(02-12-2021, 02:31 PM)Sneakers Wrote:

(02-12-2021, 12:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: I'm not really getting anything from a biased source on this though.
On this particular issue, the January 6th insurrection and the impeachment trial resulting from it, I am basing my opinion on video of Trump's speech, the transcript of Trump's speech, the location and context of his speech, the insurrection that followed, the phone calls that Trump made during the insurrection, and the tweets that he made during the insurrection.
None of these were the acts of a man legitimately protesting and trying to persuade Congress. All of them were acts of a man intent on shutting Congress down if they didn't give him what he wanted.
Of course those are my conclusions based on my critical thinking.
My interpretation of the undeniable facts could be wrong.
But I don't see you trying to interpret these undeniable facts. I see you trying to deny them, and distract from them, talking about biased media which is not applicable to the conversation.

---

Exactly.
As David French has said, you are setting a questionable precedent either way.
Trump may or may not run again.
but if Trump is not punished for what he did, that sets a precedent, and another president, from either party might try to imitate what Trump did.
I would rather set a precedent of back and forth petty partisan punishments between the parties, than a precedent of total impunity.

I assume neither of you are interested in objective and unbiased examination of the relevant facts.  Shouldn't we first determine if his words met the legal threshold necessary to establish guilt?

Undeniable facts are not subject to interpretation, they're FACTS.  Whether or not a specific occurrence was a direct result of given facts is a conclusion and subject to possible debate.  

I'd love to see you post the specific transcript language you reference.

If they were a grand jury in a criminal case, yes, but they are senators in an impeachment trial.
You can be impeached and convicted even if they can't prove you have broken any particular law.
See, for instance, Alcee Hastings.  The Senate convicted him, but a jury did not.
That's how it's supposed to work.  It's supposed to be easier to get convicted and removed in the Senate than it is to get sent to jail by a jury.

---