Trump Impeachment Trial 2.0

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/susan_litman/status/1359595539650732033

[YitzyS]

Agreed, incredible. He's a professor of constitutional law, and so yesterday's presentation was something he had talked about often.

Incidentally, Raskin was actually a student of Alan Dershowitz at Harvard.

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/andrewdesiderio/status/1359630991434911744
https://twitter.com/andrewdesiderio/status/1359633330627559430

https://twitter.com/jamiedupree/status/1359633441684398085

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1359546398832795649

‘The Dems are blowing it out of proportion’

Replies blocked. Who’s silencing dissent now?

https://twitter.com/mtsw/status/1359642922577137665

[PlatinumGuy]

Can you please share the neutrally applicable standard by which this is a "slam dunk impeachment"

1) There was an insurrection which was broadcast live and watched by most of the world.
2) Many of the participants testified on oath that they were incited by DJT.
3) DJT's incitement was broadcast and published to most of the world.
4) DJT is guilty of incitement even if he was entirely unaware he may be inciting an insurrection. His knowledge and intent aren't relevant. אדם מועד לעולם.
5) DJT is guilty of incitement even if he was only a minor contributing factor in motivating the perpetrators.

The First Amendment is entirely irrelevant just like terrorists aren't absolved by their right for religious freedom.

There is no real dispute that conviction can happen after DJT left office, there is clear precedent, the Senate has convicted several people after they left office. The only reason 45 Republicans voted that it isn't constitutional is because their vote didn't matter, so there was no reason to antagonize the Trumpsters when the trial would proceed anyways with D votes.

Congress constitutional duty is to pass verdict on conviction and barring from future office, something the criminal justice system isn't empowered to do (at least from a Federal perspective). I fully hope criminal justice follows with a more thorough investigation and punishes appropriately.

[zh cohen]

2) Many of the participants testified on oath that they were incited by DJT.

Do you believe that anyone who's political rhetoric is used by criminals should be prosecuted?

5) DJT is guilty of incitement even if he was only a minor contributing factor in motivating the perpetrators.

Do you apply that principal to all politicians?

the Senate has convicted several people after they left office.

Really?

[YitzyS]

1) There was an insurrection which was broadcast live and watched by most of the world.
2) Many of the participants testified on oath that they were incited by DJT.
3) DJT's incitement was broadcast and published to most of the world.
4) DJT is guilty of incitement even if he was entirely unaware he may be inciting an insurrection. His knowledge and intent aren't relevant. אדם מועד לעולם.
5) DJT is guilty of incitement even if he was only a minor contributing factor in motivating the perpetrators.

The First Amendment is entirely irrelevant just like terrorists aren't absolved by their right for religious freedom.

There is no real dispute that conviction can happen after DJT left office, there is clear precedent, the Senate has convicted several people after they left office. The only reason 45 Republicans voted that it isn't constitutional is because their vote didn't matter, so there was no reason to antagonize the Trumpsters when the trial would proceed anyways with D votes.

Congress constitutional duty is to pass verdict on conviction and barring from future office, something the criminal justice system isn't empowered to do (at least from a Federal perspective). I fully hope criminal justice follows with a more thorough investigation and punishes appropriately.

It is at point #4 where IMO your line of reasoning falls apart.

Firstly, אדם מועד לעולם is NOT the standard of the American legal system. In America, if someone acted in Good Faith, believing his action was not wrong, they cannot be convicted for it, IINM.

Secondly, even Halachically you are misapplying the concept of אדם מועד לעולם. In this scenario, from a halachic concept, rioters would by mandated to pay for the damage even if they claim they were incited or following orders or acting in Good Faith, because אדם מועד לעולם. Trump's actions would remain at most a גרמי, which would make him פטור מדיני אדם.

[Yehuda57]

It is at point #4 where IMO your line of reasoning falls apart.

Firstly, אדם מועד לעולם is NOT the standard of the American legal system. In America, if someone acted in Good Faith, believing his action was not wrong, they cannot be convicted for it, IINM.

Secondly, even Halachically you are misapplying the concept of אדם מועד לעולם. In this scenario, from a halachic concept, rioters would by mandated to pay for the damage even if they claim they were incited or following orders or acting in Good Faith, because אדם מועד לעולם. Trump's actions would remain at most a גרמי, which would make him פטור מדיני אדם.

The only Talmudic addage that applies to DJT is
וכי בשופטני עסקינן

[AsherO]

The only Talmudic addage that applies to DJT is
וכי בשופטני עסקינן

Then he should plea insanity

[aygart]

1) There was an insurrection which was broadcast live and watched by most of the world.
2) Many of the participants testified on oath that they were incited by DJT.
3) DJT's incitement was broadcast and published to most of the world.
4) DJT is guilty of incitement even if he was entirely unaware he may be inciting an insurrection. His knowledge and intent aren't relevant. אדם מועד לעולם.
5) DJT is guilty of incitement even if he was only a minor contributing factor in motivating the perpetrators.

The First Amendment is entirely irrelevant just like terrorists aren't absolved by their right for religious freedom.

There is no real dispute that conviction can happen after DJT left office, there is clear precedent, the Senate has convicted several people after they left office. The only reason 45 Republicans voted that it isn't constitutional is because their vote didn't matter, so there was no reason to antagonize the Trumpsters when the trial would proceed anyways with D votes.

Congress constitutional duty is to pass verdict on conviction and barring from future office, something the criminal justice system isn't empowered to do (at least from a Federal perspective). I fully hope criminal justice follows with a more thorough investigation and punishes appropriately.

2) Yup, some yoyo in a Viking hat said so. I must be his fault! They would NEVER have been violent without it!
4) We understand your biases and are very well aware of them, but leave the torah out of it! This is besides that the comparison is utterly ridiculous.

[BP16]

Its unbelievable how the impeachment managers edit clips how they see fit! I mean Trumps team could show the entire clips not cut from parts that they want to fit their narratives!
And how they keep on repeating that there were fine people on both sides but every normal person knows that he meant the protesters and not Antifa or the far right groups.   

[PlatinumGuy]

Really?

Yes Secretary of War William Belknap was convicted by the Senate after he left office.

It is at point #4 where IMO your line of reasoning falls apart.

Firstly, אדם מועד לעולם is NOT the standard of the American legal system. In America, if someone acted in Good Faith, believing his action was not wrong, they cannot be convicted for it, IINM.

Secondly, even Halachically you are misapplying the concept of אדם מועד לעולם. In this scenario, from a halachic concept, rioters would by mandated to pay for the damage even if they claim they were incited or following orders or acting in Good Faith, because אדם מועד לעולם. Trump's actions would remain at most a גרמי, which would make him פטור מדיני אדם.

First of all, the Shu'a paskens גרמי is Chayev, not Pattur. The Shach says that includes גרמא.

Second, believing you are acting in good faith is אומר מותר, which is sometimes considered קרוב למזיד, because היה לו ללמוד ולא למד. It is certainly not an extenuating claim in Dini Mamonos.(Granted, in Halacha incitement is generally not punishable because of אין שליח לדבר עבירה)

As far as US law, civil and criminal liability do not at all require bad faith. See car accidents for example. People spend plenty of time in prison for behaving recklessly even though they do so in good faith believing no harm would happen.

Somebody who kills while acting in good faith is duly punishable both under US law and according to the Torah (less severely than premeditated malicious intent), and that's not a coincidence, the modern English legal system is loosely based on Judeo-Christian values from the Torah.

Good or bad faith is irrelevant here.

2) Yup, some yoyo in a Viking hat said so.

I didn't count, but I think there are dozens of insurrectionists who testified they were incited by Trump.
Is your defense that they're all lying? They can be called to testify and cross examined. Why do Republican Senators oppose that?

Here's one I happened to see a few minutes ago.

https://twitter.com/nickknudsenus/status/1359920014099243011

I must be his fault!

Not the relevant bar. Whether or not the insurrection was his fault is irrelevant. He is guilty if 1 insurrectionist was incited by him.

They would NEVER have been violent without it!

Again, not the bar. He would be guilty even if there was no violence at all and Congress proceedings were disrupted peacefully. The impeachment count doesn't require any violence to have happened.

[PlatinumGuy]

I mean Trumps team could show the entire clips not cut from parts that they want to fit their narratives!

Who's stopping them?

And how they keep on repeating that there were fine people on both sides but every normal person knows that he meant the protesters and not Antifa or the far right groups.   

He was literally talking about a far right group. There were no other protestors. It was White supremacist rally supporting civil war values of destroying the US.

[biobook]

Its unbelievable how the impeachment managers edit clips how they see fit! I mean Trumps team could show the entire clips not cut from parts that they want to fit their narratives!

They're showing clips from four years of Trump's talks, where he calls for and praises violence by his crowds.  Nobody wants to listen to all four years, so of course, they're selecting clips.  These clips support their argument that Trump both encouraged violence, and did nothing to stop it or condemn it when he saw it.

And how they keep on repeating that there were fine people on both sides but every normal person knows that he meant the protesters and not Antifa or the far right groups.   

There are many not normal people in America, including me.  It was immediately clear how people understood him, and he did nothing to apologize for his miscommunication.

[Yehuda57]

They're showing clips from four years of Trump's talks, where he calls for and praises violence by his crowds.  Nobody wants to listen to all four years, so of course, they're selecting clips. 

That's absurd. No legal proceedings should ever allow edited video clips. The senators should be forced to listen to every word of Trump's speeches since he came down the escalator. If that doesn't incite them to an insurrection, nothing will.

[yitzgar]

That's absurd. No legal proceedings should ever allow edited video clips. The senators should be forced to listen to every word of Trump's speeches since he came down the escalator. If that doesn't incite them to an insurrection, nothing will.

We live in a generation of sound bites

[AsherO]

That's absurd. No legal proceedings should ever allow edited video clips. The senators should be forced to listen to every word of Trump's speeches since he came down the escalator. If that doesn't incite them to an insurrection, nothing will.

10000000% Those four years of footage convinced millions of dead people to vote for Biden

[PlatinumGuy]

Trump's lawyers were given 2 days for defense and are only using 1/2 day. They have plenty of time to show full videos if they want to. 

[aygart]

Not the relevant bar. Whether or not the insurrection was his fault is irrelevant. He is guilty if 1 insurrectionist was incited by him.

This is utterly ridiculous. By this standard one can say that if James Hodgkinson felt incited by some random statement of Biden we can now impeach him? No need for intent, only for some random guy to "feel incited"

[PlatinumGuy]

This is utterly ridiculous. By this standard one can say that if James Hodgkinson felt incited by some random statement of Biden we can now impeach him? No need for intent, only for some random guy to "feel incited"

You put words into my mouth. Someone feeling incited doesn't prove he was incited, but it is supporting evidence. If dozens of people say there was incitement, there likely was incitement.

There is a very big difference between testifying "I felt incited by Donald Trump" and "Donald Trump incited me". One is a feeling, one is a fact.