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

You can say that, but people have literally been held liable for abetting for refusing to stop an ongoing crime. It all depends on the circumstances of the situation, if the person has a reason to not act, such as not being aware of the ongoing crime, or has a valid concern for their safety, then they can easily avoid being held liable. However, if the person is aware of the ongoing crime, is fully capable of stopping the crime, is not in danger in doing so, but simply refuses to do anything to stop the crime, then they absolutely can be held liable, and many have before. There is also misconduct in public office, which can be a criminal offense, but sometimes is not deemed criminal.

 

And that's just it I don't trust those telling me that. One of these sources is reporting on a conversation between him and another. That's called hearsay. It's all he said she said crap and none of them actually line up.

 

Nah, you are merely wishing here. Sorry but innocent until wished guilty doesn't stand up.

 

That is not necessarily true, there have been situations in the past where people are charged with abetting without being present when crime took place. A common example of this is when someone knows that someone else is going to commit a serious crime, and they refuse to report them. It doesn't matter if they do not know if the police will be successful in preventing the crime, if the person is capable of safely notifying the authorities, then they can be held liable for abetting.

The example you used of someone not stopping a mass shooting isn't the same, because the person may have a valid claim to being in danger in doing so, or they might have reason to believe the police have already been called, and do not want to hold up the emergency line. However, lets say someone wasn't present at a crime scene, but they knew a killing spree was ongoing, and they refused to notify the authorities about the ongoing crime.. that person can be held liable for abetting. An example of this could be the culprit calling someone they know and informing that person of their ongoing crime, but that person still chooses to do nothing. Even though that person is not present, they are still guilty of abetting. If that person is not in danger, and they know they are the only person capable of notifying the authorities, but they still do nothing, they are guilty

 

Being "present for its commission" is more than just being physically there. Honestly, with how the stature is written they chose the wrong words. What they really mean to say is "an active participant in the plot". The key is the use of the word "its". Essentially, an abetter is someone who is willing to light the fuse of the match that will start the fire. If I gave someone money for a straw gun purchase and they told me of their plan to kill someone, I am abetting in their plan by giving the the resources.

Some might point to the ill advised and fated decision to have a rally near the capitol to begin with, the problem with that again becomes a matter of personal agency. It is important to note that not even a single judge(who's had more than their fair share of personable, objectionable views in a matter of a case docket that did not yet reach their desk) took the defense seriously at the suggestion of 'Trump made me do it', because it is legally laughable and false.

TLDR: There is no connection between Trump and the Proud Boys, or anyone else for that matter. Without the nexus connection, a charge isn't going to stick. Trump likely won't be charged because Garland cares more for the reputation(if only in name) for the department of justice then he cares to humiliate the DOJ with a losing case. Remember, prosecutors only go for cases they can win, not cases that look good for them.

 

You have to realize that this is a one sided argument. They don’t have one person who never voted for trumps impeachment. They’re portraying the story the way they want it perceived. Don’t fall for this BS. It’s like taking a guy to trial with no later or cross examination

 

Hillary says the same thing, in between calls to the conspirators she's still working with to get revenge for losing and being caught.

The motto of today's left should be- "We can't cut it". So... cheating on everything is justifiable.

Trump wasn't perfect- but being a hell of a lot better than anything the dems could offer constitutes the crime, the total denial of truth that upsets their case, and setting a standard that makes them look like morons.
Rather than come up to the bar- the dem policy is bring it down, and that requires trashing anybody outclassing them.
It's pitiful- and sad you don't recognize something so obvious. Back off and look at the bigger picture; it's ugly everywhere they go.

NO honor. NO credibility. But, posturing for the rubes- they do that well.

 

Lola he didn’t have to call them. They already had approval from Trump the night before

What are y’all talking about? Lol

 

Your claims and those of the Jan 6 committee are demonstrably false.

Those people who had the authority to authorize the national guard had ALREADY BEEN AUTHORIZED to do so.

But you won’t see that on this committees hitpiece

 

The it would apply to about every Democrat in Congress and Garlands DOJ that either gave sid and comfort to the violent riots of the proceeding summer, bailed out said rioters or refused to prosecute them the proceeding summer.

 

It is impossible to judge anything based on the hearings. The problem being it is completely and totally one sided. There has not even been a pretense of a defense of Trump. History books will not judge whether Trump was guilty or innocent based on the hearings. They will conclude that he was not given a fair hearing.

As I have said many times, I do not like Trump and do not think he deserved to be president. But, neither did Hilary or Biden.

 

Dead wrong. I don't believe anything politicians say. Why the childish response? What did I do to you.

 

Then all that is necessary is to demonstrate that without the need to falsify, lie, distort, hide, or fake evidence.
Along with the will to to evaluate and judge the actions of Biden Trump and Hillary with the exact same standards and follow up with the equivalent consequences.

That clearly would put Hillary and Joe in the slammer the rest of their lives, but since hate doesn't qualify as legal evidence, I don't think you can convict Trump of squat.

 

Since the Sargent of Arms is in charge of capital security why didn't that person give orders? That is the question nobody asks. It was not Trumps duty to give those orders. The failure to protect the capital fails at the hands of the Sargent of Arms, the Senate Majority Leader, and the Speaker of the House.

 

So Presidents are not allowed to challenge the outcome of an election? What's the statute of limitations on that?

 

Which charge in the criminal code would you apply?

 

If those hearings convinced you, I have a nice bridge I can let you have cheap:

 

Well, I appreciate your coming around on the fact that his actions on 1/6 were criminal on which I think the evidence is clear, but, how about taking some time to read this report on his actions leading up to 1/6?

Subverting Justice: How the former President and his allies pressured the DOJ to overturn the election

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim Staff Report FINAL.pdf

 

Benedict Donald and his "team" at the National and State level DID challenge the election. If he would have left it at that, not incited and insurrection or used the Office of President of The United States to pressure any and everyone he could to CHANGE the election outcome, we wouldn't be talking. I don't think "statute of limitation" comes into play, traditionally once the winner has been certified challenges are over.

 

Dereliction of duty.
Accessory after the fact.

 

A speech telling people to peacefully protest the election results after Democrats changed their election rules in violation of their state laws is inciting an insurrection? The Biden DoJ has had no problem holding people in solitary confinement and overcharging them for crimes on Jan 6th. How many have been charged and convicted of insurrection?

 

18 U.S. Code § 1512

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...d-trump-commit-how-nice-of-you-to-ask.600514/

 

It's cute that I've asked numerous people who claimed he was guilty of a crime which crime he was guilty of and everyone has given a completely different answer. It's almost as if they're just making things up without connecting it with something that can be successfully prosecuted.

 

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...d-trump-commit-how-nice-of-you-to-ask.600514/

 

Well, let's hit them all in one nice need place

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...d-trump-commit-how-nice-of-you-to-ask.600514/