(02-11-2021, 08:20 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(02-11-2021, 08:18 AM)jj82284 Wrote: No.  What are you even talking about?

1.)  This entire proceeding is patently unconstitutional.  

2.) He is charged with inciting a riot.  I am a little fuzzy how asking a group of people to peacefully go down to the capital and cheer on people who vote their way is "inciting a riot."  

This isn't about justice, the constitution or anything of the sort.  This is about codifying collective justice into the American Ethos through political theater.  Plain and simple.  There is no way that You could establish Mens Rea to support the Idea that Trump wanted the protestors to devolve into a riot.  That's childish.  This is about, well the people who did it were trump supporters, so that means that Trump or anyone who supported him, funded him, or helped him can then be essentially unpersoned under the law.  We don't believe in collective guilt in this country.  We believe that each person should be judged on their own actions, intentions, and behaviors. We also believe in a free society, so much so that the freedom of speech is enshrined in the first amendment.  In a free society speech ESPECIALLY INCENDIARY POLITICAL SPEECH is not only allowed but essential to the public discourse as an alternative to persistent civil war.  Any individual that DIRECTS or CALLS FOR VIOLENCE can be culpable.  Obviously those who COMMIT VIOLENCE can be held culpable, but the insinuation that just because someone arouses passions that they are then responsible for anyone who acts out of said passions is fundamentally antithetical to a free society and the congress shoving aside the constitution to pursue that brand of collective justice would not just be an attack on our democratic republic, but the end of it!

We're already to collective racism in white people, collective guilt for crimes is just a short hop away.

(02-11-2021, 09:09 AM)mikesez Wrote:

(02-11-2021, 08:18 AM)jj82284 Wrote: No.  What are you even talking about?

1.)  This entire proceeding is patently unconstitutional.  

Stopped reading there.
You're wrong, it is constitutional, but lets agree to disagree about it.
Let's pretend McConnell treated this like an emergency and the trial was happening but it wasn't January 20 yet. Now answer my question.