House managers rest case, argue Trump could stoke more violence if not convicted

WASHINGTON — House managers wrapped up their case in former President Donald Trump's second impeachment trial Thursday, arguing that he controlled the mob that wreaked deadly havoc on the U.S. Capitol and that he could incite further violence if he is not convicted.

The impeachment managers, who act as prosecutors in the Senate, spent the third day of the proceedings trying to prove Trump's responsibility for the graphic and emotionally jarring scenes they had presented as evidence the day before — video of rioters roaming the halls in search of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Vice President Mike Pence, of a Capitol Police officer screaming as he was crushed against a door by the mob, of senators and congressional staffers running for their lives.

"He didn't react to the violence with shock or horror or dismay, as we did. He didn't immediately rush to Twitter and demand in the clearest possible terms that the mob disperse, that they stop it, that they retreat," Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., one of the managers, said in his final remarks for the day. "Instead, he issues messages in the afternoon that sided with them, the insurrectionists, who had left police officers battered and bloodied."

The activities you describe as annoying and worthy of arrest may all be curbed with an awareness of, and practice of, The Golden Rule. The Golden Rule does not operate by force of legislation or threat of prosecution. A general respect for others may or may not be difficult to maintain. It has been, and is, a stressful phenomenon to see law after law drafted to inculcate what is otherwise common sense behavior. I reckon this is summarized as well by the words, “You cannot legislate morality.” As you said, in the past it was no problem whatsoever to drink and drive, but the caveat applied: Get obnoxious or reckless and you will meet force of law.

Drink responsibly.
Drive responsibly.
Drink and drive responsibly? Hell no!

Why is that? Because we have introduced jurisprudence to address potential wrongdoing rather than actual wrongdoing. I am old enough to know how stupid and multifarious are the laws we’ve adopted through the ages.

Thank you for the cordial and thought-provoking replies.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.