SectionC3 Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 15 minutes ago, B-Man said: Should be easy to provide an actual link to those claims............ Are you invoking Rule #2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 11, 2021 Author Share Posted February 11, 2021 1 hour ago, snafu said: 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. Yeah ok - and we all know who you are... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 Today’s message so far hasn’t been about Trump but it feels like the Democrats are using the national podium to let average Americans know how dangerous these far right extremists are. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 6 minutes ago, BillStime said: Yeah ok - and we all know who you are... What a friggin disgrace. I have no words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 11, 2021 Author Share Posted February 11, 2021 The GOP can't convict; themselves: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 11, 2021 Author Share Posted February 11, 2021 34 minutes ago, snafu said: 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. What was the purpose of the Trump rally on 1/6? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 5 minutes ago, snafu said: But Trump wasn't charged with dereliction of duty for failing to quell anything. He was charged with inciting. You can't incite something that's already occurring It's evidence. Of course he would not try and stop something he wanted to happen. Proves intent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 34 minutes ago, 716er said: Watch the proceedings. So...................no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 3 minutes ago, snafu said: It's a leap. Whatever evidence it is. Leaps don't get convictions. If a person wanted to incite a riot they obviously wouldn't stop it once it started. No leap at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorin' Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 (edited) 13 minutes ago, snafu said: It's a leap. Whatever evidence it is. Leaps don't get convictions. 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? 3 minutes ago, snafu said: 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. Edited February 11, 2021 by Motorin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 (edited) 30 minutes ago, snafu said: 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? 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. Edited February 11, 2021 by Scraps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 4 minutes ago, snafu said: 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. 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 41 minutes ago, snafu said: 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. I didn't say Republicans are co-conspirators at all. Clinton did and I disagree. 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 8 minutes ago, snafu said: Don't be so dramatic. Do you think the election was stolen from Trump? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorin' Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 Just now, snafu said: 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. 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. Don't be so dramatic. It seems like you're saying that when someone yells "Fire" in a crowded theater (when there is no fire) they didn't incite the ensuing riot because nowhere did they say "trample your fellow patrons on your way out." Trump invited these people to DC to intimidate the VP and Senators into doing something that has never been done, to overturn the results of the election during its certification. He told them that if they fought like hell they would overturn the results of the election, and if they failed they wouldn't have a country any more. If you can turn a mob loose on the Capitol to overturn the election through intimidation and not be responsible for the results, then you can yell "Fire" in a crowded theater and not be responsible for the people trampled to death. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted February 11, 2021 Share Posted February 11, 2021 1 hour ago, B-Man said: Should be easy to provide an actual link to those claims............ It's become unfashionable to request that 'open/obvious/everyone can see it' evidence be provided by those in full froth. Here's the way it plays out: them: It's quite obvious there was incitement. reasonable people: Why do you think that? them: Well, calls for peaceful protests are obvious dog whistles to breach the Capitol. rp: Do you have anything more than pretend dog whistles? I'm willing to listen. them: What else would we need. We're liberals. Everyone can see it. Anyone who cannot is a complicit co-conspirator. rp: Righto, but what else do you have? It seems if 'peace = violence' this should take 5 minutes. them: No, that's enough. We can't have some people calling for peaceful protests using pretend dog whistles. Don't be obstinate. rp: No, seriously. Are you at all concerned this is political theater run amock? them: No. There are no politics in play at all here. These dems are legit and pure. rp: So are you anticipating a conviction and 100% vote on guilty? them: No. Some in attendance are consciously unlistening. Conviction is highly unlikely. It's all political. rp: They are acting politically, but the other side is not? them: Yes. You don't understand. Every crime ever committed has been decided on circumstantial evidence and has been committed by Trump. There literally is never any evidence. rp: Every crime ever is Trump's fault? them: Yes. Both the existence of evidence and the lack of evidence are indicators of guilt. When you think about it, there was no evidence that Trump was involved in the Brown/Goldman murders, but who else could it have been but Trump? rp: So you can do nothing at all and be guilty? them: Of course. That's how it works-- we accuse someone of something and they are guilty. Look at Russia. rp: That doesn't sound right. What happened to Trump after the Russia investigation? them: Nothing. That's the point. Nothing isn't anything, it's something. Duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts