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 ha
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.
About the time we think we can make ends meet, somebody moves the ends.
-- Herbert Hoover
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: (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 ha
Re:Arrest the Leader of the Conspiracy (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.