RealGM

Dresden wrote:More economic fallout for the Trump Organization:

"New York City is investigating whether it can cancel its contracts with the Trump Organization after last week’s deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol, Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Tuesday.

Mr. de Blasio, who has repeatedly accused President Trump of provoking the violent siege, said his legal team was assessing the city’s options.

“We are looking at that very, very carefully and very quickly,” Mr. de Blasio said when asked about the contracts at a news conference. “The president incited a rebellion against the United States government — clearly an unconstitutional act and people died. That’s unforgivable.”

It is not the first time the city has examined the Trump Organization’s contracts with the city, which include two ice skating rinks at Central Park, the Central Park Carousel and the Trump Golf Links at Ferry Point, a city-owned golf course in the Bronx." NYT.

As history has proven, presidents who leave office tend to do well afterwards. Trump will be just fine with small hiccups like this on the way. Besides, I doubt Trump plans to do anymore ventures in liberal states. He'll focus on Florida and Texas, the #2 and #4 highest GDP earning states.

PlayerUp wrote:

the ultimates wrote:Do you think the Republican party is better now than it was four years ago? Again the total number is inconsequential. You could have had the lowest voter turnout in history the two major party candidates were always going to roughly split the vote. The same thing will happen with a rough split in 2024.

Had to think about this question. My answer is yes I think it's better but I would need more data to be confident on this.

- Trump gained alot of support which may or may not help the GOP in the future
- The people who voted against Trump may change their vote back to the GOP in the next election
- Trump changed everything we know about politics for better and for worse

Ultimately the GOP did not have any identity prior to Trump. Trump re-energized the party moved it into a new direction. Without Trump, there isn't anyone in the GOP currently that can clearly represent them and push the party. Additionally, without Trump what does the GOP actually want to accomplish? The democrats have clear goals in place. What is the republicans goal here? Same old thing they've been pushing for the past couple decades?

In order to move on from Trump, the republican party needs a new true leader that actually will energize their base and move this country forward that is different than what we have been seeing from the republican party for the past couple decades.

What identity has Trump brought to the party?

The GOP identity has been based around smaller government, less taxes particularly for corporations and the rich, limiting or stopping a woman's right to choose, limiting LGBTQ rights, being against unions, being anti-science.

Trump has brought in the conspiracy theorists, domestic terrorists/insurrectionists. The group's Trump brought in and gave a voice to haven't advanced the GOP's agenda or identity one bit.

2018C3 wrote:Nazi which means (National Socialist)
Is a Party By genocide that was responsible for the murder of hostages, reprisal raids, forced labor, "euthanasia," starvation, exposure, medical experiments, and terror bombing, and in the concentration and death camps, the Nazis murdered from 15,003,000 to 31,595,000 people, most likely 20,946,000 men, women, handicapped, aged, sick, prisoners of war, forced laborers, camp inmates, critics, homosexuals, Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Germans, Czechs, Italians, Poles, French, Ukrainians, and many others. Among them 1,000,000 were children under eighteen years of age. And none of these monstrous figures even include civilian and military combat or war-deaths.


You are picking terms recklessly, and trying to give it a new meaning to try and prove a political point. You don't have to call people historic names. Just state actual facts, and people may listen to what you have to say. When you say stupid crap, people wont listen.

I'm not supportive of throwing around the term Nazi or equating others as Hitler, but your first sentence is an example of what your last paragraph criticizes.

https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

the ultimates wrote:The GOP identity has been based around smaller government, less taxes particularly for corporations and the rich, limiting or stopping a woman's right to choose, limiting LGBTQ rights, being against unions, being anti-science.

Yes exactly. What you just said above is the old GOP which cannot win a general election these days based on these principles.

the ultimates wrote:Trump has brought in the conspiracy theorists, domestic terrorists/insurrectionists. The group's Trump brought in and gave a voice to haven't advanced the GOP's agenda or identity one bit.

This is not why people voted for him. You may dislike Trump but there are specific reasons why the voter based like him and none of them you listed above.

Trump won. Romney didn't. McCain didn't. Romney/McCain represent the old GOP you mentioned above. Trump was different. That's why he won and nearly won again if it wasn't for the democratic party going all out and maxing out their entire possible voter base getting 16 million more voters than they did in 2016. Even after that, Trump nearly won in the key states he needed to win.

What was the end-game in the storming of the Capital? Murder the opposition and declare a new government with DT as leader for life? Did the people taking part in this seriously believe this was viable "plan" that would succeed? While they did manage to murder a policeman, thankfully they didn't get any further.

In the end it looks more like they did it for the selfies, which ironically are now helping to identify and arrest the participants. Did they think that there simply wouldn't be any consequences for such actions and criminal offenses?

Now the bigger questions of complicity, planning and funding of the whole thing have emerged. Stay tuned...

rtblues wrote:What was the end-game in the storming of the Capital? Murder the opposition and declare a new government with DT as leader for life? Did the people taking part in this seriously believe this was viable "plan" that would succeed? While they did manage to murder a policeman, thankfully they didn't get any further.

In the end it looks more like they did it for the selfies, which ironically are now helping to identify and arrest the participants. Did they think that there simply wouldn't be any consequences for such actions and criminal offenses?

Now the bigger questions of complicity, planning and funding of the whole thing have emerged. Stay tuned...

I'm sure these people regret what they did. Were just there for another Trump event. They'll point fingers but ultimately they were the ones that opted to break through police barriers and charge congress. Clearly uneducated that not only are they on federal property but there is also something called covid-19 that could kill you if you get it.

Dresden wrote:

PlayerUp wrote:

Dresden wrote:
So you will admit this wasn't just some made up notion by the media to attract viewers now?

Okay you're right but it's giving people false hopes. So many obstacles have to happen and so much time will be spent on this that it literally will overshadow Bidens 1st year. The last impeachment literally took up months of congress time and had they not focused on that, they would have put more focus on the incoming COVID-19 in China.

I'm in the middle here don't support either party and I see 2 parties fighting back and forth. I just want the nation to move forward but it seems like that will never happen. Of course if Biden is a strong leader, he'll from Day 1 say focus on me and forget about Trump.

The House impeached Trump around the middle of December,2019. We didn't even know about Covid at that point, let alone that it would be a pandemic. The articles of impeachment were brought to the senate on Jan. 16th, and he was acquitted on Feb. 5th- that's 2-3 weeks they spent on it, not months.

I don't think this is about hope. No one really wants to go through another impeachment trial at this time. But it's something that many feel has to be done, to show future generations that you cannot incite an insurrection, or whatever you want to call it, and not face consequences. In addition, if he is convicted, it will bar him from running for office again, a not inconsiderable point, given the damage another Trump run for the presidency could do in 2024.

Well we could go back and forth on this. It's kinda unclear how this will all play out because there are many different scenarios. Lets just conclude that whatever happens it seems unlikely the senate will hold a trial and actually convict Trump. That's a safe thing to say. We're going to know in a couple weeks where we are heading so until then lets just prepare ourselves for a new administration and lets hope 2021 is better than 2020.

PlayerUp wrote:

Dresden wrote:More economic fallout for the Trump Organization:

"New York City is investigating whether it can cancel its contracts with the Trump Organization after last week’s deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol, Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Tuesday.

Mr. de Blasio, who has repeatedly accused President Trump of provoking the violent siege, said his legal team was assessing the city’s options.

“We are looking at that very, very carefully and very quickly,” Mr. de Blasio said when asked about the contracts at a news conference. “The president incited a rebellion against the United States government — clearly an unconstitutional act and people died. That’s unforgivable.”

It is not the first time the city has examined the Trump Organization’s contracts with the city, which include two ice skating rinks at Central Park, the Central Park Carousel and the Trump Golf Links at Ferry Point, a city-owned golf course in the Bronx." NYT.

As history has proven, presidents who leave office tend to do well afterwards. Trump will be just fine with small hiccups like this on the way. Besides, I doubt Trump plans to do anymore ventures in liberal states. He'll focus on Florida and Texas, the #2 and #4 highest GDP earning states.

When using the GDP figure you need to account for the size in population. That's why GDP per Capita is always used.

The Top Ten states in GDP per Capita in 2018
Massachusetts
New York
Alaska
North Dakota
California
Connecticut
Washington
Wyoming
Delaware
New Jersey

Texas was ranked #14 and Florida was #42


The data I'm providing below is from before the 2020 election. I haven't updated it yet based on the new Senate results.

62% of the Democrat Senators come from the states that are in the top 25 in GDP per Capita
38% of the Republican Senators come from the states that are in the top 25 in GDP per Capita.

32% of the Democrat Senators come from the states that are in the bottom 25 in GDP per Capita.
68% of the Republican Senators come from the states that are in the bottom 25 in GDP per Capita.

E-DC wrote:

PlayerUp wrote:

Dresden wrote:More economic fallout for the Trump Organization:

"New York City is investigating whether it can cancel its contracts with the Trump Organization after last week’s deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol, Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Tuesday.

Mr. de Blasio, who has repeatedly accused President Trump of provoking the violent siege, said his legal team was assessing the city’s options.

“We are looking at that very, very carefully and very quickly,” Mr. de Blasio said when asked about the contracts at a news conference. “The president incited a rebellion against the United States government — clearly an unconstitutional act and people died. That’s unforgivable.”

It is not the first time the city has examined the Trump Organization’s contracts with the city, which include two ice skating rinks at Central Park, the Central Park Carousel and the Trump Golf Links at Ferry Point, a city-owned golf course in the Bronx." NYT.

As history has proven, presidents who leave office tend to do well afterwards. Trump will be just fine with small hiccups like this on the way. Besides, I doubt Trump plans to do anymore ventures in liberal states. He'll focus on Florida and Texas, the #2 and #4 highest GDP earning states.

When using the GDP figure you need to account for the size in population. That's why GDP per Capita is always used.

The Top Ten states in GDP per Capita in 2018
Massachusetts
New York
Alaska
North Dakota
California
Connecticut
Washington
Wyoming
Delaware
New Jersey

Texas was ranked #14 and Florida was #42


The data I'm providing below is from before the 2020 election. I haven't updated it yet based on the new Senate results.

62% of the Democrat Senators come from the states that are in the top 25 in GDP per Capita
38% of the Republican Senators come from the states that are in the top 25 in GDP per Capita.

32% of the Democrat Senators come from the states that are in the bottom 25 in GDP per Capita.
68% of the Republican Senators come from the states that are in the bottom 25 in GDP per Capita.

I'm referencing overall GDP of the state.

1. California
2. Texas
3. New York
4. Florida
5. Illinois
6. Pennsylvania
7. Ohio
8. Washington
9. Georgia
10. New Jersey

PlayerUp wrote:

the ultimates wrote:The GOP identity has been based around smaller government, less taxes particularly for corporations and the rich, limiting or stopping a woman's right to choose, limiting LGBTQ rights, being against unions, being anti-science.

Yes exactly. What you just said above is the old GOP which cannot win a general election these days based on these principles.

the ultimates wrote:Trump has brought in the conspiracy theorists, domestic terrorists/insurrectionists. The group's Trump brought in and gave a voice to haven't advanced the GOP's agenda or identity one bit.

This is not why people voted for him. You may dislike Trump but there are specific reasons why the voter based like him and none of them you listed above.

Trump won. Romney didn't. McCain didn't. Romney/McCain represent the old GOP you mentioned above. Trump was different. That's why he won and nearly won again if it wasn't for the democratic party going all out and maxing out their entire possible voter base getting 16 million more voters than they did in 2016. Even after that, Trump nearly won in the key states he needed to win.

The GOP just this past election lost control of the Senate after how many years? They controlled the house of representatives up until two years ago. Look at the number of Republican governors and state legislatures. Bush served two terms. Excluding Trump, five of the last eight Presidents have been Republican. I don't know how you figure the old GOP couldn't win a general election.

He almost got the key states he needed to win but he didn't. Just like Hilary almost got the key states to win but she didn't, thems the breaks. Trump has not furthered anything on the GOP agenda the same agenda and identity that got them Congress and the Whitehouse as well. What he has done is clearly made them the party of insurrectionists. He's clearly made them the pro-germ party.

PlayerUp wrote:

E-DC wrote:

PlayerUp wrote:
As history has proven, presidents who leave office tend to do well afterwards. Trump will be just fine with small hiccups like this on the way. Besides, I doubt Trump plans to do anymore ventures in liberal states. He'll focus on Florida and Texas, the #2 and #4 highest GDP earning states.

When using the GDP figure you need to account for the size in population. That's why GDP per Capita is always used.

The Top Ten states in GDP per Capita in 2018
Massachusetts
New York
Alaska
North Dakota
California
Connecticut
Washington
Wyoming
Delaware
New Jersey

Texas was ranked #14 and Florida was #42


The data I'm providing below is from before the 2020 election. I haven't updated it yet based on the new Senate results.

62% of the Democrat Senators come from the states that are in the top 25 in GDP per Capita
38% of the Republican Senators come from the states that are in the top 25 in GDP per Capita.

32% of the Democrat Senators come from the states that are in the bottom 25 in GDP per Capita.
68% of the Republican Senators come from the states that are in the bottom 25 in GDP per Capita.

I'm referencing overall GDP of the state.

1. California
2. Texas
3. New York
4. Florida
5. Illinois
6. Pennsylvania
7. Ohio
8. Washington
9. Georgia
10. New Jersey

So were you just trying to point out that he's going to focus on high population states?

PlayerUp wrote:

the ultimates wrote:The GOP identity has been based around smaller government, less taxes particularly for corporations and the rich, limiting or stopping a woman's right to choose, limiting LGBTQ rights, being against unions, being anti-science.

Yes exactly. What you just said above is the old GOP which cannot win a general election these days based on these principles.

the ultimates wrote:Trump has brought in the conspiracy theorists, domestic terrorists/insurrectionists. The group's Trump brought in and gave a voice to haven't advanced the GOP's agenda or identity one bit.

This is not why people voted for him. You may dislike Trump but there are specific reasons why the voter based like him and none of them you listed above.

Trump won. Romney didn't. McCain didn't. Romney/McCain represent the old GOP you mentioned above. Trump was different. That's why he won and nearly won again if it wasn't for the democratic party going all out and maxing out their entire possible voter base getting 16 million more voters than they did in 2016. Even after that, Trump nearly won in the key states he needed to win.

That's how it is.

Hillary nearly won too in 2016. She was only 100,000 votes behind cumulatively in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania...enough to turn the election.

The reason both the Dems and Repubs got the highest ever turnouts was because of Covid. A lot of people working from home as well as the impact of mail in ballots.

Mail in Ballots did not create election fraud. They allowed for a more complete participation in democracy.

When voter turnout is high, Dems win. When it is low, Ted Cruz wins.

Dresden wrote:

2018C3 wrote:

the ultimates wrote:
Did he and Republicans not put Nazi's in the Whitehouse? .

You can hate him all you want, but to use these terms are foolish. He in fact did the exact opposite, and put Jews in the white house. Why use these terms?

Look up Steven Miller's bio- he's had more than a passing contact with far right groups...he may not be a Nazi, but he seems to be very comfortable with far right ideology.

Question: How many Democrats in Washington DC are "very comfortable" with far left ideology? Let's start with "The Squad" and work our way down from there.

Ben Wilson25 wrote:

Almost Retired wrote:I'll believe in global warming when Al Gore divides his 28,000 sq ft mansion into 20 apartments and startes flying commercial.

Oh gotcha, you’re basing your opinion on Al Gore’s house and not the conclusion of every credible scientist who studies this for a living, decades of climate data, satellite imagery and current conditions on the ground. Cool.

Whether the climate is changing is a totally different question than whether man made activity is the cause of it. You can line up 1,000 scientists whose research is part of some government "study". What do you think their conclusions are going to be. I won't even get into the use of falsified temperature data and other "anomalies". Think a little deeper. Don't be a sheep. If man was the cause of climate change how did the climate of the earth change back and forth for millions of years before we evolved? The climate may be changing. It may be necessary for us to adapt to whatever change occurs as we have done for countless millenia. But we are not the cause of it and there is nothing we can do to halt it. Solar activity drives the climate. The only things on earth that have definitely achieved a short term changing of the climate have been enormous volcanic eruptions and the asteroid that landed off the Yucatan and which led to the death of the dinosaurs. Listen to what the politicians say and just assume the opposite and you'll be better off.

the ultimates wrote:

PlayerUp wrote:

the ultimates wrote:Stop with the media fearmongering bs.

If you don't think media fearmongers you then you're in denial. That's all they do. Sean Hannity one of the worst at it.

the ultimates wrote:Trump will be in the news because he won't shut up once he's out of office. Trump will be in the news because people still report on the things former Presidents say and their reactions to situations. Trump will be in the news because he's forever going to be linked to a major political party that he has clearly influenced for the worse.

Did he influence them for the worse? 75 million would say otherwise. We will find out soon. We don't have data yet to see what happens and your opinion above is as good as anyones.

the ultimates wrote:I don't know why people think if he resigns Pence will magically give him a pardon. Pence would be under no obligation to do so and more than likely his only real Presidential act would be the pardon of Trump. I don't think Pence will want that on his record trying to wield power in the party or be elected to office again.

You're in denial again that you think Pence is against the president. Pence had the option to invoke the 25th amendment and refused to do it. He stands with Trump still.

The United States is bascially a two party system. So one candidate win or lose was roughly going to get half of the vote. So saying he got 75 million votes as the leader of one of it's two parties isn't some revelation. Did he and Republicns not turn masks and quarantine/lockdowns into a political issue? Did he and Republicans not put Nazi's in the Whitehouse? Has he and the Republicans not sown the seeds of conspiracy and sedition? Remember on a national debate he wouldn't even denounce the Proud Boys. So yes I think pretty objectively he made the party worse.

Pence didn't invoke the 25th amendmant. It's been reported that it was discussed by some in the cabinet but never that they had enough onboard for Pence to do it. Now if Trump is impeached or resigns you can bet Pence will use that opportunity to distance himself from Trump by not pardoning him.

Edit.

Deleted because it's a waste of time, better to put the person on ignore.

PlayerUp wrote:As history has proven, presidents who leave office tend to do well afterwards. Trump will be just fine with small hiccups like this on the way. Besides, I doubt Trump plans to do anymore ventures in liberal states. He'll focus on Florida and Texas, the #2 and #4 highest GDP earning states.

Our history has never included a former president who was a developer, so I’m not sure it’s Apple to apples comparison. Even if he decides to avoid “liberal state” he’s going to find out that the cities (even ones in Florida and Texas) with all the wealth don’t like him too much either.

Almost Retired wrote:Whether the climate is changing is a totally different question than whether man made activity is the cause of it. You can line up 1,000 scientists whose research is part of some government "study". What do you think their conclusions are going to be. I won't even get into the use of falsified temperature data and other "anomalies". Think a little deeper. Don't be a sheep. If man was the cause of climate change how did the climate of the earth change back and forth for millions of years before we evolved? The climate may be changing. It may be necessary for us to adapt to whatever change occurs as we have done for countless millenia. But we are not the cause of it and there is nothing we can do to halt it. Solar activity drives the climate. The only things on earth that have definitely achieved a short term changing of the climate have been enormous volcanic eruptions and the asteroid that landed off the Yucatan and which led to the death of the dinosaurs. Listen to what the politicians say and just assume the opposite and you'll be better off.

Calling other people sheep while offering no sources or studies to support you stance isn’t going to convince many people. You tell us not to listen to the politicians or the scientists. Who is the great unbiased source you suggest we listen to?

PlayerUp wrote:

the ultimates wrote:Do you think the Republican party is better now than it was four years ago? Again the total number is inconsequential. You could have had the lowest voter turnout in history the two major party candidates were always going to roughly split the vote. The same thing will happen with a rough split in 2024.

Had to think about this question. My answer is yes I think it's better but I would need more data to be confident on this.

- Trump gained alot of support which may or may not help the GOP in the future
- The people who voted against Trump may change their vote back to the GOP in the next election
- Trump changed everything we know about politics for better and for worse

Ultimately the GOP did not have any identity prior to Trump. Trump re-energized the party moved it into a new direction. Without Trump, there isn't anyone in the GOP currently that can clearly represent them and push the party. Additionally, without Trump what does the GOP actually want to accomplish? The democrats have clear goals in place. What is the republicans goal here? Same old thing they've been pushing for the past couple decades?

In order to move on from Trump, the republican party needs a new true leader that actually will energize their base and move this country forward that is different than what we have been seeing from the republican party for the past couple decades.

I'll give my take from red neck-ville. The Republican Party is dead. The establishment Republicans completely stabbed their own voters in the back. This is nothing new. McConnell and his crew have been doing it for decades. But this was the last straw. I hear more anti -Republican vitriol down here in the aftermath of the election, from Republicans, than I hear anti Biden commentary. I sincerely hope that continues. This country needs a viable 3rd Party in a bad way. The two parties we have now are dominated by corrupt, self serving, kleptocrats who have sold out the middle class for most of my lifetime. Only from a place as vile as Washington DC could a "Stimulus" bill spend 3 times more money on pork and foreign boondoggles than it does providing cash relief to its own citizens financially decimated by Covid lockdowns. It was a travesty. We are close to $30 Trillion in debt. Why are we sending Pakistan Millions for "gender studies"? While us peons get a whopping $600. In Austin that buys about 2 weeks rent on a one bedroom apartment. Thanks a lot Congress for stepping up. Yet here we are at each other's throats, just where they want us to be. Distracted from the real issues. Spouting talking points. First they sent the blue collar jobs overseas. But I'm sure the swamp creatures got nice campaign contributions for that from the financial elites that got richer and richer. In the next round of strip mining the middle class they have their sights set on the white collars. Look at what has happened under these Covid lockdowns. People's entire lives have been decimated while the net worth of the elites has skyrocketed. A pox on both parties.

moorhosj wrote:Who is the great unbiased source you suggest we listen to?

These are the political rules for the physical sciences (social sciences are different). All PhD science is correct, and is not disputed by politicians, with two exceptions -

1) Republicans do not accept climate science, because they don't like its conclusions
2) Some Republicans do not accept COVID-19 medical science, because they don't like its conclusions

It should go without saying, but apparently needs repeating, that these politicians have no more technical knowledge of the subject than they do about quantum physics., and that their views about these two topics are gibberish.

I don’t know if this matters to anyone at this point in the discussion, but POTUS does not have to be guilty of a crime to be impeached. There is a lot of discussion in the media, both liberal and conservative, about whether Trump’s words “incited” the insurrection. That is a legal question. I’ve spent some time this last week researching “incitement” jurisprudence and in my view, Trump did not as a legal matter “incite” the insurrection.

Everyone on CNN says he did incite it, most everyone on Fox says he did not. I don’t know what MSNBC or Newsmax says because I can’t control my gag reflex long enough to watch either network, but I think I can safely guess their respective positions.

This is a red herring though. The grounds for impeachment are far more nebulous and subjective than legal standards within the court system. Of the statements I have read, Liz Cheney has presented the basis for impeachment in the way most consistent with the historical and congressional treatment of the analysis which I will get to in a minute.

Congressionally established grounds for impeachment include “a broad variety of conduct by officers that is both serious and incompatible with the duties of the office.”

The legal standard for incitement is not wholly irrelevant because if you establish it, it strengthens the case. But in my studied view it does not apply. Nor is it necessary.

The basis for impeachment is not solely the insurrection and Trump’s role in it. Rather it includes deliberately and knowingly lying to the American public about election fraud. This is different than him filing lawsuits, which is peaceful, constitutional and the proper way to address these issues. I always agreed with McConnell’s statements that POTUS is completely within his rights to pursue his grievances through legal means.

But that is different than the accompanying rhetoric about “massive widespread fraud.” His lawsuits did not even allege fraud, yet this was his persistent public message to provoke outrage and inflame passions. This is calculated and incompatible with the purposes of the office because it seeks to undermine public trust in democracy.

Next piece of evidence is his multiple phone calls asking Georgia officials to select specific investigators willing to “find the fraud” and worse to “find” the exact amount of votes he needed to take the state, accompanied by threats to those officials to do this for him. That is inconsistent with the purposes of the office and not only undermines public trust in democracy, but in fact is a patent effort to directly and illegally overturn a presidential election behind the scenes. That is an attempted coup, albeit a fraudulent rather than violent one. But that didn’t work.

So the next phase was to pressure Mike Pence to do something that is illegal and unconstitutional, which was to refuse to accept and tally the certified election results. And on the day it happened, attempted to use duress against Pence by rallying his crowd around the need for Mike Pence to do this illegal thing. Que “kill Mike Pence” chants. Those were the next two steps taken to effect a non-violent coup to subvert the will of the people. Also an impeachable offense under the standard established by Congress nearly 50 years ago.

Then we have the insurrection itself. While there is little doubt Trump’s statements for months and on that day inflamed passions, it is highly unlikely that it constitutes incitement. Despite this, the insurrection itself is the focal point of impeachment and understandably so, but I hope they do not conflate legal incitement with impeachment.

Because the last basis for impeachment - conduct incompatible the duties of the office - is Trump’s conduct during and after the insurrection. Liz Cheney’s statement includes this and it should be a meaningful focal point of the process:

“The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.“

This, to me, is the most easily proven and most obvious basis for impeachment. Even ignoring the multiple reports from inside the WH that Trump watched the insurrection with “delight” and that he was “confused” as to why his staff did not have the same reaction, we know he sat back for hours and took no action to stop it. And he continued to tweet threats (“this is what happens when you try to steal an election”). Which links back to all of his prior conduct in convincing his followers that no other choices remained to “save Democracy.” Ultimately, Biden and Trump’s legal team had to implore him to make a public statement and when he did it was with a wink and a nod.

Ignore whether he incited the insurrection. Collectively and individually the described acts are impeachable offenses. They constitute a months long, multi-pronged effort to undermine public faith in democracy without evidence, and ultimately to overturn the will of the people through unconstitutional means.

These actions are grossly incompatible with the weighty duties and obligations a sitting POTUS owes to this nation, and he should be impeached.