After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
- Donald J. Trump, January 6 2021.
No he didn't explicitly tell them to attack the capitol. Yes, he did rile up a crowd by holding an event where speaker after speaker gaslit the crowd for an hour, and then told them to "be strong" at the Capitol. Anyone with half a functional brain can see what this is leading to.
Did he mean to have them violently attack the Capitol while a joint session of Congress was in session? I don't know, and I don't know if we'll ever know. But he sure as shit didn't mind it happening when it did, because he didn't do fuck-all for hours about it. And when he finally did, he told them that he loved them and was proud of them.
Indeed. The test for "trying to incite violence" is not the words uses, but whether the words had that potential, did cause violence and whether that was something reasonable to be expected. The statements by Trump match all three.
Wow, it must take serious effort to be this blind to your polarized view of the last year (let alone last 4 years).
None of you idiots can explain how or why security was so lax to begin with. I've worked for a state entity, once I went through the wrong metal detector (meant for higher clearance individuals to go through quicker) only to be greeted by 4 state troopers.
I don't know if half of the people on here are really this stupid or are seriously this brainwashed...and that goes for both "teams". You all
We all know that Trump replaced key people in the Pentagon three weeks before the event, so they could hold back the National Guard during the insurrection. What does that have to do with "team blue"?
I have no idea what you are even talking about. Who replaced who? I'm asking how its possible anyone stormed into what could arguably be one of the most protected public buildings in the US, because...they couldn't shut the doors fast enough? Are you kidding me?
I'm just trying to follow the mental gymnastics at play here, how would it have been in trumps best interest to have what transpired happen? Like how in any possible way would it have turned out good from a goal perspective?
Wow, it must take serious effort to be this blind to your polarized view of the last year (let alone last 4 years).
None of you idiots can explain how or why security was so lax to begin with. I've worked for a state entity, once I went through the wrong metal detector (meant for higher clearance individuals to go through quicker) only to be greeted by 4 state troopers.
I don't know if half of the people on here are really this stupid or are seriously this brainwashed...and that goes for both "teams". You all are nuts, but team blue has gone completely off the bend and into wack-ville.
You know, if you storm a building with intent to kill people (and remember some were killed), that is not really the fault of security being lax. But yes, that is an interesting question in addition. It is however completely irrelevant to the question of guilt of those that did the storming and killing.
The speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action," AND The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action."
In court, you have to prove three things: 1) Donald Trump intended for the imminent lawless action to happen. 2) You have to know what imminent lawless action means. 3) That his speech was likely to produce such action.
The speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action," AND The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action."
In court, you have to prove three things: 1) Donald Trump intended for the imminent lawless action to happen. 2) You have to know what imminent lawless action means. 3) That his speech was likely to produce such action.
While that is pretty obvious all the case here, even a scumbag like Trump gets "innocent until proven guilty" and at least 1) is hard to prove.
As I said, I don't know if he's guilty of incitement or not.
I do know he's guilty of being incompetent and completely ineffective at quelling it. He is clearly the one person that any of the rioters would listen to, and they were actively looking at Twitter during the riot - they showed video during the Impeachment trial of rioters reading out loud his tweets in the Capitol.
Any President who actually gives a damn about their oath of office would have been in front of the podium in the press briefing room i
If he didn't realize that his words would incite the violence, then he clearly doesn't understand the power of his words. In my mind, that makes him unfit to ever be president again.
One thing in a list of many reasons. I'd put that behind the unbelievably shitty response to Covid-19.
I'll give credit where it's due - his administration helped to get the Moderna vaccine to the state that it is through Warp Speed. However, the Pfizer vaccine didn't get one penny of government help and would have happened anyway on the same schedule. And the distribution / inoculation plan was a total shit show, completely cleaned up by not having him in office any more. We went from the worst country
See? This is what I don't get. Trump did not explicitly promote violence, but Giuliani did. Sure, it was likely at Trump's bidding... but what worries me is that nobody is fucking mentioning or considering legal charges against Giuliani despite recorded proof. What the fuck is going on here? Why isn't Giuliani having to answer for his crimes? Are people willing to let Giuliani go free in the hopes of convicting Trump? Why is the one piece of incontrovertible evidence being ignored?
WTF (Score:0, Funny)
Arrest the Leader of the Conspiracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump summoned all these Traitors to Washington DC and they violently attacked the capitol at his command.
Donald Trump should be in jail right now.
Lock Him Up.
Re: (Score:-1, Troll)
Trump summoned all these Traitors to Washington DC and they violently attacked the capitol at his command.
Do you have a quote for when he commanded them to violently attack the capitol? It sounds like you made something up.
Re:Arrest the Leader of the Conspiracy (Score:5, Informative)
After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
- Donald J. Trump, January 6 2021.
No he didn't explicitly tell them to attack the capitol. Yes, he did rile up a crowd by holding an event where speaker after speaker gaslit the crowd for an hour, and then told them to "be strong" at the Capitol. Anyone with half a functional brain can see what this is leading to.
Did he mean to have them violently attack the Capitol while a joint session of Congress was in session? I don't know, and I don't know if we'll ever know. But he sure as shit didn't mind it happening when it did, because he didn't do fuck-all for hours about it. And when he finally did, he told them that he loved them and was proud of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. The test for "trying to incite violence" is not the words uses, but whether the words had that potential, did cause violence and whether that was something reasonable to be expected. The statements by Trump match all three.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, it must take serious effort to be this blind to your polarized view of the last year (let alone last 4 years).
None of you idiots can explain how or why security was so lax to begin with. I've worked for a state entity, once I went through the wrong metal detector (meant for higher clearance individuals to go through quicker) only to be greeted by 4 state troopers.
I don't know if half of the people on here are really this stupid or are seriously this brainwashed...and that goes for both "teams". You all
Re: (Score:2)
We all know that Trump replaced key people in the Pentagon three weeks before the event, so they could hold back the National Guard during the insurrection. What does that have to do with "team blue"?
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what you are even talking about. Who replaced who? I'm asking how its possible anyone stormed into what could arguably be one of the most protected public buildings in the US, because...they couldn't shut the doors fast enough? Are you kidding me?
I'm just trying to follow the mental gymnastics at play here, how would it have been in trumps best interest to have what transpired happen? Like how in any possible way would it have turned out good from a goal perspective?
They needed a curb stomp t
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, it must take serious effort to be this blind to your polarized view of the last year (let alone last 4 years).
None of you idiots can explain how or why security was so lax to begin with. I've worked for a state entity, once I went through the wrong metal detector (meant for higher clearance individuals to go through quicker) only to be greeted by 4 state troopers.
I don't know if half of the people on here are really this stupid or are seriously this brainwashed...and that goes for both "teams". You all are nuts, but team blue has gone completely off the bend and into wack-ville.
You know, if you storm a building with intent to kill people (and remember some were killed), that is not really the fault of security being lax. But yes, that is an interesting question in addition. It is however completely irrelevant to the question of guilt of those that did the storming and killing.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the actual Brandenburg test:
The speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action," AND
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action."
In court, you have to prove three things:
1) Donald Trump intended for the imminent lawless action to happen.
2) You have to know what imminent lawless action means.
3) That his speech was likely to produce such action.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the actual Brandenburg test:
The speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action," AND
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action."
In court, you have to prove three things:
1) Donald Trump intended for the imminent lawless action to happen.
2) You have to know what imminent lawless action means.
3) That his speech was likely to produce such action.
While that is pretty obvious all the case here, even a scumbag like Trump gets "innocent until proven guilty" and at least 1) is hard to prove.
Re: (Score:2)
Which part is telling people to be violent? The part where he said to "cheer?" Or the part where he said "You have to show strength?"
You want Trump to be guilty, so you are imagining that he is.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, I don't know if he's guilty of incitement or not.
I do know he's guilty of being incompetent and completely ineffective at quelling it. He is clearly the one person that any of the rioters would listen to, and they were actively looking at Twitter during the riot - they showed video during the Impeachment trial of rioters reading out loud his tweets in the Capitol.
Any President who actually gives a damn about their oath of office would have been in front of the podium in the press briefing room i
Re: (Score:2)
I do know he's guilty of being incompetent
I don't disagree there.
Before all of this is done, I would imagine we're going to find that there was some structure behind some of the worst shit we saw go down
That sounds rather conspiratorial.
Re: (Score:1)
If he didn't realize that his words would incite the violence, then he clearly doesn't understand the power of his words. In my mind, that makes him unfit to ever be president again.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing in a list of many reasons. I'd put that behind the unbelievably shitty response to Covid-19.
I'll give credit where it's due - his administration helped to get the Moderna vaccine to the state that it is through Warp Speed. However, the Pfizer vaccine didn't get one penny of government help and would have happened anyway on the same schedule. And the distribution / inoculation plan was a total shit show, completely cleaned up by not having him in office any more. We went from the worst country
Re: (Score:2)
See? This is what I don't get. Trump did not explicitly promote violence, but Giuliani did. Sure, it was likely at Trump's bidding... but what worries me is that nobody is fucking mentioning or considering legal charges against Giuliani despite recorded proof. What the fuck is going on here? Why isn't Giuliani having to answer for his crimes? Are people willing to let Giuliani go free in the hopes of convicting Trump? Why is the one piece of incontrovertible evidence being ignored?
I am beginning to suspect
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that it isn't being ignored, and the US Department of Justice may have something to say about it before all is said and done.