I am now convinced that Trump's actions on January 6th were criminal

agree, Trump fanned the flames pre-1-6, but the real crimes were during and after

not to mention his calls to the states to try to steal the election

 

I urge you to consider Judge Carter's opinion in the Eastman case.

Washington — A federal judge in California on Monday ordered conservative attorney John Eastman to turn over a tranche of emails to the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and found that former President Donald Trump "more likely than not" illegally tried to impede official congressional proceedings on the day of the attack.

In his 44-page decision involving the documents from Eastman, a former law professor at Chapman University who played a key role in Trump's efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, U.S. District Judge David Carter wrote that based on the evidence, he finds it is "more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021."

"Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history," he wrote. "Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower — it was a coup in search of a legal theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation's government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-january-6-john-eastman-judge-emails-committee/

 

Treason and sedition at the highest office must be punished severely.

Ka-boom!

Setting the stage for a back up plan, he's a vile human.

 

Right behind the civil war nothing burger.

 

Trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power of the USA.

 

The general who marched with trump to a photo op.
Who gassed a peaceful protest.

But go ahead and believe a 2x impeached lying incumbent loser of the presidency.

Says all we need to know.

 

When you realize that the same people who say Trump was criminal see nothing wrong with Hillary and the DNC conspiring to destroy him with fabricated evidence they bought and paid for.
That makes one hell of a character statement. IF the democrats of today were honorable people, they would have dumped Hillary and all who supported such things on the spot- but they didn't.
Instead, they continued on the same course with the same tactics, and abandoned any right to honor or credibility. The concept of a double standard has always been a solid indicator of the absence of character, and the kind of people your parents warned you not to hang out with. Assuming your parents had the moral standards and wisdom to do so, of course. Obviously, in today's world, many do not.
I find that a very disturbing truth; one that puts the nation and all citizens at great risk.

The democrats have a selective hate for crime, and a selective definition of what is crime. This hasn't always been true, but today's democrats have little in common with those of a few generations back.
Now- Crimes are actions of others that don't benefit them, or especially, might weaken them or put them in a bad light. Actions that serve to benefit them, regardless of their level of dishonor or fakery or technical conflict with the law- are not crimes. And of course, it's a crime to point that inconsistency out.

 

trump knew which group of people could mind control to form a cult like following.

That's whe he became a republican.

 

Ah, the whataboutism argument.

Who else tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power?

Called a SoS to find just enough votes for him to win?

Your defense of the 2x impeached is noted.

Seems like selective hate.

 

Lez Cheney wasn't a member of the White House staff.

Milley is actually being fed his lines here - not really his testimony - more like a forced confession that he is an ignoramus who failed to convince the democrat congress of the need to put more than a few bicycle police in front of the House.

By the time the NG would have made it on the scene, the protestors were long gone. Congress met that same day to finish their business and did not need need the NG to eject the protestors - just the Police to arrive.

And if you want to consider failure to call the NGat the time you wanted them to be called a crime, shouldn't many Governors including the Governor of Wisconsin be charged with murder for an actual failure to call the NG at all? Or do you believe in anarcho-tyranny?

Yep, Miley said Ukraine would fall in 3 days . . . hmm and he's still in charge. He seems like he was more of a democrat plant than a member of Trump's White House.

All this article discusses is how much of a self-serving moron Betsy was.

 

It wasn't peaceful they tried to burn a historic church among other things. That's why Trump was going there.

 

The most likely charges would be misconduct in public office, along with aiding and abetting, but more specifically the abetting portion of the law, especially given his duties as the commander in chief. If one can make a case that his motives were to corruptly disrupt the ongoing legal process, then he could also be charged with sedition.

So are you saying the testimony's are not true, that Trump did NOT refuse to take action, and that it was in fact Trump and not Mike Pence who sent the national guard?

If that is the case, then I would agree that Trump's conduct was not criminal. However, if it is true that he refused to act, and that Mike Pence had to give the order to send in the national guard as a result, then I absolutely do believe his conduct was criminal. Ultimately if Trump were to be criminally charged for his conduct, there should be a fair trial where the prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty. If they can prove the testimony's are true, then a conviction is in order.

 

But you believe every word Trump feeds to you like a good pet.

 

Of course. It's always everyone else's fault why Trump is so despised and committed treason.

"If people would have just accepted tyranny, I wouldn't have had my mindless base attack the Capitol."

I can't believe our Country has come to that over a ****ing con man and lifetime fraud.

 

And the judge reached(literally reached) to those conclusions even though 1) As he wrote, he was not legally tasked with making that judgment and 2) Like I said, he was reaching in his logic. The Plan very specifically called for a pause and a recount, as well as security measures granted to the House of Representatives chamber. The judge, fatally in his 'logic' stretches to include the plan with what happened on the 6th which ironically would NOT have happened if the plan had been initiated. Indeed, we had gotten testimony to the effect that they mostly dropped the plan.

 

I now rest my case. TY.

 

The Sargent of Arms is in charge of protecting the capital not Trump. Be had no authority to give such orders and is recommendation that national guard troops should be place at the capital was reject by the Sargent of Arms days befor. If his word did cause this should Chuck Schumer be arrested and charged for his statements about Kavanaugh paying a high price for this ruling?

 

More and more people are coming around to this conclusion. Coupled with their innate distaste for the man's self-absorbed character, there is not much left to hold on to.
As Lincoln said, you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

 

What case? That is pure conjecture.

 

There were around 140 injured officers, some of whom were maimed. Over 800 people have been criminally charged, some of whom have been charged with sedition, and there are probably many more criminal charges that are on the way. By definition this is not nothing, and if it is true that the president refused to act and allowed the ongoing rioting to continue, then he ought to be held liable.

I can respect skepticism that the testimonies from the White House Staff are true. What I cannot respect are justifications and whataboutisms for refusing to act against the ongoing riot taking place at the capitol building, while hundreds of people were assaulted, and around 140 officers were injured.

If the testimonies are not true, then I must agree that Trump's conduct was not criminal. However, if it true that he refused to act so the rioting would continue, and that Mike Pence had to step in as a result and call in the national guard, then Trump should be held liable for his conduct. Where we are currently, I would NOT say a conviction is warranted, however I definitely believe criminal charges and a trial are in order. If during a trial the testimonies from the White House Staff are proven to be true, then a conviction would be warranted.

I would agree that he did not aid the rioters, however if the testimonies are true that Trump refused to take action against the rioters, and that Mike Pence had to step in and give the order as a result, then Trump absolutely should be held liable. Especially given his duties as the commander in chief. If you remember the discussions we have previously had on these forums, then you should remember me saying multiple times that I do not believe Trump's actions in relation to the Jan 6th riot were criminal. However, given the testimonies that have now been given under oath from the White House Staff, my position has changed. If the testimonies are true that Trump refused to give the order to stop the rioting, and that he in the end never gave any order to stop the rioting, but instead Mike Pence had to give the order. Then I absolutely believe Trump is liable for abetting the riot that was ongoing.



What is abetting?
Abetting a crime means encouraging or supporting it. That support can be active, in the form of instigation. It can also be passive. If you know the offense is happening and are present for its commission, you can be liable for abetting. By knowing it is happening and doing nothing, it can support the offense.

What is accomplice liability?
Both aiding and abetting are examples of accomplice liability.

This is liability for a crime that was committed by someone else. Under accomplice liability, you can be punished for a crime that someone else committed.


https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/criminal-defense/difference-between-aiding-and-abetting/

 

That is quite a stretch and it does not stand up to any basic logic.

 

If the testimonies are true, Mike Pence did give the order to send in the national guard while the riot was ongoing. To say that the president could not give the order during the time that the riot was taking place is false. We're not talking about the security decisions that were made before the riot, we are talking about the orders that were allegedly given during the riot by Mike Pence because Trump refused to give the order.

 

Let's be absolutely clear about this: It wouldn't have been an order to 'stop the rioting'(He could no more order the protestors to stop then he could to ignite the flames to begin with, as the Trump tweets had showed). Rather, the call for the US National guard could have affected the outcome(and did) to successfully spur the crowd. But from a legal prospective, it's not possible for Trump to know that the national guard would succeed. Furthermore, with our discovery of the Green Bay plan, had Trump actually acted to defend the Congress this committee would only have a slight deviation, pointing to Trump's call as proof of initiating the plan.(the plan called for security to secure the House as well as the ballots)

If Trump were to be held to be an 'accomplice' then so is every bystander in a gun shooting who clearly saw the shooter, saw the shooting but by this train of logic(which wouldn't prevail in a court of law) didn't call the police on the shooter. As we all know, that's absurd. Because you have to be
"Present for its commission"

None of this accounts for the discrepancy between Trump's speech(5 or so miles away) was still happening while the riots started. There was, is and will not be a legal case against Donald Trump, based on all of the facts that have come out.

 

He probably was guilty of not doing anything about the riot. That said he didn’t do anything so that’s not treason. He didn’t even tell them to riot. He told them to fight like hell and peacefully protest. If that is an act of treason then so is lightfoots comments on a call to arms towards the Supreme Court