The revolution was broadcast live on TV. We saw it happen. He assembled his militia. He gave them a pep rally. Then he retreated to the safety of the White House. And AFTER he saw they had failed, he weakly told them, "Oh - wait - that's not what I meant." We all saw it.
Absolutely. They came, ready to rumble, when Trump asked them to do that. Trump: "Big protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" Not much! Some guns have a very sensitive trigger. It's not a valid defense to say "I didn't squeeze the trigger that hard! So I am not responsible for the gun firing." It is worthwhile to note that his original defense was going to be "I was ROBBED! The election was stolen from me, so I was entirely within my rights to ask that mob to take it back." That, of course, is an admission of guilt. His lawyers have managed to talk him down from this, so he will instead be switching to a "it's not fair to require a politician to consider whether the outcome of his speech could be violence, because that violates his First Amendment rights."
At face value, I’d think impeachment is just the beginning. If any of us were to round up an angry mob to attack the Capitol, wouldn’t we be arrested? If he’s claiming ignorance, what did he think was going to happen after that rally?
If he was that ignorant as to what the effects of his words would be, then he definitely should not be anywhere near the nuclear launch codes.
My take (probably wrong) is that it may not have crossed his mind that his crowd might have actually murder his opponents. Their fate probably accounted for little in his reckoning .What mattered was that they were in his way and he thought that somehow he could force them to his will. In my mind he could have profited from the mayhem to declare martial law and pose as a benign interventionist extricating some of the hostages from those of the crowd he was prepared to disavow (The expendable ones) I was surprised how close those marauders actually got to taking prisoners as I assumed security would be stronger I notice he did not disavow the attack when his words might have held back the crowd or at least bought the security forces a bit of time. That was shameful. If that was Russia I guess he would be up against a wall.
Perhaps. However, he certainly intended violence. When the reports began coming in, he was happy and excited, and went around the White House wondering why no one else was excited. His first tweet after the attack began targeted Pence and said nothing attempting to calm the rioters. He was clearly hoping for a violent outcome, and was pleased when it materialized. He only began telling rioters to stop when it became apparent that the attack was becoming a PR nightmare for him. The plan was to deploy DC National Guard to assist police. However, Trump's acting SecDef sent out a letter that said (in part): ================= Without my subsequent, personal authorization, the DCNG is not authorized the following: To be issued weapons, ammunition, bayonets, batons, or ballistic protection equipment such as helmets, and body armor. To interact physically with protestors, except when necessary in self-defense or defense of others, consistent with the DCNG Rules for the Use of Force. To employ any riot control agents. To share equipment with law enforcement agencies. To use Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) assets or to conduct ISR or Incident, Awareness, and Assessment activities. To employ helicopters or any other air assets. To conduct searches, seizures, arrests, or other similar direct law enforcement activity. ================== So they were intentionally crippled from the get-go. Yep. The riot was not an unfortunate consequence of his words; the riot was the objective of his words.
I don't think so. I think that acts done by a president while in office are protected in various ways. On the other hand, it looks like there are processes in train to prosecute Trump for his attempt to subvert the election results in Georgia in his phonecall where he asked electional officials to "find" more votes for him because "we won the state". (He didn't win the state.)
Trump's speech on 6 January was not the only time he incited that riot. He repeatedly told his followers in the weeks leading up to that date to come to Washington to "stop the steal". The leaders of the rioters had plenty of time to organise in response to his calls, which they did. A year or so is probably sufficient, and that's what Trump provided. Long before the election, Trump explicitly refused to say that he would comply with a peaceful transfer of power if he lost the election. He also told his supporters that the only way he could lose the election would be if it was "stolen" by fraudulent means. In other words, he primed them to expect the election to be tainted by fraud, and he stoked their anger after he lost it. Why do you support Trump, then? You should watch it. The prosecution case so far is compelling.
If it didn't, he had a whole bunch of expert advisors around him to make sure it crossed his mind. Difficult to disavow a crowd chanting "Trump Trump Trump", while wearing Trump hats and Trump t-shirts, carrying Trump flags and Trump signs, and shouting "We're doing this for Trump!" It looks like there were security failings. The man in charge of Capitol security resigned. The rioters got within metres of some members of Congress. It was clear that, in particular, some of them were looking for Pelosi and Pence when they entered the building. If the mob had managed to get their hands on either of those members, who knows what they would have done? We know what they said they intended as they rampaged through the building. One, for example, shouted out that he wanted to find Pelosi and shoot her in the face. He swore an oath to protect the constitution and the American people. He wasn't even willing to lift a finger to protect his own vice president.
the bigger question that appears to be, being asked but not outright is the accountability of leadership while usa systems seek to target cash from company's or private individuals the underlying systemic government question will be is the leader accountable for inciting behavior ? that probably is new territory however the leader appears to be in a position where they can grant themselves immunity additionally politicians seem to be above the law in some positions where they are given legal freedom to say what ever they want so a question might need asking about IF they seek to re-regulate those issues to define boundary's Regardless of the fact they need a majority of republican party to agree which will never happen unless such a person was filmed in the act of some terrible crime. they have given him the keys to the kingdom then they have chased the outlier extremist ideological concepts its as much the republican partys fault as it is their leaders fault the whole system is designed and panders to extremafy to create a us versus them to enable the grasping of power to oppose competition which is ironic when you look at the supposed anti trust concepts around business & market controls its all a bit of a cluster F & regardless of what they end up charging him with that wont suddenly remove all the psychopaths that seem to be creating action groups & trying to change society. i should imagine homeland security will be in a very difficult stage of evolution not to mention the FBI their relationship is probably well past the concept of strained. i suspect one of the key questions is can the new administration bring in leadership and governance that can help heal & evolve the FBI & Homeland security to work together to prevent the mastacising effect of the insurgent violent anarchists, domestic terrorists, psyche patients, & all other stuff as the pandemic drives up the nations blood pressure... with no mental health services rising unemployment falling currency value and stone walling of market stimulus HLS & the FBI will need some very smart & mentally stable people to help re build them & tackle the developing issues
Watched a little of the prosecution this morning Legal eagle said something which, to my ears strange. He was talking about efforts to get Trump to stop the riot. He made the statement "The truth is he (Trump) did not want to stop the riot" Now there is no way the lawyer could know that. I am fairly sure if these proceedings were being held in a court of law that statement would be challenged. But why allowed in this situation? I can see the statement being framed as a question aimed at a jury, "Did Trump want to stop the riot?" leaving the jury to make the determination Way to either boost weak evidence or play on jurors doubts Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
as previously explained I am anti war I am mostly apolitical also I am a libertarian socialist If a libertarian is running I support him If a socialist is running I support him If a candidate is anti war I support him/her HRC seemed to be a warmonger Trump did not so he got my vote the lesser of two weevils with the insane radical anti-trumpism, I found myself voicing an anti-anti-trumpist position That is not a pro-trump position I don't even like the guy
... hhmmm ... do you have any links you could post that gave you that impression ? im quite curious of your perception to see the difference between what you perceived as war monger Hilary & anti-war protester Donald did he burn his conscription card ? i am well aware some have openly called Donald a draft dodger morally & ethically i would have objected to the Vietnam war. i think the wholesale bombing of Laos & Cambodia is terrible war crimes and grounds for any free American citizen to refuse to be drafted on the grounds of those crimes as to illegitimize the war.
Really? I see you often posting in our "politics" subforum. Most of the time when I read your posts, you're pushing the standard Republican talking points. The Republican Party is hardly a bunch of libertarian socialists. You might be able to argue for a narrow reading of "libertarian", restricted to corporate governance or similar, but certainly you can't argue that party is socialist. Neither of the major US parties is. Which libertarians have you supported? Which socialists? Can you mention a few names? How do you figure that Hillary Clinton was/is a warmonger? You don't care that Trump's a serial liar, that he's the "grab 'em by the pussy" guy, that he's a complete narcissist, etc.? None of those things registered/mattered to you? Did you vote for him just the once, or twice? How did you vote after you'd had an opportunity to see Trump up close for 4 years? Which insane anti-Trumpism would that be? Can you give me an example or two? No? How so? You like what he stands for. What does he stand for, by the way, in your view?
It's not a traditional case; it's an impeachment. If this were a standard criminal case, he would have called one of the people in the White House that day as a witness and asked him "did it look like Trump wanted to stop the riot? Did he take any action to stop it when he first heard about it?" and let that person's testimony describe it.
Yes and as I posted a impeachment is and I guess since the equivalent of the jury are the members who were there no need to call them As for calling witnesses I have not kept track of the option. Has it been settled yes they will or no they won't? Back to "The truth is he (Trump) did not want to stop the riot" not be challenged. It appears that knowingly telling lies is allowed in impeachment proceedings I think the rest of the world should band together and kick out of America all those people not born of original American Aboriginal descent. Allow those remaining to build to a large enough population and let them decide who they want back Ya dream on Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is the prosecution case. The defense team will get its 16 hours to refute that proposition, along with all the others. Where did you get the idea that prosecution statements cannot be challenged? (P.S. I see river got in ahead of me. And actually said something sensible, for once.)
In courtrooms as well. During opening and closing arguments, prosecutors say things like "we will prove the defendant did knowingly observe, track and confront the victim, threaten her, and then attack her, and that he planned this for at least two weeks in advance." They can't read his mind. They can't know that 100%. They may not even have any witnesses that come out and say that. But THEY can say that, because that is the case they are trying to make. At the end, the jury will decide if they have indeed proven that.
P.S. I actually say something sensible alot . I watched on cnn all day long , it ended perfectly . I got to watch my Hockey game , Toronto vs Montreal without missing a thing the prosecution presented . Perfect . I haven't heard your voice in quite awhile saying otherwise .
