D controlled house, so no

annie88 said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

Can they also impeach Biden before he starts?

---

I support this action.

---

One good turn deserves another.

Ag with kids said:

---

BRAggie2000 said:

---

Yes if he incites a riot like Trump.

---

He didn't.

But, if this precedent goes down, why not the GOP impeaching Biden if they win the House in 2022? For his interference in Ukraine as VP.

Or BHO for alleged interference in the 2016 election (sedition and ****).

---

BHO would serve a more useful purpose. One of the behind the scenes puppeteers of the Left agenda; it would remove some of Biden's strings.

Wabs said:

---

BRAggie2000 said:

---

Yes if he incites a riot like Trump.

---

For the millionth time....please provide a single piece of evidence that Trump incited events at the Capital. A quote, video, whatever.

---

The fact Trump was delighted while paramilitary thugs were ransacking the Capitol Building...

BRAggie2000 said:

---

Gap said:

---

BRAggie2000 said:

---

Yes if he incites a riot like Trump.

---

Can you provide quotes or video of Trump doing this? I'm still looking and would like to see it for myself.

---

Just watch the news including FOX. It's not that hard.

---

So telling people to go to the Capitol in peace is violence?

MonkeyKnifeFighter said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

But, if this precedent goes down, why not the GOP impeaching Biden if they win the House in 2022?

---

2 words.

President. Harris.

---

He won't be convicted....

Just impeached. Just like Trump.

Like 2020...the New Normal...

Wabs said:

---

BRAggie2000 said:

---

Yes if he incites a riot like Trump.

---

For the millionth time....please provide a single piece of evidence that Trump incited events at the Capital. A quote, video, whatever.

---

How about the reverse? Videos of the complete rally have been arbitrarily deleted. But they were simple news segments, and de-facto legit. So what do you make of concerted attempts to remove hearing the speech for yourselves?

Exactly.

Same thing also reveals the speech began at 11:58 EST and ended at 1:12 EST. You see this reported wrong in places.

Depends after many are shown to be traitors

There is a lot of mis-representation about the Capitol occupation. (Probably the best word)

It was very big scale, and there are hundreds and hundreds of genuine (looking at least) Trumpers along with clear Antifa type provocateurs, as well as some genuine radical far right. If people would watch the various videos that are from a `participant' type point of view (Sullivan's is one) you see this clear. Its mind-boggling, and when you see its scale, you understand the over-reaction afterward a little bit. The problem is that has gone into full bore censorship of just right voices and canceling of the 1st Amendment.

But man, the occupation is like nothing easily imagined -- and was indeed `the people' speaking out --- going too far for sure, but definitely the real thing. All kinds of Main Street salt of the earth types - men and women -- in large numbers, very large numbers. And yes, in general peaceful or very light intimidation protesting-bullying. The more toned back versions of `occupy' Left demonstrations, rather than the more violent BLM and Antifa ones, come closest to the atmosphere, but there are bad elements all about, and many deliberately escalating.

What it was not was an insurrection or a coup -- -because the flat truth is, if it was, it would have suceededed effortlessly. They had more than enough numbers to do a Tuileries Palace seizure and taking it all down. That is not what they were there to do though.

Something else to notice--- the element with the radical right invades the north Senate Wing more - breaking in a window, whereas the element hijacked somewhat by Sullivan's group (documented by the Japanese journalist) and which included Ashli Babbit and the CNN reporter Jade both --- they are tramping through the Rotunda and House southern end. And just to add to all the mayhem confusion -- from all kinds of places, hundreds are simply being admitted by Capitol police standing aside. In other cases, they try to block, but are kind bullied-shoved out of the way. (Not talking about the violent attack with several Antifas that the British analyst showed in those outdoor archways of the West facade).

BRAggie2000 said:

---

Gap said:

---

BRAggie2000 said:

---

Yes if he incites a riot like Trump.

---

Can you provide quotes or video of Trump doing this? I'm still looking and would like to see it for myself.

---

Just watch the news including FOX. It's not that hard.

---

It remember BLM thugs did it and you were silent then.

BRAggie2000 said:

---

Yes if he incites a riot like Trump.

---

Wasn't aware that's the only thing he could be impeached for.

Wabs said:

---

BRAggie2000 said:

---

Yes if he incites a riot like Trump.

---

For the millionth time....please provide a single piece of evidence that Trump incited events at the Capital. A quote, video, whatever.

---

Would someone on the center left or left please answer this?

If Trump's rally incited the events, why is the option of listening to it all being denied by it being deleted from Youtube? It was a standard rally and news event. I had re-watched and listened to the whole thing before it got deleted, so are very aware of the distinctions.

Have my own view on some of what was said, but want to hear the basis from the anti-Trump wing.

BRAggie2000 said:

---

Honest question do you guys enjoy being on the wrong side of history?

*** Enough with the trolling -- Staff ***

---

Better hope you're not on the wrong side of the bread lines

BRAggie2000 said:

---

Yes if he incites a riot like Trump.

---

I'm to understand impeachment is political. A house majority can impeach a president for anything. The issue is the terms of a Senate trial.

Note: The very idea of a `wrong' side of history is anathema to a true historian. It is a value judgement, and means you are not looking at the events.

That the slogan was revived and used the way it was most recently by one of the most anti-American admins under Obama and the thought-police of the Left now only makes it worse.

BRAggie2000 said:

---

Yes if he incites a riot like Trump.

---

How people are so unashamed to keep lying like this, I'll never understand.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

BRAggie2000 said:

---

Yes if he incites a riot like Trump.

---

I'm to understand impeachment is political. A house majority can impeach a president for anything. The issue is the terms of a Senate trial.

---

Its easier to understand if you think of it this way.

A House majority has shown in can impeach a President that offends them. Nothing more is needed. Conviction is a bit harder, but presumably wouldn't have been if Schumer ran the Senate.

The question is instead especially the claim being put across by outraged Democrat media and officials: Did President Trump incite a riot? Is that what he was doing? Why is this said?

Note: some of it derives from improper use of the timeline, which is why have such issue with the speech videos being suppressed. Just lock in head: speech began at 11:58 DC time, and ended at 1:12 DC time. And that is the speaking part, not the walking down steps, going into the tent, getting into the car, and going back to to the WH. That is when the talking ended, and when the first elements would have started walking from the Ellipse and Washington Monument mass crowd.