snafu
-
Posts
6,097 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by snafu
-
-
2 minutes ago, Motorin' said:
So the there was a ton of violent chatter for an event that Trump organized and directed, and that means he can't have incited it. Got it.
Can you point us to statutes that define incitement? Or are you making it up as you go along?
You're reading these posts wrong. I'm saying that his failure to stop the riots are a problem, but not evidence of inciting the riots. And I didn't see yesterday anything from Trump that included violent chatter before the 5th of January. Maybe I missed it. There were lots of posts and articles and evidence from other groups.
4 minutes ago, Scraps said:The Capitol, Mall, Ellipse and White House do not fall under the DC mayor's jurisdiction. That is under Federal authority.
There would have been no problems if Trump had accepted the results of the election, like the previous 44 losers had, hadn't repeatedly spread a big lie, hadn't asked his followers to come to DC and be wild and hadn't told his followers that they were going to the Capitol.
I get what you're saying, but then why did the D.C. Mayor ask for National Guard troops ahead of time AND direct that they be placed in places that were not obtrusive, or for security purposes? That happened.
Apparently Trump, and those people who invaded the Capitol, believe this "Big Lie". He invited people to come to D.C., but can you point out where Trump invited anyone coming to D.C. to "be wild"? I saw him invite people to the Capitol, but I didn't see him tell anyone to be a complete animal and attach police and desecrate that Capitol. I don't condone what happened on the 6th, and I've said in this thread that Trump is his own worst enemy and he wouldn't be in this position if he were like anyone else. I'm trying to look at this impeachment dispassionately and I don't see where there's a connection to "inciting". I do see dereliction of duty AFTER the fact, but Trump isn't charged with that.
10 minutes ago, Tiberius said:Shows his mindset. Any decent human being would stop a murderous riot if they could, He laughed.
Wow, Trump is just total scum. Send him to Russia or something. Why you guy want a criminal as a president is beyond me
Don't be so dramatic.
-
4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
If a person wanted to incite a riot they obviously wouldn't stop it once it started. No leap at all.
Or, if a person wanted to start a loud, exterior-only protest and it turned ugly then yes, a leap.
Not stopping it is the problem. It isn't evidence of incitement.
-
8 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
It's evidence. Of course he would not try and stop something he wanted to happen. Proves intent
It's a leap. Whatever evidence it is.
Leaps don't get convictions.
-
17 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:
I get where you’re going with this, and in isolation it might be a fair point. The isolation, of course, would speak to the protestors. If they didn’t have a means of communicating with Trump after the breach (that is, if they were isolated from Trump), then I might agree with you. But in the iPhone world, I don’t see how we have such isolation, and the inflammatory words still “count” after the breach occurred.
But Trump wasn't charged with dereliction of duty for failing to quell anything. And to be honest,before yesterday's presentation, I had no idea how much very troubling chatter there was (not by Trump) before the 6th that should have made the hair stand up on the necks of anyone who had control over security, which includes the D.C. Mayor and whomever has authority over the Congressional Police, and the FBI. The fact is that with all this chatter, nobody saw fit to harden up the security at the Capitol beforehand. From what I've seen, the D.C. Mayor's request for National Guard was extremely limited to places in D.C. that were specifically NOT the Capitol Building How can they cite Trump with knowing that the rioters would breach the Capitol when they were privy to the same chatter he was, and they didn't do anything? Answer: they can't. Not with a straight face. Does my opinion on this make me a co-conspirator? No. I'm looking at the facts and the charge and the circumstantial evidence you point out isn't the full circumstantial picture.
He was charged with inciting. You can't incite something that's already occurring. His statements made after the breach, while extremely unfortunate, are not part of the act of inciting. Perhaps Trump didn't know that the crowd would do anything more than stand on the steps and protest. You can't take his inaction after the fact as intent to incite. Perhaps for a different charge this would be proper. Perhaps the House should not have been so hasty to shove one article through, and then let the managers fit the facts in after Trump's been charged.
17 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:Diction matters. You/HRC said “the Republicans” are co-conspirators. I do not agree with that, because there may be some who rely on what I believe to be the stupid and politically convenient position that the rejected jurisdictional bar prevents a determination on the merits.
I didn't say Republicans are co-conspirators at all. Clinton did and I disagree.
17 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:If you said “Republicans” who so vote are co-conspirators, then I would agree, because the reference wouldn’t be to ALL such Republicans (it would apply to SOME Republicans) who vote to acquit. Hawley and Cruz are going vote to acquit, and those two scumbags are complicit.
Hawley and Cruz are not complicit in inciting anything on January 6th -- either show proof or stop spouting such a hokey conspiracy theory. Furthermore, they're not complicit in the riot even if they vote to acquit. Their opinion is clear so far. They don't think the trial should even be happening. Add to that the fact that there's no real "beyond a reasonable doubt" connection and I can see where minds would differ on Trump's guilt of the one article that's been passed. I realize that this is a political proceeding, but politicizing and criminalizing speech is a gigantic step that they're probably not ready to take; and politicizing any Senators' vote for future gain is an unfortunate (and to me, unseemly) byproduct of our system. Every Senator will have to answer for his or her vote in future political campaigns.
The Courthouse to charge a private citizen is probably just up the road from Congress. I sense that's where Hawley and Cruz believe this grievance should be heard.
-
20 minutes ago, 716er said:
There is video evidence from 1/6 of insurrectionists reading Donald's tweets out load and using them to justify the attack.
Donald's allies and staff begged him on Twitter and in person to call off the insurrection, but instead he egged the insurrectionists on.
Tough to dismiss those points even if you somehow find him innocent.
Trump's actions and statements while the riot was ongoing are shameful.
But are those statements evidence of incitement once the Capitol was already breached?
Honest questions, I don't know the timing of these things.
-
19 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:
Degree of victimization has nothing to with incitement. I wasn’t directly victimized, but that doesn’t mean that Trump didn’t incite the insurrectionists and traitors.
Do you agree with Clinton that the Republicans in the Senate who vote to acquit are co-conspirators?
That's absolute nonsense.
-
1 hour ago, BillStime said:
Bingo:
Uh, his jury ALSO includes his alleged victims. If they don't feel so victimized to say that Trump incited the riot in their place of work, then that's just as valid. They're the jurors. They get to decide.
This tweet is typical divisive vapid B.S. from Hillary Clinton. Typical attempt to smear and criminalize one entire party for the acts of few -- because with her and many in her party like her, it's party over anything else and any other party or voice should and must be snuffed out. You saying "bingo" lets everyone here know that you agree with this completely unjustified, unverified slander -- and it makes you out to be, like Hillary Clinton, a conspiracy nutjob.
Thank God she's a worse candidate than Trump, and thank you for again showing everyone here what you are.
-
2
-
-
Just now, daz28 said:
Pretty much all American politicians are scum. You kinda have to choose which slimepit you want to endorse.
So...we need to throw them all out and replace them?
Actually, I agree with you that the political class shouldn't be a separate or elevated class -- but that's the way they treat themselves.
-
1
-
-
Just now, reddogblitz said:
That is the whole point to this. Get Republican Senators to stand up and vote not to convict Trump. They already got the Republican Representatives to stand up and vote against impeachment. Now they can use this in campaign attack ads against them in 2022.
Trump is the greatest money raising tool for Democrats since Nest Gingrich.
Completely agree.
D's can take it further, too, and claim that all the Senators who vote to acquit are domestic terrorists.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, daz28 said:
I won't argue Bernie got screwed, probably more than once, but it's still not the same
While people were dying, and people were calling their loved ones thinking it may be the last time they talk, Trump was calling to see if the insurrection was getting anyone to change their votes. Even if you don't believe he's responsible for this, he is undeniably a complete and utter POS of the highest magnitude.
I've already said my peace about Trump in this thread. He's his own worst enemy and we're witnessing the impeachment because of him.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, daz28 said:
People pulling support from a party, because they don't like the way their party handles their candidate is much different than a member of ones own party coercing them with their political clout to do their bidding.
What?
Bernie Bros pulled their support in 2016 because the D party rigged the primaries in favor of Clinton. Sorry, Bernie, no nomination for you, we've got our candidate with political clout and the party decisionmakers are behind her -- not you. Then in 2020, they pulled their support because Warren stayed in the race one day too long, killing Bernie's chances and reviving Biden's nearly dead campaign. Sorry, again, Bernie, we've got our candidate with political clout and the party decisionmakers are behind him -- not you. That's coercion via political clout.
-
5 minutes ago, daz28 said:
None of those situations involved loyalty to one man over absolutely everything. He's basically running a mafioso by threatening to primary anyone who doesn't do his bidding. This is much different.
Each party has its adherents to individuals. Trump has his style and the people who love him, love him. So does Bernie Sanders, whose supporters threatened, twice, to pull their support from the D party. And they came around.
-
2 minutes ago, daz28 said:
If they become fragmented they will never win ANYTHING for a long, long time. The idea they can get over half the population to be nutbars is a horrible strategy. it's simply a fact more young people are progressive, and old conservative. They latched their ponies to this maniac, and are going to pay dearly for it.
The Republican Party was considered smashed in 2012 after Obama got re-elected. The Democrats were considered fragmented after 2016. The dust is still in the air and hasn't settled yet. The left has some far-left participants. The right has some far-right participants. The moderates of each party tolerate their votes. This isn't a one-party phenomenon.
-
1 minute ago, 716er said:
Explain. I think I understand how you're thinking but I do not want to assume.
They were paid to do a job. The job was over. The payments stopped.
They were paid to do a job that didn't include storming the Capitol, and when that happened, the payment was withheld -- meaning that may not have been foreseen by Trump.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, 716er said:
2. Trump’s political operation paid over $3.5 million to the January 6th organizers and stopped payments immediately after the insurrection.
Isn't that the opposite of damning?
-
Just now, daz28 said:
Bro they WANTED to send them. Mitch CONTROLS if, and WHEN they vote
Mitch doesn't control Pelosi. Different chambers. If she wanted to send the Article of Impeachment, Mitch couldn't stop her.
And I've already shown you that Mitch and Chuck negotiated the start date of the trial before the Article was delivered.
-
4 minutes ago, daz28 said:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pointedly did not rule out Wednesday that he might eventually vote to convict the now twice-impeached President Donald Trump, but he also blocked a quick Senate impeachment trial.
McConnell also issued a statement saying Congress and the government should spend the next week “completely focused on facilitating a safe inauguration and an orderly transfer of power” to Biden. He suggested Trump’s Senate trial would begin no earlier than Jan. 19 — in effect rejecting a drive by the chamber’s Democrats to begin the proceedings immediately so Trump could be ousted from office.
You and I are picking nits here, but (1) where did that quote come from? (2) what that report doesn't say is that the Senate trial COULD NOT begin before January 19 unless the Senate unanimously voted to change their own recess schedule that they had previously unanimously voted to set. Why does the article say that McConnell blocked anything if the entire Senate would have had to unanimously approve the proposal? (3) you don't ever say why the House didn't deliver the Article until January 25th -- the timing of that step completely wipes out anything else you say. The Senate didn't have any jurisdiction over the proceeding until that time.
-
18 minutes ago, daz28 said:
This was from January 13th: WASHINGTON (AP) — Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday rejected a Democratic attempt to swiftly call the Senate into emergency session to hold an impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, all but assuring that those proceedings won’t occur until after Trump leaves office.
If you remember Pelosi was terrified of what he might do
It's an outright lie. McConnell would not recall the Senate.
Read that memo in the tweet I linked.
It says that on January 7, the Senate voted unanimously to set their calendar, and they would have had to vote unanimously to change the calendar. It seems that whatever McConnell said on the 13th had that in mind.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, daz28 said:
I think this has already been made clear, but McConnell said he would not take up the impeachment. That's why it wasn't sent over. They voted on it on the 13th. For him to say it was too late after he said he wasn't going to take it up is ridiculous. Also, we are ridiculously going to see Republicans who already blamed Trump(including McConnell) vote against what they already publicly said.
He also said he lost the election. He was awful.
It isn't nearly as simple as you're making it out to be.
There was a Senate memo describing the calendar restrictions and procedural issues
And Schumer agreed on January 22 to a February proceeding, knowing that the House hadn't even delivered the Article to the Senate yet. There was no complaining at the time about the schedule. And even if there was, there wasn't much that could have or would have been done about it. This isn't simply a matter of McConnell being disingenuous. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/22/schumer-says-senate-will-receive-impeachment-article-on-monday-461305
-
19 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
Wasn't part of this that McConnel indicated that the Senate would not reconvene until the day before inauguration and that they would not have time for a trial, and based on that he and Pelosi came to the arrangement that was sued? what should have been done is the House should have marched the articles over to the Senate as soon as they were done, and the Senate should have immediately been brought into session.
Correct. That is the thrust of the January argument put forth yesterday.
The President is usually afforded time to make a defense. The only good argument made by his counsel yesterday was the fact that the House impeached him in 8 hours and didn’t have much debate, and didn’t afford the President an opportunity to participate. That’s the usual (due) process. If the House Managers are allowed to argue that “there’s precedent for this” then they can’t get away with how the process didn’t follow precedent up to this point.
Impeachment is a political matter, but the accused needs at least a modicum of due diligence, otherwise everyone is left with a show trial. The ultimate political penalty was already laid on the President by his losing the election. On January 21 Trump became a private citizen — and there’s a Judicial branch to handle the matter at that point.
I was was impressed by our checks and balances for the past 4 years when keeping the President in check. Now, checks and balances seem to be blurring and that’s not a good thing. Try him in court. If he’s a convicted felon, he can’t be President anyway. Is Congress afraid they can’t overcome the presumption of innocence and beyond reasonable doubt thresholds?
15 minutes ago, Tiberius said:You are not conceding that Trump did something wrong when he called the GA Att General to find votes are you? You don't think that was a crime, right? Obviously you think Trump did nothing wrong inciting the mob, you are fine with that.
Trump has done a ***** ton of things wrong. He’s his own worst enemy. That’s why he’s in this position now. Perhaps a court of law would like to hear about it.
-
2 hours ago, daz28 said:
This is pure gold. If you can't see how stupid this is, then well you're really stupid.
The Senate didn’t receive the Article of Impeachment until January 25. Here’s a NYT article from 1/19 that says Pelosi was holding the Article to build a case. The issue yesterday was whether the Senate should hold a trial after the President left office. It isn’t that stupid. The Senate couldn’t hear anything or do anything until the Article was put into their hands. There’s arguments to be made both ways. Seems that Justice Roberts might agree, or he at least thinks it is a bit closer case than you make it out to be. In any event, the vote is over and the trial is proceeding.
-
9 minutes ago, K-9 said:
While the NHL needs to provide better testing and monitoring like the NBA, there is nothing they can do about the actual conditions they play in; namely cold and enclosed playing surfaces. Just today there was an editorial in the BN citing an epidemiologist in Minnesota who has had concerns that the cold air that surrounds the ice surface can trap viral droplets. Teams are removing the glass behind their benches to provide additional ventilation as well.
And yeah, this season is a mess and odds are that it won’t be completed before a serious interruption.
Maybe they can replace the glass with chain link fencing, old school rink style.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Define what happened on January 6?My answer isn't what you presume it would be, but why should I bother?
Would I change you mind?
-
2 minutes ago, BillStime said:
When is the next insurrection?When was the last one?
Trump Impeachment 2.0
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
What I'd like to say is yes, and I didn't take Trump's statements as a call to action and I never would, just to make you freak out.
What I believe is that Trump lost. What I believe is that States had better tighten up their voting systems and be more transparent for the next election. What I believe is that if someone is going to hold an election, it is good to show the world how fair it is, instead of just flat out dismissing questions about it and marketing it ad "the big lie". There appear to be some serious ***** ups along the way to certifying a winner, and none of those were ever explained. If it's such a lie, then show everyone. I don't think that has happened yet.