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

Oh, make no mistake about it… the feeling is mutual. Liberals have no place in my life. Doesn’t matter if it’s a stranger, friend or even family member. Instantly shunned and proud of it too. I know for an absolute fact that I stand on the side of morality. Your side is wholly evil. The Democrat party, even in name, offends me.

 

What you're describing is aiding. If you sell someone a weapon that you know that they will use for a murder, you are aiding. However, if you did not give the murderer anything, but you are still aware that they plan to commit a murder, and you simply choose not to notify the authorities, you are abetting. It all depends on circumstances, if you are aware the crime is happening, or is about to happen, and you have a means of preventing the crime without putting yourself in danger, but you let the crime happen anyway, that constitutes as abetting. There have been several people in the past who have been criminally charged for that.
As for the circumstances of the Jan 6th riot, if the testimonies are true that Trump refused to act so the rioting would continue, and that Mike Pence had to step in as a result and give the order.. then yes, I absolutely believe Trump's conduct was criminal, and quite frankly I am surprised that you would not consider that to be criminal. There's also misconduct of public office, which can be a criminal act under certain circumstances in itself. Personally, I do believe that Trump should be held liable. Every person who was injured, and every damage to property that occurred from the time he refused to act onward, I believe he should be held liable for, and I believe the expenses should be payed for from his personal funds.

I stated previously that I do not believe that Trump's conduct in relation to the riot was criminal, I did not believe he should be charged for "inciting a riot" and I still do not believe he should be today... but now I do believe he should be criminally charged for allowing the riot to continue by refusing to give the order that staff and officials were pleading for, and if more information comes out to show his motives were to corruptly prevent the ongoing legal process from being carried out, I believe sedition charges could also be in order, but only if there is proof that those were his motives

 

There is a difference between "being allergic to tRump apologists" and shunning half the population of These United States. I know for an AbsaByGodFact that there is nothing moral about calling good hard working AmeriCANs evil. The ONLY way to keep America Great is for all AmeriCANs to work together. What are you trying to convince us of? That you're part of the problem? Well you just did!

 

The Sargent at Arms doesn't have executive power over the National Guard, the president does.

 

Stopping the peaceful transition of power.

 

The National Guard of each state falls under the authority of that state not the president.

 

Washington DC is not a state, the president of the United States is the commander in chief of the DC National Guard

 

Nope, not in the least.

 

Of course, that is what you’d expect a Russian agent to do.

 

Did you know that some of us have access to records that aren't public? You have no idea if any of us our nurses, doctors, lawyers, investigators, etc.. So, unless you can prove that number is exaggerated, you're on the wrong side of the argument.

“Nobody celebrates the death of cops”

Again, your views are very myopic. Some of us actually live in the world and engage with others instead of trolling sites and assuming that represents what is actually happening. For example, Orange Stain cultists believe that he is very popular and beloved. He is hated all around the world. The Pope had to slap his hand (because he was being childish) and the Queen denied his request for a ride in her chariot due to concerns about her being hurt if someone tried to assassinate him. Nobody likes him except you all.

So, again, you haven't proven your statements. You just show up here looking to start childish arguments about things you clearly don't understand or want to understand. That's fine. Just don't think any of us standing on the right side of the law don't notice you have nothing but exaggerated claims and anger.

I don't have to prove it. The whole world saw it. Plus, that has nothing to do with his FAILURE TO ENGAGE BACK-UP IMMEDIATELY. Stop trying to dance around that. Even if he was in church praying to a statue of the Virgin Mary while feeding little homeless kids at the time of the Capitol riot, the SECOND he saw or was told it was a mob attack, it was his DUTY to engage back-up immediately. Failure to act is not only unethical and immoral, it's also a crime in many circumstances.

 

Typical. Just like him - how long will your temper tantrum last? I don't believe he's done with his yet so you have some competition.

 

Are you trying to claim that you are some super, secret, important, government agent that has “access” to “private” information? And then you (or presumably somebody you know on here) then comes onto a public message board and starts rattling off about it?

A+ for effort friend. That’s cute.

 

Reading comprehension is important. I have never disclosed what I do beyond being a former police officer and child abuse advocate. But, anyone that lives in the real world generally knows that elected officials are surrounded by many, many people and those people have friends and family and information gets out. Reporters leak information. Some of us with access to Lexis Nexis can see documents in lawsuits. It's strange you think people on various forums don't have any up close and professional or personal knowledge about "people in the news". I interned in a political office in college. I have seen many people that I know personally on the news.

You came here just to pick fights with people with absolutely no basis for your statements so the laughing you hear is not "with" you.

 

I am not sure why anyone could possibly think that his hands are clean in this. Sidney Powell is on his side and she admitted under oath that she lied about widespread election fraud. It seems like that should have been enough for everyone to take off the Orange-colored glasses and recognize this for what it is. What more is there to prove when one of his insiders said it aloud already and is currently financially backing some of the Oath Keepers' legal issues?

I also would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he didn't try to block the investigation and hand over incomplete phone and written records when the judge denied that request. That's not very cooperative and if he's clean, what is there to hide?

He even threw Ivana under the bus claiming that she "checked out" and wasn't paying attention to election results because she stated that she believed Barr's statements that there was no widespread election fraud in the 2020 POTUS election.

And, now he's reinventing history that he did not say that Pence should be hanged. Maybe he is trapped in his childhood where video recorders and cameras weren't popular yet. How can somebody deny something that everyone heard and saw? It's beyond ridiculous.

 

Your resume impresses nobody. You should discover what being “humble” means. I could care less about whatever it is that you claim you have done. Nor do I have any reason to believe any of that babble. And I disagree. This board seems pretty split to me. I’ve read here before. I’ve noticed that past conservative members have disappeared. Doxed by the liberals I assume. Pathetic. When you have to “ban” or “cancel” people, you have lost.

 

First of all, as we know Trump and Pence were in separate locations. When was Pence even briefed of the situation to give the order? Secondly, how did they bypass Trump(even as he's not acting to begin with). There's no way that without knowing that Trump wasn't acting, that anyone in the national guard would take Pence's order on face value without waiting for higher command. Did they invoke the 25th? Actually, more likely then not I'm going to fill in the blanks:

If we take the interpretative route of what the commission has outlined so far, and what we know of the demands for a statement to cease the rioting activities(which he did give). It could be a similar matter, where those close to Trump told him to approve of the call given by Mike Pence for the US National guard. What we know is that he 'refused to give the order', we do not know if he deliberately waived his authority to do so to Mike Pence.

TLDR: Much like the tweets calling for an end to the violence, I'm going to guess that there's a procedure that Trump agreed to that allowed Mike Pence to take action, Trump of course was probably reluctant but the alternatives were clearly worse for both him and the country at that period of time. So now from a legal standpoint, if my theory were true: Could we say he's criminally liable for not acting deliberately?(key word here being deliberate). He was absolutely reluctant to do the right thing, but reluctancy and abetting are two very different things.

 

When was Mike Pence briefed on the situation? He was literally there at the capitol building, the secret service had to get him out of there, and they came very close to not evacuating him and his family in time. According to the testimonies, Mike Pence was approached by White House staff with the notion of invoking the 25th after Trump was reluctant to call in the National Guard to stop the rioting, but Mike Pence ultimately rejected the notion. According to the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, it was Mike Pence who gave the order to send the National Guard to stop the rioting through a series of 3 phone calls

If you do not believe these testimonies to be true, that's fine, and if they are not true, I would agree that Trump's conduct was not criminal. If they are true, then I absolutely do believe his conduct was criminal, and that he should be held liable. The big question one ought to be asking when discussing holding a president liable (or any public official for that matter) is what did they know, and when did they know it?

I don't buy into the rhetoric that Trump should be criminally liable for "inciting a riot" because quite frankly I do not believe Trump would have had a way of knowing that things were going to turn violent. He would have had to have had some form of incite from the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers in order to have known, which I do not believe he had.

However, when it comes to the testimonies of Trump refusing to give the order to repel the rioting from the capitol building, we are at a point in time when the president knew that the situation was violent, he knew the capitol was under attack, he knew there was damage to property, and that there were lives at risk, but still refused to give the order to stop the rioting, for no justifiable reason. There is simply no excusing that kind of conduct

 

Let us for the sake of argument say that he should be criminally liable, we both agree that in no way, shape or form did he organize the riot. The protests, yes. The violence that followed, almost definitively not. When it comes to aiding and abetting, we have to then look into intent. Was there actual malicious intent on the part of Donald Trump. Did he really want Pence hung? I don't actually believe so. Knowing how petty Trump is, he probably wanted it as close as possible and then to be in on the 'save' at the last minute. Trump's known for his business tactics and his name calling, but to some degree of better I'm going to say he has no past behavior that indicates murderous intent.

So if there was no real intent or even perhaps threat(at least as far as from Trump), I think aiding and abetting is going to be a hard sell. Rather, in manslaughter cases for example there's voluntary and involuntary(involuntary of course being the lesser of the two). And my argument here goes to the involuntary, reckless side of things. Of course, no murder actually happened. I think this is what could apply to Trump: Aggravated Assault

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Aggravated-Assault.htm

My arguments that were laid out perfectly display all of the Elements: The riots were a threat to Mike Pence's life. Trump probably didn't intend to take Pence's life, but he definitely intended to scare the living **** out of him. It has been proven that the rioters came in with various sorts of weapons all of which could be threatening to an elderly Pence and of course the symbolic noose. Trump through his inaction threatened the life of Mike Pence, and that would qualify as an assault.

According to the link aggravated assault can go from 1-20 years, pending the judge and the sentencing guidelines. Even though it was a first time offense, the manner of the offense and the substantial position of his office and I think a judge would send a message and go close to the max.

 

The riot was not a despicable act?

 

Thus it is an inherently selfish act

Nope, not in the least.

 

So your heart bleeds with empathy for those who kill themselves?

Why?

Everyone has had suicidal thoughts at some point. You (probably) and I included.

 

Because I'm not evil.

 

Exactly! I've been saying this since they started whitewashing the Capitol riot.

If he did or did not plan...

• with Giuliani, Powell and Meadows to have his supporters reek havoc that day...
• lie about "widespread election fraud" (Powell admitted under oath that she lied about it)...
• invite those people there ("Be there. It will be WILD!")...
• pump him full of lies about Pence's authority (although we know he was told that Pence had no authority to overturn or reject the States' counts)...
• essentially put a bounty on Pence's life...
• have Giuliani continue to pump them up even more ("trial by combat")...
• ask for National Guard that day and was denied (a lie he told early on which proved to be false; plus why would he need the NG if he didn't expect trouble?)
• want that crowd to "walk peacefully to the Capitol"

are ALL irrelevant.

It was his sworn duty to engage back-up for the Capitol police officers the second the first one was attacked *regardless of HOW that attack came to be*

At best, it's dereliction of duty.

It might be aiding and abetting depending on what he knew and when he knew it.

Worse, it's accessory after the fact.

Even worse, it's attempted murder (or Pence) and treason.​

 

This is what comes from two generations of right wing hate "news".

 

Telling the truth is not "hate".