SectionC3

Before I so substituted I might read the third to last line of Volume II of the Mueller report. I’ll even paste it for you here: “At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.” Why engage in conduct that arguably constitutes obstruction of justice if the investigation is a hoax? Doesn’t add up. And doesn’t change the fact that Mueller is unable to say that the President did not commit obstruction of justice in his interactions with respect to that investigation.

Right to inquire as to what, exactly? Election fraud? They know it’s bogus. Every DC Republican I talk to knows that it’s BS. Hawley clerked at the Supreme Court. Both he and Cruz are ivies. They are not stupid, and they know there is nothing to the Big Lie. Not a speck of truth to it. That leaves us at a point where this “inquiry” of which you speak actually was pandering to a bamboozled group of people with the goal of currying political favor. It backfired in a big, bad way, and now those two losers have to bear the consequences.

Let’s start with your first sentence. It contains the false premise that the refusal and failure to quell can relate only to dereliction of duty. That’s wrong. HIs refusal to act once he knew that the mob had overtaken the Capitol is circumstantial evidence that he got what he wanted and what his words leading up that moment had suggested, namely, an assault upon that building. Let’s move next to Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz. Both of them amplified the Big Lie. That’s pretty well established. And both of them knew better. These are smart guys who capitalized on Trump’s exploitation of a bunch of downtrodden, angry, victimized gullibles. They encouraged this nonsense, and it’s splitting hairs to say that they aren’t complicit in the outcome. Josh Hawley’s little fist of power on the Capitol steps speaks for itself.

What a friggin disgrace. I have no words.

Are you invoking Rule #2?

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. 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. 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. Ding ding we have a winner. Refusal to quell despite the obvious power to do so is circumstantial evidence of intent. Also, I’ll add, there is a big difference between “innocent” and “not guilty.”

Maybe you could be like that Lynrd Skynyrd guy and complain that this isn’t smoking gun evidence. I agree with you. I’m sensitive to free speech considerations, but the circumstantial evidence is just too much here. Everyone with a brain knows that the election theft hoax is a (the) Big Lie. Literally everyone. Even Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley (both of whom are very smart, unlike, for example, Mo Brooks). Yet Trump raised money on the issue, repeatedly repeated the lie, egged on his supporters, brought thousands of them to within sight of the Capitol at the time the EC vote was to be certified, let Rudy talk about trial by combat, told his supporters not to be weak and to fight, and then turned them loose on the Capitol. Today we’ll learn that he didn’t give an eff that the Capitol had been breached and refused to immediately ask his supporters to stop the violence. This isn’t a Trump issue for me. It’s an American issue and a common sense question. I can’t imagine better circumstantial evidence that this fool catalyzed the violence.

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.

You aren’t open minded about this evidence. You’re obstinate. That’s where we part ways. “Smoking guns” don’t exist with respect to intent. They just don’t. It’s not how crime works. You’re applying an utterly unreasonable standard and ignoring the point that circumstantial evidence of intent is perfectly acceptable. It’s a MyPillow-ish position. Just like literally everyone with a functioning brain—including the jurors in this case—knows the election wasn’t stolen, a similar critical mass recognizes that requiring “smoking gun” evidence on this intent issue is absurd.

That might be the downfall. The one place where everyone despises that loser. The democrats detest him, and the republicans owe him a little payback for blowing the senate and messing with party regulars. And

So are you going on MyPillow TV to defend the insurrectionists and their leader or not?

I'll summarize. You demand a smoking gun with respect to an issue for which there is almost NEVER a smoking gun. That's the bottom line. Next time someone who commits a murder alerts the world to the intent to kill via writing, verbal expression, or social media post, let me know. Until then, since there are NO Republicans getting on TV to defend Trump, maybe you can book a couple of hits on Newsmax or Fox or the MyPillowNetwork to tell the world that Trump has clean hands here.

The sane, moderate Republicans are leaving. We're seeing a battle for the future of the Republican Party, and the Trumpers (not the freetrader/conservative/capitalists) are winning. Impeachment II probably won't result in a conviction, but the managers are using it to pound away at the fissure in the Republican Party. The best thing they (Senate Republicans) can do is convict this fool, take their lumps in midterms in 2022, and try to win it back in 2024. But they won't. And that's fine with me.

If it was pre-planned, and Trump said stand down (or stand by), do you really think we'd be here? Objectively speaking, I don't. There was a plan -- probably multiple plans, actually -- he encouraged it, and we all saw the result. The Big Lie and the failure to prove the Big Lie left us in a spot where violence was the only solution for those who wanted Trump to stay in power despite the election results.

That's nice to dredge up Russia. But that's not the issue here. And let's not play games on intent, either. Rarely, RARELY, is there direct evidence of intent. It's measured by, and inferred from, actions, because criminals generally don't announce intent before committing a crime. E.g., putting a gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger (and firing) is evidence of intent to kill and sufficient to convict of intentional murder (assuming death) even if the assailant doesn't speak his or her goal of killing the victim.

The weight of the enormous quantum of powerful circumstantial evidence that points to Trump as the catalyst for the MAGA raid on the Capitol. The timeline, in particular, supports the contention that the President's words on January 6 deliberately directed the mob to violently converge upon the Capitol. Next, I'm sure, we're going to hear about how Trump didn't immediately to stop the mob and to protect our seat of government. Maybe a couple of tidbits about how he enjoyed it, too. The slaughter is on. Madeleine Dean was friggin outstanding. Can't fake that emotion.

I'm pretty impressed with this presentation. The first impeachment trial . . . not as much. That was a different animal, though. This one is dynamite. I assume they're going to wrap it up with the point that intent is typically a circumstantial thing in the criminal realm--rarely does a criminal announce his or her intent, and it has to be inferred from the actions of the accused. They are just hammering that point today.

You hit it on the head. In a perverse way, leaving the political parties actually strengthens the two-party system. Those people who want to be "independent" (or blank, in political parlance) are just going to get more of the same.

I'm listening to today's proceedings, and this thing is a slaughter. A straight slaughter. I'll be surprised if there's a conviction, but the managers are creaming the Trump and his senatorial followers in the court of public opinion.

Tell that to the family of the officer who was killed. I suspect their view is a bit different from yours. Then again, HCQ can increase the risk of dementia, so maybe that explains your forgetfulness as to the violence of the mob that overran the Capitol.

The guy who's arguing now is another link in the clown chain. Whining about inability to investigate. But no specifics as to how the investigation was hampered. Blah blah blah. I don't miss the Trump clown show at all.

Unfortunately the MyPillow guy gets more run than me. I'm not sure if that says something about Newsmax, the MyPillow guy, or me. Maybe all of us.

OMG these guys are awful. I'm listening to it. Droning on and on. No point to the arguments. Then we flip to this clown who plays the victim card. And no defense on the merits - jurisdiction, victimization, politics, cancellation, etc. What a joke. Trump could stand up and say this is wrong. He could apologize. But he won't. Because he's a wimp. And guilty.

Smaller TV markets, general fatigue, Brady fatigue, and a very, very unlikable Chiefs team. Mahomes is OK, but Kelce is annoying, Jones plays like a d-bag, Reid apparently lets d-bags run amok there, and Hill is beyond a d-bag.

Whatever it is that you tried to say was presented through gibberish. I don't pretend to understand gibberish. If you can articulate your thoughts clearly, then we can have a conversation.