Over 29 years of fanhood Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 13 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Very! Excellent. Then you already have the answer to your follow up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 11 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: 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. Dynamite is something material that leaves a casual observer with no question about what occurred. It's not subtle, and it's pretty easy for simple folk to describe. I'm like many people in the stands--largely disinterested in what seems to be yet another elaborate game of partisan political theater. Still, I recognize I may be wrong, and there may well be tangible, significant evidence that connects the dots between DJT and the assault on the capital...or perhaps even to the many and varied assaults on freedom, people and property this past summer. What have you seen thus far that falls into the/a 'smoking gun' category? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 If they have evidence that this was preplanned then why wasn’t the capitol prepared? And is there is no such evidence then the case is this was spontaneous? Really? 😂😂😂😂😂 Either way that dog doesn’t hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 6 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Dynamite is something material that leaves a casual observer with no question about what occurred. It's not subtle, and it's pretty easy for simple folk to describe. I'm like many people in the stands--largely disinterested in what seems to be yet another elaborate game of partisan political theater. Still, I recognize I may be wrong, and there may well be tangible, significant evidence that connects the dots between DJT and the assault on the capital...or perhaps even to the many and varied assaults on freedom, people and property this past summer. What have you seen thus far that falls into the/a 'smoking gun' category? I wouldn’t call this partisan political theater as it was a bi-partisan impeachment and it was a bi-partisan vote on the constitutionality. The only partisan vote was not to impeach and that it was not constitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
716er Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 (edited) In my opinion every single time Donald Trump spread the "big lie" and called on his supporters to fight and stop the steal is a smoking gun. It's evidence of incitement, but since it's been in plain sight for months (years, one could argue - did he not do the same thing in 2016 with his "voter fraud commission?"), it's hardly seen as smoking gun evidence . One damning fact I did not learn until today 1. An additional permit was needed for the protestors to march from the Ellipse to the capitol. This permit was originally denied until Donald Trump got involved with the planning. 2. Trump’s political operation paid over $3.5 million to the January 6th organizers and stopped payments immediately after the insurrection. Edited February 10, 2021 by 716er 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 11 minutes ago, 716er said: 2. Trump’s political operation paid over $3.5 million to the January 6th organizers and stopped payments immediately after the insurrection. Isn't that the opposite of damning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
716er Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 1 minute ago, snafu said: Isn't that the opposite of damning? Explain. I think I understand how you're thinking but I do not want to assume. They were paid to do a job. The job was over. The payments stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 2 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: I wouldn’t call this partisan political theater as it was a bi-partisan impeachment and it was a bi-partisan vote on the constitutionality. The only partisan vote was not to impeach and that it was not constitutional. Ok, but imo you're a hater. That's fine here, it only serves as context for me personally. I'm not really looking for feedback in that regard, any more than whomever "Seth Abramson" is and what his compelling thoughts are on the listening habits of sneators on record as saying this is a farce. Though, perhaps the liberal left can investigate the removal of Graham, Cruz and Rand &^%$ing Paul on the grounds that they were melodramatically not-listening listeners. My bet is Mitt would vote to remove if it would assure him of good standing and continued employment in the senate. As for 'bi-partisan', there is bi-partisan and there is 'we picked up a few weaklings along the way'. On an issue as thoroughly important as this ultimately might be on the issue of constitutionality, this doesn't cut it for me personally. It's political theater at its worst--though not necessarily if they are bring legit, non-controversial documentation to the table. I'm all for hearing about smoking guns--emails in support of insurrection, phone logs, western union and the like. I would think we would have already heard about that by now, but, you know, like Lindsay Graham always said when he was trolling for benjies pre-election--"stay tuned". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 14 minutes ago, 716er said: In my opinion every single time Donald Trump spread the "big lie" and called on his supporters to fight and stop the steal is a smoking gun. It's evidence of incitement, but since it's been in plain sight for months (years, one could argue - did he not do the same thing in 2016 with his "voter fraud commission?"), it's hardly seen as smoking gun evidence . Two damning facts I did not learn until today 1. An additional permit was needed for the protestors to march from the Ellipse to the capitol. This permit was originally denied until Donald Trump got involved with the planning. 2. Trump’s political operation paid over $3.5 million to the January 6th organizers and stopped payments immediately after the insurrection. You rile up a mob, you're responsible for it. It's really that simple. Just because you run away after you incite them(even though he said he was going with them) doesn't give you an out. It just shows that you're a complete and utter coward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
716er Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 I also misheard that part of the presentation and my #2 is 100% factually inaccurate. I put two separate facts together into 1. I've edited the original post. Below is what is correct. There were at least $3.5 million in shell payments to groups associated with the attack. No idea if those payments have stopped or not. Donald spent over $500 million on stop the steal and the like ads. Those ads immediately stopped after the insurrection. Just now, snafu said: They were paid to do a job that didn't include storming the Capitol, and when that happened, the payment was withheld -- meaning that may not have been foreseen by Trump. Maybe - please see my edit. I was incorrect in the facts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Ok, but imo you're a hater. That's fine here, it only serves as context for me personally. I'm not really looking for feedback in that regard, any more than whomever "Seth Abramson" is and what his compelling thoughts are on the listening habits of sneators on record as saying this is a farce. Though, perhaps the liberal left can investigate the removal of Graham, Cruz and Rand &^%$ing Paul on the grounds that they were melodramatically not-listening listeners. My bet is Mitt would vote to remove if it would assure him of good standing and continued employment in the senate. As for 'bi-partisan', there is bi-partisan and there is 'we picked up a few weaklings along the way'. On an issue as thoroughly important as this ultimately might be on the issue of constitutionality, this doesn't cut it for me personally. It's political theater at its worst--though not necessarily if they are bring legit, non-controversial documentation to the table. I'm all for hearing about smoking guns--emails in support of insurrection, phone logs, western union and the like. I would think we would have already heard about that by now, but, you know, like Lindsay Graham always said when he was trolling for benjies pre-election--"stay tuned". He was tweeting in support of it. They had to BEG him to help stop it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 17 minutes ago, 716er said: In my opinion every single time Donald Trump spread the "big lie" and called on his supporters to fight and stop the steal is a smoking gun. It's evidence of incitement, but since it's been in plain sight for months (years, one could argue - did he not do the same thing in 2016 with his "voter fraud commission?"), it's hardly seen as smoking gun evidence . Two damning facts I did not learn until today 1. An additional permit was needed for the protestors to march from the Ellipse to the capitol. This permit was originally denied until Donald Trump got involved with the planning. 2. Trump’s political operation paid over $3.5 million to the January 6th organizers and stopped payments immediately after the insurrection. 1. Why was the permit originally denied? 2. Why did they stop payments to the organizers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 31 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said: Excellent. Then you already have the answer to your follow up! No, you didn’t answer, but that’s fine. Nothing to say on what you’d like to see. Complaining is so much easier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
716er Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: 1. Why was the permit originally denied? See my edit on #2, please. They did not go into details. They also mentioned the original date was scheduled for January 22nd or 23rd and the date was changed by the behest of Trump. Here is the original permit for 1/2 - 1/8 Edited February 10, 2021 by 716er Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 1 minute ago, daz28 said: He was tweeting in support of it. They had to BEG him to help stop it Daz28 = hater. I'm not really interested in your interpretation of what happened/didn't happen in real time. I'm not trying to be rude, but your view has little to do with evidence that is clear and obvious and being presented in the senate. I'm interested in the smoking gun that leads a trail directly from DJT to the several hundred rioters who stormed the Capitol. Given that it's fairly clear law enforcement was well aware that there was the potential for this to occur, I'd think it would be fairly clear that there must be some sort of smoking gun evidence that is irrefutable. The dems have said they have it. They said they had the goods on Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 On 2/9/2021 at 3:02 PM, wnyguy said: In a peaceful and Patriotic manner. Stop leaving that part out. Lynch mob scum is never peaceful. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 33 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Dynamite is something material that leaves a casual observer with no question about what occurred. It's not subtle, and it's pretty easy for simple folk to describe. I'm like many people in the stands--largely disinterested in what seems to be yet another elaborate game of partisan political theater. Still, I recognize I may be wrong, and there may well be tangible, significant evidence that connects the dots between DJT and the assault on the capital...or perhaps even to the many and varied assaults on freedom, people and property this past summer. What have you seen thus far that falls into the/a 'smoking gun' category? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 3 minutes ago, 716er said: See my edit on #2, please. They did not go into details. They also mentioned the original date was scheduled for January 22nd or 23rd and the date was changed by the behest of Trump. Here is the original permit for 1/2 - 1/8 I saw the edit--thanks for that clarification. I still wonder why a permit for peaceful demonstration would be denied to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Daz28 = hater. I'm not really interested in your interpretation of what happened/didn't happen in real time. I'm not trying to be rude, but your view has little to do with evidence that is clear and obvious and being presented in the senate. I'm interested in the smoking gun that leads a trail directly from DJT to the several hundred rioters who stormed the Capitol. Given that it's fairly clear law enforcement was well aware that there was the potential for this to occur, I'd think it would be fairly clear that there must be some sort of smoking gun evidence that is irrefutable. The dems have said they have it. They said they had the goods on Russia. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts