremacist violence.

darkknight109 posted...

It's cute how you think I'm American. Wrong and ignorant, but cute.

Then that shows even more why you're wrong about how American law and the constitution works.
---

you don't have to be American to teach high school kids the constitution
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Lets GO!

On the heels of the Senate's acquittal of Donald Trump, the NAACP, Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson and civil rights law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll filed a lawsuit against the former president, Rudy Giuliani and two white supremacist groups, citing their role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday morning in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that Trump and Giuliani, in collaboration with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, conspired to incite the riots to keep Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. It claims they did so in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act, a Reconstruction-era statute designed to protect both formerly enslaved African Americans and lawmakers in Congress from white supremacist violence.

i wonder if this is where smt went, ok?

---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

you don't have to be American to teach high school kids the constitution

It seems like they do have to be American.
---

Mead posted...

and hes gonna be in the only former president to have no real political influence or activity in diplomacy.

The fact that they didn't convict him shows just how much influence he still has. McCarthy flew down to Mar-A-Lago just to kiss the ring recently, as it were.

Then again, since it was 30 years of Republican bullshit that allowed Trump to be possible, saying he has "influence" is a bit misleading: Trump is just the quiet parts the GOP normally says blasted through a megaphone. He's Frankenstein's monster of decades of racist bull shit dogwhistling, slavish devotion to the rich, and an impressive amount of moral bankruptcy.

They didn't convict Trump because it would be like smashing the mirror you were staring at.

---

The_Pup posted...

Pretty sure they need alot more evidence than a single line of dialogue to actually get a conviction. There actually needs to be further evidence to be able to get a conviction such as payment or preparation between conspirators that proves they are planning on going through with the act. Beyond a reasonable doubt is still a standard, and I'm pretty damn sure in modern day standards and legal precedent that has been built up that nobody can been convicted of on words alone.

The problem with incitement charges is that unless there's hard evidence to prove intention, it's not going to hold.

For all the "fire in a crowded theater" arguments, you just need to google "free speech fire" to get legal and historical precedent on the analogy.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ (Article from 2012)
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/627134/is-it-illegal-to-shout-fire-in-crowded-theater (August 2020)

However impeachment trials are not criminal trials and are not held to the standard of typical courts. Which is why the impeachment happened in the first place. The nature of an impeachment (having biased parties as jury) make the trial a theatre for signaling to their respective constituents.

He can still be charged criminally with no worries about double jeopardy because impeachment trial isn't him being charged with a crime, just stripping him of office powers. However if Trump were to be tried for incitement to be held liable in a criminal setting, he'd have legal precedent on his side and if he were convicted could appeal easily to his advantage (also SC stacked in his favor, so lol).

That so-called stacked Supreme Court didn't help with his election fraud claims. I doubt they will help here either.

Arcturusisnow posted...

That so-called stacked Supreme Court didn't help with his election fraud claims. I doubt they will help here either.

Depends on how corrupt they are anyway. It never got to the Supreme Court in the first place. So we don't know how it would have gone.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Depends on how corrupt they are anyway. It never got to the Supreme Court in the first place. So we don't know how it would have gone.

The Texas case had some claims regarding signatures if I recall.